# Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 7, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066 "2011-05-07T14:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/561 "2014-07-31T02:26:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And you really must be playing dumb because I know you aint this stupid. > > Indeed there is nothing inconsistent with your holding both positions … and there is nothing inconsistent with someone holding both the positions of that pharmacists should be required to provide the care that they are on duty to provide if failure to do so means that the patient will not be able to reasonably get that care and that doctors should be able to inquire about gun ownership and discuss gun safety. > > Because the two issues HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. This discussion has NOTHING to do with “a doc who demands disarmament as a condition of medical care” … NO ONE is defending that IF IT EVER HAPPENED and it is already against established guideline. A pharmacist refusing to care for a patient who without their care will realistically be unable to have the service HAS NOTHING IN COMMON with a doctor asking about guns. Wow. Well, since you used capital letters, I am certainly convinced. Of course, “if it ever happened,” even asked in capital letters, seems like a bizarre question. It was well-publicized: > [@](#): > > Do you keep a gun in the house? > > When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused the answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child’s examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn’t welcome at Children’s Health of Ocala anymore. > > “Whether I have a gun has nothing to do with the health of my child,” said the mother of three girls. > > The question about the gun had been the last in a series of health questions about Ullmon’s 4-month old baby that Dr. Chris Okonkwo had been asking. > > “And I’m upset because my children were discharged because I refused to answer the question whether I have a gun… in the house. It’s a very invasive and a very personal question,” said Ullman, who works as a property manager. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/562 "2014-07-31T03:51:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. Well, since you used capital letters, I am certainly convinced. > > Of course, “if it ever happened,” even asked in capital letters, seems like a bizarre question. It was well-publicized: Even your well publicized case fails to establish the analogy you are desperately trying to make. The doctor did not refuse to treat or provide services do to his religious or political views. He refuses to treat patients who refuse to have an open dialog with him. Pharmacists always have me sign that I understand the medications use and side effects and I have no further questions. If I refused to answer those questions they automatically refuse to offer the prescription. He very specifically said he would provide services for the next 30 days providing them with sufficient time to seek out another doctor. If a Pharmacist told someone seeking plan B that they have thirty days to find another provider and continued to provide the medication for the thirty days you would have an analogis situation. Personally I wouldn’t have an issue with a pharmacist doing that. In both cases I feel doctors and the pharmacists employers should have a right to fire them if their actions are in conflict with their employers policies. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/563 "2014-07-31T04:12:53Z")
You as a lawyer always take one person’s version of an event as the truth of what occured. Wow. Maybe you _are_ that stupid. I hadn’t thought so but you do make a convincing case. In any case, again, if the event occurred exactly as the 26-year-old Summerfield woman improbably claims it occured, then the problem was not the question but the inappropriate behavior after the questioning, behavior that would already be against established standards. You are the lawyer, read up on the guidelines regarding patient abandonment and how to dismiss. [Here’s](https://www.tmlt.org/blog/Featured-Articles/Terminating-patient-relationships--how-to-dismiss-without-abandoning.html) the first one I found. > [@](#): > > While both the physician and patient have the right to terminate the relationship, the requirements for ending the relationship are more complicated for physicians. Physicians need to follow a process of proper documentation and adequate notice to avoid allegations of patient abandonment. > > According to Texas Medical Jurisprudence, a patient may have a cause of action for abandonment when “without reasonable notice to the patient, a physician unilaterally discontinues treatment at a time when continued medical treatment is necessary.” (1) > > “A physician’s obligation of continuing medical attention can be terminated only by: (a) cessation of the medical necessity which gave rise to the physician-patient relationship; (b) discharge of the physician by the patient, or when a patient voluntarily chooses not to return to his physician; or (c) withdrawal from the case by the physician after giving the patient reasonable notice, so as to enable the patient to secure other medical attention.” … there are situations in which a physician cannot dissolve the physician-patient relationship. … Even though the patient is suing, the physician would still need to go through the dismissal process … If only pharmacists has the same obligations to care for their patients pretty much no matter what, eh? This stuff is drilled into us by our malpractice carriers. We have pretty strict guidelines we follow in order to dismiss patients. The story as presented would be _way_ out of the range of those guidelines. The doctor could have been an idiot who behaved outside of the clearly established guidelines, it is possible, but the law is not setting up stronger penalties for inappropriate dismissal and abandonment. It is not about that at all. It prohibits the speech about one particular subject, making such speech punishable by both fines and loss of license to practice. Your continued conflation of pharmacists who effectively leave patients without care, and the criminalization of doctors _providing_ care is either very disingenuous or really very very dumb. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/564 "2014-07-31T04:26:37Z")
