Trump Team Attacks CNN.........or media

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More attacks on the press.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-team-move-press-briefing-room-white-house/story%3Fid%3D44777903?client=ms-android-verizon

They wouldn't have the room problem if they'd ban the loud mouth reporters azzholes who insist on talking over the rest of the room insisting that their questions be answered first and disrupting the decorum of the press room.

Since when do we not support an individual's right to face his accusor?

6th Amendment Confrontation Clause:  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Not applicable here Fcukstick unless you want to claim CNN is a criminal enterprise (in some people's eyes maybe). Besides it was Trump who was being salaciously accused by uncorroborated political attacks. Nice try at playing the victim's card for CNN.

So you don't believe someone should have the right to face their accuser?

I believe in the 6th Amendment. While you may believe that CNN has been wrongly accused of libel, I believe they are only guilty of crappy reporting by poisoning the well with their reporting on the unsubstantiated and unverified stories posted on Buzzfeed.

Ummmm no.  What CNN and Buzzfeed reported were two completely different things. Everything CNN reported has since been verified. How is that "poisoning the well"?

If CNN wants to traffic in innuendo and gossip and call it "news" then they shouldn't be surprised when it blows up in their face. They are like a couple of old grannies engaging in hen clucking over the backyard fence.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More attacks on the press.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-team-move-press-briefing-room-white-house/story%3Fid%3D44777903?client=ms-android-verizon

They wouldn't have the room problem if they'd ban the loud mouth reporters azzholes who insist on talking over the rest of the room insisting that their questions be answered first and disrupting the decorum of the press room.

Since when do we not support an individual's right to face his accusor?

6th Amendment Confrontation Clause:  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Not applicable here Fcukstick unless you want to claim CNN is a criminal enterprise (in some people's eyes maybe). Besides it was Trump who was being salaciously accused by uncorroborated political attacks. Nice try at playing the victim's card for CNN.

So you don't believe someone should have the right to face their accuser?

I believe in the 6th Amendment. While you may believe that CNN has been wrongly accused of libel, I believe they are only guilty of crappy reporting by poisoning the well with their reporting on the unsubstantiated and unverified stories posted on Buzzfeed.

Ummmm no.  What CNN and Buzzfeed reported were two completely different things. Everything CNN reported has since been verified. How is that "poisoning the well"?

If CNN wants to traffic in innuendo and gossip and call it "news" then they shouldn't be surprised when it blows up in their face. They are like a couple of old grannies engaging in hen clucking over the backyard fence.

Everything they said was proven to be 100% true. Sorry for the inconvenience...

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:More attacks on the press.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-team-move-press-briefing-room-white-house/story%3Fid%3D44777903?client=ms-android-verizon

They wouldn't have the room problem if they'd ban the loud mouth reporters azzholes who insist on talking over the rest of the room insisting that their questions be answered first and disrupting the decorum of the press room.

Since when do we not support an individual's right to face his accusor?

6th Amendment Confrontation Clause:  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Not applicable here Fcukstick unless you want to claim CNN is a criminal enterprise (in some people's eyes maybe). Besides it was Trump who was being salaciously accused by uncorroborated political attacks. Nice try at playing the victim's card for CNN.

So you don't believe someone should have the right to face their accuser?

I believe in the 6th Amendment. While you may believe that CNN has been wrongly accused of libel, I believe they are only guilty of crappy reporting by poisoning the well with their reporting on the unsubstantiated and unverified stories posted on Buzzfeed.

Ummmm no.  What CNN and Buzzfeed reported were two completely different things. Everything CNN reported has since been verified. How is that "poisoning the well"?

If CNN wants to traffic in innuendo and gossip and call it "news" then they shouldn't be surprised when it blows up in their face. They are like a couple of old grannies engaging in hen clucking over the backyard fence.

Everything they said was proven to be 100% true. Sorry for the inconvenience...

^^ The stupid is extra strong in this one!

Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Hey Fcukstik, go take a look at the aerial photos of the National Mall at Reagan's 1985 inauguration. You'll probably see a couple of urban warriors pissing on a tree since the outside inauguration had been cancelled due to snow and bitter cold. Trump's inauguration Mall numbers were smaller than the O'Bummers due to forecasts of rain and cold. And it did rain. And it was cold. What Spicer and Conway were impressing on Clueless Chuckles Todd and the Lame Stream Media were the millions of people who watched it overall (TV. Internet streaming, worldwide viewers, etc). Just another attempt by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Good god, go buy some Big Boy Pants™ and quit cherbeetching.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Hey Fcukstik, go take a look at the aerial photos of the National Mall at Reagan's 1985 inauguration. You'll probably see a couple of urban warriors pissing on a tree since the outside inauguration had been cancelled due to snow and bitter cold. Trump's inauguration Mall numbers were smaller than the O'Bummers due to forecasts of rain and cold. And it did rain. And it was cold. What Spicer and Conway were impressing on Clueless Chuckles Todd and the Lame Stream Media were the millions of people who watched it overall (TV. Internet streaming, worldwide viewers, etc). Just another attempt by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Good god, go buy some Big Boy Pants™ and quit cherbeetching.

