# Allright, I'll do it. Liberal... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 5, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529 "2005-02-05T16:01:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/221 "2005-02-07T16:35:25Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > > [@Liberal](#): > > > > Okay. But I’m not Hindu, and I’ve read the Bagavad-Gita. I’m not Muslim, and I’ve read the Qur’an. I’m not a communist, but I’ve read the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And I’m not a Nazi, but I’ve read Mein Kampf. These, along with the Bible, are some of the most important works of literature in the history of the world. For that reason alone, they deserve a read. > > And I’m sure you’ve published your own translation of the Vedas, too. I’ll look for it on the bookshelf next to your commentary on the Mo Zi. > > Do you understand why this paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion? No, it’s not irrelevant, (depending on the discussion). > [@Excalibre](#): > > Do you understand why, assuming what you’ve said here is true, it comes across as an attempt to sound smarter than you are? Frankly, dear Liberal, there’s an abundance of great literature in the world, and the implication that I _ought_ to have read the Bible, Mein Kampf, and the Bhagavad Gita rather than the books I’ve deemed important - again, it seems arrogant. Actually, your argument sounds a bit like an argument from ignorance. “I haven’t read it, therefore it isn’t important and you are just trying to sound smarter than me”. > [@Excalibre](#): > > But it’s not conducive to genuine debate - just as I don’t launch into opaque metaphors based on Magic Realist literature, even if I enjoy it myself; why bother? Who would understand them? I don’t think it is realistic to compare Magic Realist literature with the Bible in terms either of obscurity or importance. Because, frankly, there are enormous swaths of Western literature, philosophy, politics, and culture that can only be understood in terms of the Bible. And it is hard to take seriously the opinions of someone who doesn’t see that. It would be like me saying, “I have a valid opinion on the development of the drama in Western literature. But what the hell did you mean with that obscure ‘To be or not to be - that is the question’ reference? How arrogant of you to assume I have read it.” > [@Excalibre](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Because it is not the case. Present a compelling argument that peaceful honest people ought NOT to be allowed to pursue their own happiness in their own way, and I’ll leave the philosophy behind. The likelihood that you will do so, however, is miniscule. > > Dishonest debate tactic alert! The assumption that libertarianism is the only route to individual happiness is not one that’s shared by everyone - and if you reread what you wrote here, you imply strongly that any alternative to libertarianism precludes the possibility of people “pursu[ing] their own happiness in their own way” - casting your opponents as folks who want to prevent that is sleazy and manipulative at best. It’s not helpful, and it doesn’t advance the cause of real discussion. Oh horseapples. Saying “I think my philosophy is right, and you haven’t presented any compelling arguments” is hardly dishonest. Neither is presenting short-hand descriptions of what you see your own philosophy to be. At least, not as dishonest as saying that your opponent has asserted that libertarianism is “the only route to human happiness”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/222 "2005-02-07T16:58:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _[Triskadecamus said:_ > You, and pretty much everyone in the thread referenced, were looking for an argument, and anticipating a criticism. And the fact is that Liberal is pretty much willing to oblige that. But the original response was neither. It was not a reference to a philosopher. It did not use exceptionally difficult vocabulary, or make abstruse philosophical points. It just spoke from a point of view that was not popular. Sorry, but you are wrong. He juggled an obscure biblical reference to make a snarky remark. If he is so intelleigent and empathetic why did he not see how clearly it could be taken as an insult? Well, it’s because he switches on attack mode and whatever good qualities you see in him get set aside for the duration. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/223 "2005-02-07T17:20:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > If he is so intelleigent and empathetic why did he not see how clearly it could be taken as an insult? I don’t see how any statement, including this one, is exempt from interpretation as an insult. I mean, just above here, I was taken to task for using a particular phrase: “the fact that” — and told that it could be interpreted as condescending. Maybe people sometimes take offense just because it’s free. From my perspective, it is rather remarkable that one side in this thread is telling me that I should be more sensitive and work harder not to offend, while another side is telling me that I myself take offense too easily and should grow a thicker skin. A person who described himself as mean told me to be nicer. I don’t mind constructive criticism, but unreasonable demands are, well, unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/224 "2005-02-07T17:47:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > From my perspective, it is rather remarkable that one side in this thread is telling me that I should be more sensitive and work harder not to offend, while another side is telling me that I myself take offense too easily and should grow a thicker skin. Why is this remarkable? A simpler way of making those simultaneous observations would be to say “he can dish it out, but he can’t take it.” ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/225 "2005-02-07T17:48:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, consider whether you would ever believe that a circle could be constructed in this universe whose circumference was its diameter times pi. You might be open to seeing it, sure. But you know that it is a metaphysical impossibility because this universe is curved, and such circles may be constructed only on flat planes. [hopelessly geeky geometry nitpick] It is entirely possibly to construct a flat plane inside a curved universe. For example, hyperbolic space (which is negatively curved) contains subspaces called “horospheres”. Such subspaces have positive extrinsic curvature but (because they live in a negatively curved space) have zero intrinsic curvature. Hence a circle drawn on the surface of a horosphere has circumference equal to diameter times pi. [/hopeless geeky geometry nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![WaryEri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ea666f/32.png) [@WaryEri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WaryEri)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/226 "2005-02-07T18:04:13Z")
To me, Liberal’s one of those posters who makes the SDMB what it is. A fixture. But, in all honesty, as some one who reads alot and posts very little, I could really do without [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2333494&postcount=247) [sort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5332484&postcount=196) of [thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5791875&postcount=73). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/227 "2005-02-07T18:08:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think I can do that, as long as I don’t have to write a book about it. Instead of “Why not just eliminate public schools?”, I can say, “Why not just eliminate public schools, since private schools might be more likely to heed the demands of parents, who in this case would be their market”. I hope you agree that it shouldn’t be necessary that I quote Von Mises, cite Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order, and cover four hypothetical applications of libertarian political theory and Austrian economics in case people don’t know what I mean by market demand. Because, perhaps, in that particular discussion, the whole public vs. private education debate is irrelevant and off-topic. If I want to discuss the problems of bullying in our schools, or what do about a problem at a _particular_ school, then your waltzing in and saying, “Why not just eliminate public schools, since private schools might be more likely to heed the demands of parents, who in this case would be their market?” is merely a red herring. It does not offer any solution to the particular problem. And quite frankly, those of us in the discussion are not interested in discussing your philosophy-at least not in that particular thread. Then the discussion is pulled away from its origins so you can wax eloquent on libertarianism. Do you not see WHY people consider that rude and condescending, especially when you state that anyone who is NOT a libertarian is “opposed to peace and happiness” or whatever? Do you not understand that when you ask for everyone to respect your beliefs, peope will expect that you will show the same respect for their own? But you don’t-you call us fascists, communists and handstabbers. I don’t give a shit if your particular pet issue is libertarianism, mathematics, history or _Star Wars vs Star Trek_. It’s rude of you to constantly try to make every discussion about the merits of it! If I want a discussion about something going on in my school district, I don’t appreciate you taking over the helm and steering it into your own philosophy, dammit! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/228 "2005-02-07T18:13:00Z")
**Liberal** , I don’t actually care if you insult people left and right. If you worry about people liking you then I guess that’s something that you might weant to look at, whatever. I am just pointing out to your ego strokers that you can be pretty darn dense and/or mean spirited when it comes to dealing with people and I’m not one to write that off due to some other nice traits you may have. I am one of the types who liked **Collounsbury** and wouldn’t have cared if he called me a masturbating troglodyte as long as he brought real substance to the debate as well. Empathy is great, but it needs to be something I call functional empathy. If you turn your 20,000 Watt empathy on one subject and then completely forget everyone else in the room(or thread) then it’s not useful for much except writing poetry and diatribes. Also, you abuse the term “Strawman”. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/229 "2005-02-07T18:19:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Sometimes, people have fallen so far down that they need a telescope to see esteem. You’re just another token in the well of “fuck off!” that they’ve endured for a long time. followed by a post asking if **Liberal** thought the OP was the one showing a “fuck off” attitude. Lib then offers this expansion on the probable attitude of the stinky client > [@](#): > > You misunderstood me. I’m not saying she’s a monster. I’m saying she’s a gnat on a camel’s ass. This is hardly juggling an obscure biblical reference, although I can concede that there is a definite snark hiding in there. I think that falls well within the casual parameters of The Straight Dope, though. But the snark was a portrayal of the point of view of the smelly guy. By this time, Lib is thoroughly assuming the persona of the offensive social systems client. He has, I am sure brought a few pieces of carry on luggage with him. But the fact is that he was less offensive than the very primly worded characterization of the smelly man, to some points of view. He chose to speak out about that point of view. Lib, is an easy target, and there are lot’s of people carrying their own luggage in any discussion with him. The actual point he was making was not all that obscure, not difficult to understand, and the resulting discussion had nothing to do with the actual point he was making. How far is it to the bottom? Further than you think. Why not climb out of there? Which way is up? ## Tris “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~ ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/230 "2005-02-07T18:27:27Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > [hopelessly geeky geometry nitpick] > It is entirely possibly to construct a flat plane inside a curved universe.[/hopeless geeky geometry nitpick] **Warning, Warning: Geometers in the Pit!** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/231 "2005-02-07T18:44:44Z")
> [@](#): > > _Triskadecamus said:_ > This is hardly juggling an obscure biblical reference, although I can concede that there is a definite snark hiding in there. Here is what **Liberal** said the original was: > [@](#): > > He said to them, “You strain gnats and swallow camels,” Now if you think “Gnat on a camel’s ass” is a straight paraphrase and “unjuggled” then I guess we are on the same planet but different worlds. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/232 "2005-02-07T18:51:35Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > [hopelessly geeky geometry nitpick] > It is entirely possibly to construct a flat plane inside a curved universe. > > For example, hyperbolic space (which is negatively curved) contains subspaces called “horospheres”. Such subspaces have positive extrinsic curvature but (because they live in a negatively curved space) have zero intrinsic curvature. Hence a circle drawn on the surface of a horosphere has circumference equal to diameter times pi. > [/hopeless geeky geometry nitpick] Thank you for the new knowledge, Orbifold. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/233 "2005-02-07T18:57:17Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Because, perhaps, in that particular discussion, the whole public vs. private education debate is irrelevant and off-topic. If I want to discuss the problems of bullying in our schools, or what do about a problem at a _particular_ school, then your waltzing in and saying, “Why not just eliminate public schools, since private schools might be more likely to heed the demands of parents, who in this case would be their market?” is merely a red herring. It does not offer any solution to the particular problem. And quite frankly, those of us in the discussion are not interested in discussing your philosophy-at least not in that particular thread. I don’t know of any case in which I’ve addressed bullying by recommending the elimination of public schools. > [@](#): > > Then the discussion is pulled away from its origins so you can wax eloquent on libertarianism. Do you not see WHY people consider that rude and condescending, especially when you state that anyone who is NOT a libertarian is “opposed to peace and happiness” or whatever? Do you not understand that when you ask for everyone to respect your beliefs, peope will expect that you will show the same respect for their own? But you don’t-you call us fascists, communists and handstabbers. I have never stated that people who aren’t libertarian are opposed to peace and happiness. But if they oppose coercion, then they are libertarian by definition, just as if they eat only plants, they are vegan by definition. > [@](#): > > I don’t give a shit if your particular pet issue is libertarianism, mathematics, history or _Star Wars vs Star Trek_. It’s rude of you to constantly try to make every discussion about the merits of it! If I want a discussion about something going on in my school district, I don’t appreciate you taking over the helm and steering it into your own philosophy, dammit! Then proceed to discuss whatever it is you wish to discuss. It is not the case that you cannot type while I am typing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/234 "2005-02-07T19:02:01Z")
> [@Tris](#): > > Which way is up? Four thousand words could not better describe the futility than the four you chose. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/235 "2005-02-07T19:05:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Now if you think “Gnat on a camel’s ass” is a straight paraphrase and “unjuggled” then I guess we are on the same planet but different worlds. Suppose I had said, “You misunderstood me. I’m not saying she’s a monster. I’m saying that from his perspective, she is not a person, but a thing — like the table, or like the floor at which he is likely staring. Just another obstacle that he must get around to go nowhere.” Would that be more clear? Less offensive? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/236 "2005-02-07T19:34:21Z")
Umm, yes. Much more clear. Isn’t it obvious? I could see the OP taking offense to the inference that you have a better perspective on these people when she works with them every day -c’est la vie. Though showering might be an effective tool against this particular hurdle, he feels he’s going nowhere so… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/237 "2005-02-07T19:39:09Z")