Let me just make this very clear, even without caps for the comprehension impaired (and for those who ignore things they don’t want to answer) - I have served on our very large group’s QA committee for well over a dozen years and _many_ dismissals of patients have come through our committee. The only circumstance that has justified _immediate_ dismissal is a patient becoming threatening in a potentially violent manner. Not once has there been a dismissal request for failure to answer a question. _Sometimes_ for serious chronic noncompliance … diabetics who don’t take their insulin, that sort of thing. Most dismissals are for non-payment with no attempt to make any payment at all and multiple no-shows and they all have multiple warnings first and then coverage giving time to find a new doctor. We are even obligated to help them find a new doctor if they cannot find one on their own. And the law does not address the dismissmal, is not about the dismissal, but about speech. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/565 "2014-07-31T06:01:06Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Add in, if such refusal would result in the woman being unable to have the procedure, and you have a reasonable question IMHO. One _that has nothing to do with the Florida censorship law._ Oh, really? Well, who gets to decide that? You? And I guess that Walgreen’s luncheonette will no longer serve sugary soft drinks, and the magazine rack has nothing but vegan newsletters! ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/566 "2014-07-31T12:38:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Honestly only by a mindset that reads anything other than saying guns are great is “anti-gun.” If an organization blatantly putting in writing that they don’t think parents should own guns isn’t “anti-gun” then the term has no meaning. What would qualify if that doesn’t? > [@](#): > > Mind you I do think that the people who wrote the policy statement would, if polled as individuals, take positions for gun control that you would object to. So, in other words they are anti-gun. > [@](#): > > But the thread is about censoring doctors from even asking about guns. The thread is also sort of about abortions now. Threads go places sometimes. The thread isn’t a poll. People are allowed to have a range of opinions other than “yes” or “no” regarding this particular law. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/567 "2014-07-31T12:45:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > More incomprehension on your part. I never said that people whose guns are **important** to them don’t use guns “for the ordinary practical necessities of life”. Nor do I advocate that people who value their guns should necessarily get rid of them, even if they have young children in the house. If you back peddle your statement that far back it becomes a truism. You could say the same thing about cars or pools or anything else. People who’s cars aren’t important to them probably don’t use their cars for the “ordinary practical necessities of life”. > [@](#): > > So yes, it makes perfect sense for pediatricians to point out to gun-owning parents of young children that the best way to protect their children from accidental injury by the guns in their house is not to have guns in their house. Duh. No. It doesn’t. There’s only one reason why guns would be treated by the AAP with a completely different approach than any other danger. Their efforts would be better served by working, as the NRA does, to reduce gun violence through training and preventative measures. Harassing gun owning parents and giving them a guilt trip might make them feel morally superior. But it’s not as effective as giving actual safety advice that would save lives, which is what the AAP should care about. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/568 "2014-07-31T13:22:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You as a lawyer always take one person’s version of an event as the truth of what occured. Wow. Maybe you _are_ that stupid. I hadn’t thought so but you do make a convincing case. > > In any case, again, if the event occurred exactly as the 26-year-old Summerfield woman improbably claims it occured, then the problem was not the question but the inappropriate behavior after the questioning, behavior that would already be against established standards. You are the lawyer, read up on the guidelines regarding patient abandonment and how to dismiss. [Here’s](https://www.tmlt.org/blog/Featured-Articles/Terminating-patient-relationships--how-to-dismiss-without-abandoning.html) the first one I found. That behavior doesn’t seem to contravene the “established standards” you quoted: Mom Amber Ullman says that she was told that she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn’t welcome at Children’s Health of Ocala anymore. Doc guidelines you quote say that obligation of continuing