It was actually the fourth warmest January inaugural on record. Try to get your facts straight.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Hey Fcukstik, go take a look at the aerial photos of the National Mall at Reagan's 1985 inauguration. You'll probably see a couple of urban warriors pissing on a tree since the outside inauguration had been cancelled due to snow and bitter cold. Trump's inauguration Mall numbers were smaller than the O'Bummers due to forecasts of rain and cold. And it did rain. And it was cold. What Spicer and Conway were impressing on Clueless Chuckles Todd and the Lame Stream Media were the millions of people who watched it overall (TV. Internet streaming, worldwide viewers, etc). Just another attempt by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Good god, go buy some Big Boy Pants™ and quit cherbeetching.

It was actually the fourth warmest January inaugural on record. Try to get your facts straight.

Hypothermia can set in within 30 minutes when you are wet at those temperatures. Dumb Fcuk.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Hey Fcukstik, go take a look at the aerial photos of the National Mall at Reagan's 1985 inauguration. You'll probably see a couple of urban warriors pissing on a tree since the outside inauguration had been cancelled due to snow and bitter cold. Trump's inauguration Mall numbers were smaller than the O'Bummers due to forecasts of rain and cold. And it did rain. And it was cold. What Spicer and Conway were impressing on Clueless Chuckles Todd and the Lame Stream Media were the millions of people who watched it overall (TV. Internet streaming, worldwide viewers, etc). Just another attempt by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Good god, go buy some Big Boy Pants™ and quit cherbeetching.

It was actually the fourth warmest January inaugural on record. Try to get your facts straight.

Globull Warming...

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

Hey Fcukstik, go take a look at the aerial photos of the National Mall at Reagan's 1985 inauguration. You'll probably see a couple of urban warriors pissing on a tree since the outside inauguration had been cancelled due to snow and bitter cold. Trump's inauguration Mall numbers were smaller than the O'Bummers due to forecasts of rain and cold. And it did rain. And it was cold. What Spicer and Conway were impressing on Clueless Chuckles Todd and the Lame Stream Media were the millions of people who watched it overall (TV. Internet streaming, worldwide viewers, etc). Just another attempt by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Good god, go buy some Big Boy Pants and quit cherbeetching.

It was actually the fourth warmest January inaugural on record. Try to get your facts straight.

Hypothermia can set in within 30 minutes when you are wet at those temperatures. Dumb Fcuk.

Wow! With considering your pathetic exaggeration it's a surprise the inaguration didn't take place in a bunker...   However the parade was forecasted to be in the clear all along, unfortunately that was even more noticeably dismally unattended. How are you going to spin that?

Even Spicer isn't talking about hypothermia in his tantrum.

White House attacks media for accurately reporting crowds
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

The "alternative facts" are saying that Trump's inauguration was the 2nd most watch inauguration ever.

"Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks."

And

"Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago."

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

Dr. Evil wrote:Even Spicer isn't talking about hypothermia in his tantrum.

White House attacks media for accurately reporting crowds
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

The press photos taken and shown as proof were 3 hours before Trump's speech but whatever.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Even Spicer isn't talking about hypothermia in his tantrum.

White House attacks media for accurately reporting crowds
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

The press photos taken and shown as proof were 3 hours before Trump's speech but whatever.

Exactly

and what about the report that MLK bust was removed. Another lie by the America haters aka main stream media.

This alternative facts discussion is a real hoot. Redefining and renaming events and conditions to better suit the sensitivities of those doing the renaming etc is an old trick the Libs have been doing for 50 yrs. Negro's became blacks, blacks became African Americans and anyone other than white is now people of color. It's generally an attempt to make a negative a positive. Illegal aliens becoming undocumented immigrants is a perfect example, trying to bestow victim status on criminals. It appears that Trump has stolen the process from under the libs noses and they cannot use it any more. We'll see.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

The "alternative facts" are saying that Trump's inauguration was the 2nd most watch inauguration ever.

"Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks."

And

"Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago."

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

You are indeed correct to refer to what you posted 'alternative facts'...

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96901754/?client=ms-android-verizon

Clicker wrote:This alternative facts discussion is a real hoot.  Redefining and renaming events and conditions to better suit the sensitivities of those doing the renaming etc is an old trick the Libs have been doing for 50 yrs. Negro's became blacks, blacks became African Americans and anyone other than white is now people of color. It's generally an attempt to make a negative a positive. Illegal aliens becoming undocumented immigrants is a perfect example, trying to bestow victim status on criminals.  It appears that Trump has stolen the process from under the libs noses and they cannot use it any more.  We'll see.

Are you seriously comparing outright lies to political correctness?

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

The "alternative facts" are saying that Trump's inauguration was the 2nd most watch inauguration ever.

"Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks."

And

"Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago."

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

You are indeed correct to refer to what you posted 'alternative facts'...

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96901754/?client=ms-android-verizon

More Fake news from the liberal press.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:Alternative Facts!?! Are you fukcing kidding me?!? What's wrong with you people???

Conway cites 'alternative facts,' defends false crowd size claim
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html

The "alternative facts" are saying that Trump's inauguration was the 2nd most watch inauguration ever.

"Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks."

And

"Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago."

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

You are indeed correct to refer to what you posted 'alternative facts'...

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96901754/?client=ms-android-verizon

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really need to do something about that reading comprehension problem of your's. To reiterate:

"Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago."

What's interesting is how Entertainment Weekly and USA Today frame their reporting. USA Today seems inclined to cast a negative light on the final Nielsen numbers (which are the same in both articles) while Entertainment Weekly reports that not all the "viewers" are being counted by Nielsen's TV only ratings.

You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Dr. Evil wrote:You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Nope same numbers of 30.6M for Trump only EW goes back to Reagan while USA Today chooses 1969 as their end of the range:

"The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office. But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).

But Nielsen was doing ratings back in Eisenhower's day so why didn't USA Today report those too? Because they are slack fcukers, like you Fcukstik.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Nope same numbers of 30.6M for Trump only EW goes back to Reagan while USA Today chooses 1969 as their end of the range:

"The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office. But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).

But Nielsen was doing ratings back in Eisenhower's day so why didn't USA Today report those too? Because they are slack fcukers, like you Fcukstik.

My article:

#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.0M
#5 Trump     30.6M

Your article:

## Reagan  41.8M
#1 Obama   37.8M
## Carter     34.1M
## Nixon      33.0M
#2 Trump     30.6M

Why did your source even bother to write an article?

Here's a fun one. A media blackout at the EPA. This sort of transparency should go over well...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-issues-epa-media-blackout-suspends-agencys-grants/

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Nope same numbers of 30.6M for Trump only EW goes back to Reagan while USA Today chooses 1969 as their end of the range:

"The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office. But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).

But Nielsen was doing ratings back in Eisenhower's day so why didn't USA Today report those too? Because they are slack fcukers, like you Fcukstik.

My article:

#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.0M
#5 Trump     30.6M

Your article:

## Reagan  41.8M
#1 Obama   37.8M
## Carter     34.1M
## Nixon      33.0M
#2 Trump     30.6M

Why did your source even bother to write an article?

Why do you even bother reading with your comprehension so bad? EW's article states explicitly Reagan's number and says that Nielsen released numbers back to 1969. Have your dog read it and explain it to you. Woof, woof.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Nope same numbers of 30.6M for Trump only EW goes back to Reagan while USA Today chooses 1969 as their end of the range:

"The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office. But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).

But Nielsen was doing ratings back in Eisenhower's day so why didn't USA Today report those too? Because they are slack fcukers, like you Fcukstik.

My article:

#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.0M
#5 Trump     30.6M

Your article:

## Reagan  41.8M
#1 Obama   37.8M
## Carter     34.1M
## Nixon      33.0M
#2 Trump     30.6M

Why did your source even bother to write an article?

Why do you even bother reading with your comprehension so bad? EW's article states explicitly Reagan's number and says that Nielsen released numbers back to 1969. Have your dog read it and explain it to you. Woof, woof.

Dude,  do you do math?  How tough could this be to figure out??? How could Trump be in second place if Reagan is included. I'll help you with the math....


#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.
#3 Trump     30.6M

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:You are correct. It is strange that EW would only report half of the researched data. Why do you suppose that is?

Nope same numbers of 30.6M for Trump only EW goes back to Reagan while USA Today chooses 1969 as their end of the range:

"The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office. But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).

But Nielsen was doing ratings back in Eisenhower's day so why didn't USA Today report those too? Because they are slack fcukers, like you Fcukstik.

My article:

#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.0M
#5 Trump     30.6M

Your article:

## Reagan  41.8M
#1 Obama   37.8M
## Carter     34.1M
## Nixon      33.0M
#2 Trump     30.6M

Why did your source even bother to write an article?

Why do you even bother reading with your comprehension so bad? EW's article states explicitly Reagan's number and says that Nielsen released numbers back to 1969. Have your dog read it and explain it to you. Woof, woof.

Dude,  do you do math?  How tough could this be to figure out??? How could Trump be in second place if Reagan is included. I'll help you with the math....


#1 Reagan  41.8M
#2 Obama   37.8M
#3 Carter     34.1M
#4 Nixon      33.
#3 Trump     30.6M

Fcukstik, I guess your dog is as bad with reading comprehension as you.  The EW article said,  "But before that [Obama 1969], to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers" Dayum, I've scrapped crap off my shoes with more brains than you.

Since you brought up math, how's that homework on calculating percentage increases working out for you? Loser.