_sigh_ My point is, **Liberal** , it doesn’t matter-if we’re discussing public school issues, it’s rude to try and turn it into a debate on the merits of public education itself. I merely pulled bullying out of my ass-it could have been something else. And as far as “opposing coercion” goes, that’s pretty vague. Your definition of coercion and mine might not necessarily be the same. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/238 "2005-02-07T19:43:27Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But if they oppose coercion, then they are libertarian by definition, just as if they eat only plants, they are vegan by definition. Ummm. I take issue with that. Even if we use the word “coercion” in precisely the way you like to use it, I don’t think that opposing coercion implies libertarianness. Rather, opposing coercion ABOVE ALL implies libertarianness. No one LIKES coercion. But some people believe that certain tradeoffs are acceptable and even desireable. Anyhow, back on the topic of the thread as a whole… > [@GomiBoy](#): > > But I will give credit where credit is due - you make me think. You make me consider my point carefully, if nothing else to ensure that I can adequately fight back from your incredible debate-fu. And you make me consider before I post, whether something insulting and pithy in the pit or something real and meaningful, whether not only I am right but whether what I am about to say is worth fighting for. > > And for that I thank you. What I find so frustrating about arguing with **Lib** is that arguing with him DOES make me think clearly and deeply about important and interesting topics, and write what I think are interesting and thought-provoking posts about them… and then he (frequently) either ignores them entirely or goes off into a nitpick, without actually addressing the interesting things I’ve said. Leaving me horribly unfulfilled. It’s _debatus interruptus_. When I argue with someone I disagree with but respect (for instance, frequently, **Bricker** ), I should be left with a feeling of “well, at least we identified an important basic point on which we disagree, and can now go our separate ways, confident that we at least understand each other and respect the disagreement” as opposed to “wait a sec… we argue and argued and argued and he never responded to any of the important things I said, and now I’m all angry and what the hell was that all about?” ---
**Author:** ![Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/soul_brother_number_two/32/3515_2.png) [@Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soul_Brother_Number_Two)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/239 "2005-02-07T19:48:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Suppose I had said, “You misunderstood me. I’m not saying she’s a monster. I’m saying that from his perspective, she is not a person, but a thing — like the table, or like the floor at which he is likely staring. Just another obstacle that he must get around to go nowhere.” Would that be more clear? Less offensive? I’m surprised you even have to ask that question, man. I’ll go you one better. If you had said something to that effect, with that tone, in your original post, there would have been no reason to write the words: “You misunderstood me.” That right there is the essence of what many people are saying about you here. What’s important is not just your intention behind your words, it’s people’s perception of your words. There are many many folks saying here that THEY PERCIEVE your posts in most cases to be hostile, aggressive, and condescending. Enough people are saying this, Lib, that there has to be a great deal of merit here. Listen to what people are saying to you. The burden is on you to change people’s perception of your words. It’s not on us to run your posts through a Lib-filter. If you are feeling attacked, remember that many people feel attacked by you as well. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/240 "2005-02-07T20:28:02Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > I have tried — and failed — in the past to be nicer. This is untrue. You can try and fail to be hired for a job. You can try and fail to run a four-minute mile. You can try and fail to win the heart of your one true love. You cannot try and fail to be nicer. Every moment you make a decision about how nice to be; and if you behave like a mean sumbitch, that is because you have stopped trying to be nice, because you have chosen to be a mean sumbitch. If I may quote one of the finest twentieth-century philosophers: “Do, or do not. There is no try.” Want some constructive advice? Behave kindly toward people. Don’t **try** to be nicer: **choose** to be nicer. And if aggression overwhelms you, if you’re just feeling mean, then log in and have your wife go change your password on you and log you out. Have her not change the password back until your mean-as-a-junkyard-dog proclivities have subsided. Because you’ve reformed your ways too many times and then deformed them again for me to take you at your word. You don’t seem to put much stock in treating people with respect and dignity, not really–though you talk a good game about it, you’re one of the most vitriolic, vicious, vituperative people I’ve met on or off the Internet. Yes, I think you debate dishonestly–you use words in two different ways in order to flummox your opponents, for example, or you present very one-sided arguments, or you distort a reference. And yes, you like to hijack threads into arguments about you with one-liners. But other people make those mistakes, too. The sheer level of meanness is something unique to you. Put that at the top of your list. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=13)