medical attention can be terminated only by, among other things, _withdrawal from the case by the physician after giving the patient reasonable notice, so as to enable the patient to secure other medical attention._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/569 "2014-07-31T13:25:06Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Let me just make this very clear, even without caps for the comprehension impaired (and for those who ignore things they don’t want to answer) - I have served on our very large group’s QA committee for well over a dozen years and _many_ dismissals of patients have come through our committee. The only circumstance that has justified _immediate_ dismissal is a patient becoming threatening in a potentially violent manner. Not once has there been a dismissal request for failure to answer a question. _Sometimes_ for serious chronic noncompliance … diabetics who don’t take their insulin, that sort of thing. Most dismissals are for non-payment with no attempt to make any payment at all and multiple no-shows and they all have multiple warnings first and then coverage giving time to find a new doctor. We are even obligated to help them find a new doctor if they cannot find one on their own. > > And the law does not address the dismissmal, is not about the dismissal, but about speech. Sure. But the law is prophylactic: by not allowing the subject to come up at all, the law’s framework prevents virulently anti-gun docs (present company most definitely not excluded) from asking the question and then terminating the treatment for other, pretextual reasons. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/570 "2014-07-31T13:44:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > If an organization blatantly putting in writing that they don’t think parents should own guns isn’t “anti-gun” then the term has no meaning. > > What would qualify if that doesn’t? > > So, in other words they are anti-gun. > > The thread is also sort of about abortions now. Threads go places sometimes. > > The thread isn’t a poll. People are allowed to have a range of opinions other than “yes” or “no” regarding this particular law. Well since we are conflating “abortion” and “choice” with “pro” and “anti-gun” I will explain it this way - A person who believes that people should not have abortions, would not have one themself or their partner, and who believes that they should be legal and safe and available for those who choose to get one, is not “anti-choice” and is not “pro-abortion.” Indeed in these subjects there is a range between “yes” and “no” that get missed and distorted. The term “anti-gun” is part of that distortion. Recognizing the potential risks of gun ownership, even desiring some additional regulation is compatable with even being a gun collector and advocate of the right to own them. The AAP’s _political_ arm is _pro gun control_. To some who call themselves “pro-gun rights” being for gun control in any form is “anti-gun” … an either-or tactic that distorts discussions in bipolar arguments despite the fact that being pro-gun control is completely consistent with being a gun owner. In fact I know of very few (and almost all of them in a virtual sense only as they are through posts on these boards) who are actually “anti-gun” or even “gun-grabber.” That distortive polarizing tactic is what you have been entrained to do. The position of AAP’s _clinical guidance_ is not about gun control. It is not stating that guns should be illegal or about regulations. It is a clinical guidance and neither pro or anti gun. A gun-free house with children is, from a safety point of view, a safer house; if you have guns please be sure they are safely stored. As with all safety items ([including pools](http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Gives-Updated-Advice-on-Drowning-Prevention.aspx)) be aware of what the risks are when you send you kids outside the house (“ask about exposure to water and the ratio of adults to children.”) Some on the “anti-gun control” side (see how the choice of words works) believe that the risk presented by guns, and especially improperly secured guns, in a household with children is not great enough for the AAP to comment on and/or is not something that a body mechanic should be concerned about. They do not raise the same objection about the AAP’s [trampoline safety](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/09/19/peds.2012-2082.abstract) guidelines (ownership strongly discouraged; if used supervision is a must) or [ATV guidelines](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/6/1352.full) (actually does call for a ban on some sorts); or [lawn mower safety](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1480.full?sid=3dc481f5-cd16-4bfe-8289-86335f1675ff). I am sure that there are some pediatricians somewhere who feel strongly enough about those subjects that they rotate in questions into their well care schtick. Such speech is not prohibited. A patient should not be dismissed for merely declining to answer a question, no matter what the subject. If current protections about that are insufficient then they should be strengthened and not just if the question regards guns. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/571 "2014-07-31T13:51:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But the law is prophylactic … In the sense that a prophylactic is sometimes used when screwing someone, sure. Now you really are just baiting. It is prophylactic like saying making cars illegal is prophylactic against road rage. By preventing all people from driving you prevent short tempered idiots from having contact with other drivers and causing conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/572 "2014-07-31T13:59:48Z")
No comment on the observation in post #569, **DSeid**? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/573 "2014-07-31T14:07:43Z")
\ Yesterday, one of my neighbors blew through a case of ammo in his AK47. Where else in the world does this sound exist without disrupting the peace? \ ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/574 "2014-07-31T16:33:37Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Indeed in these subjects there is a range between “yes” and “no” that get missed and distorted. I’m not guilty of creating any false dichotomy here. I’m not saying the AAP is anti gun because they don’t exactly agree with the NRA on every single thing. I’m saying their anti gun because they themselves admit it on their website. It’s right there. I’ve quoted it multiple times. They think that if you have a child in your house you shouldn’t own guns. Saying that people shouldn’t own guns because they are inherently dangerous is as perfect of an example of a group being “anti-gun” as can possibly exist. How can people not see this? If this cannot accurately be characterized as “anti-gun” what would be in your opinion? Honest question. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/575 "2014-07-31T16:35:15Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > \ > Yesterday, one of my neighbors blew through a case of ammo in his AK47. Where else in the world does this sound exist without disrupting the peace? > \ Fireworks displays. Train crossings. Fog horns. Low flying planes. You’ve got to share the planet with other people. We’re noisy sometimes. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/576 "2014-07-31T16:36:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Saying that people shouldn’t own guns because they are inherently dangerous is as perfect of an example of a group being “anti-gun” as can possibly exist. > > How can people not see this? > > If this cannot accurately be characterized as “anti-gun” what would be in your opinion? Honest question. Saying people \*can’t \*own guns is more anti-gun than saying people \*shouldn’t \*own guns. Wouldn’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/577 "2014-07-31T16:45:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > …Saying that people shouldn’t own guns because they are inherently dangerous is as perfect of an example of a group being “anti-gun” as can possibly exist. > > How can people not see this?.. Heck, a gun is just a tool, like a hammer. Hammer is a tool for putting nails into lumber, a gun is a tool for poking holes into people. Same thing! ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/578 "2014-07-31T17:12:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Saying people \*can’t \*own guns is more anti-gun than saying people \*shouldn’t \*own guns. > > Wouldn’t you agree? Yes, of course. So would you answer my question that only people who want to ban all guns can be called “anti-gun”? If so, I disagree. However, the point is moot anyway, as the AAP does want to say people “can’t” own guns. Again, in their own words: > [@](#): > > The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports gun-control legislation. We believe that assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines should be banned. > > We recommend further that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. This isn’t “anti-gun”? If this doesn’t qualify as anti-gun then the term has no meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/579 "2014-07-31T17:13:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heck, a gun is just a tool, like a hammer. Hammer is a tool for putting nails into lumber, a gun is a tool for poking holes into people. Same thing! Way to add value to the thread, **elucidator**. If it weren’t for your posts, then… …well… …nothing really. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/580 "2014-07-31T18:48:39Z")
Hell, I \*like \*guns! You want to take a bunch of beer cans and a nice .22 long down to the arroyo and plink some cans, gimmee a call, I’m down for that. (Just never wanted to shoot anything that might prefer I didn’t.) And the history is damned interesting too, how many advances in metallurgy and chemistry came about from our pervasive desire to injure each other. (I will insist that the beer cans be pre-emptied, no emptying beer cans with live ammo in the vicinity. Crazy, maybe, stupid, no…) Regard myself as a pretty reasonable sort of fellow, so the label of “virulently anti-gun”, or even just “mildly anti-gun” just don’t fit. You’re welcome to use it, of course, because really, who cares? Ever met a “gun nut”, **Debaser**? You’re talking to some guy who seems to reflect your patriotic enthusiasm for the Sacred Second Amendment, and after a while, you start to get a little uncomfortable? Like maybe this guy is wound a bit too tight to be entrusted with lethal force? Do they exist, have we good reason to be concerned? Haven’t been to a gun range in many a year, but sometimes you see them on TV. Ever noticed how prevalent human silhouette targets are? Extra points for heart and head shots? What, concentric circles like archery targets aren’t good enough? Why? Guys practicing archery don’t need human silhouettes, why do guys practicing guns need them? I’m thinking it has something to do with their mental attitudes, and stuff. How about you, ever object to using human shaped targets? How far would you get with that, you think. Before they start thinking maybe you’re one of those “anti-gun” people… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=30)