# Manhattan: wake up call or whiny bitch? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439 "2005-05-25T15:07:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/221 "2005-05-28T03:42:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Here’s an interesting thread, which was fairly typical of the time: > [Uranium Seized In Turkey - Made in Germany?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=137181&highlight=uranium) > Bias, tinfoil hattery… Who was right and who was wrong **Sam**? Who was making unjustified claims about other’s analytical abilities? > > Unlike **december** I don’t think you ever accused the pope of supporting terrorists, but you did join a common cause with those who did. > Outside of war and peace **Sam** , you seem a fairly reasonable fellow. That Bush space initiative thread you did was great, and you’ve added a lot to some of the discussions of economic matters, but you were wound up _awfully_ tight over Saddam in those pre-conquest months. Ah. So, being wrong (in your opinion) is the same as being abusive? Hands up, all those reading this who think the quote Squink provided represents a violation of any GD rules or is personally abusive in any way. Let me see if I get what you’re trying to claim - the people who hold ideas other than yours are in fact offensive and abusive merely because they hold those ideas, and therefore any attempt they make at trying to defend those ideas gives you license to attack them personally. Is that about it? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/222 "2005-05-28T03:43:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nonsense. **december** was an opinionated agitator who frequently (not to say typically) got his facts wrong, who posted thread after thread of an **IMHO** nature in **GD**. Saying that he was a good poster in other forums is like saying that he was a good poster twice a month. His _sole_ saving grace was his polite demeanor. I will agree that I would like to see such manners demonstrated by rather more people than typically do so, (especially among a number of the participants in these three related threads), but good manners hardly overcame the massive amount of uninformed and erroneous opinion he spewed in **Great Debates**. > I will also note that his “good manners” were used to good effect to cover a rather mean-spirited view of the world, in which every group with which he disagreed at one time or another was characterized as evil or as deliberately choosing to do evil things. In the end, he was certainly an agitator. I seem to recall **December** being somewhat different in the ‘early days’. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/223 "2005-05-28T03:46:56Z")
No **Sam** your stooping to accusations of bias and tinfoilhattery was offensive. You want to analyze things wrong, be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/224 "2005-05-28T03:47:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Ah. So, being wrong (in your opinion) is the same as being abusive? Hands up, all those reading this who think the quote Squink provided represents a violation of any GD rules or is personally abusive in any way. > > Let me see if I get what you’re trying to claim - the people who hold ideas other than yours are in fact offensive and abusive merely because they hold those ideas, and therefore any attempt they make at trying to defend those ideas gives you license to attack them personally. Is that about it? You know, in re-reading your comments, **Squink** , I think the above was an unfair rejoinder. I do believe my knee was jerking just a tad. Feel free to disregard it. I do maintain, however, that the quote you posted does not violate GD rules in any way, although I will grant you that it was a bit inflammatory. Nowhere near the level coming back from some on the other side, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/225 "2005-05-28T03:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Why not just announce that someone may not post in GD for a week? Repeat as necessary. Most of the people I mentioned, such as Elvis and Dio, are fine posters in the other forums, and an asset to the board. > > If a ‘cooling off’ period was seen not so much as a personal rebuke but as a general way of just keeping Great Debates sane, it might have value. Get a little too crazy in a thread, and you get a day off. Get really crazy, and you get a warning and a week off. Not from the whole board, just from GD, or even just from that particular thread. The idea sounds nice. My problem, as a Mod, is trying to figure out just where one is supposed to invoke this “week off.” The people about whom the complaints are being lodged are not violating actual board or forum rules: they are not posting personal attacks; they are not deliberately changing the quotes of other posters or inventing sources that do not exist, their “off topic” hijacks are not much different than similar posts by people who do not share their views.\* In fact, the only difference that I can see between the people who are being targeted at the moment and **Brutus** or **duffer** is that there happen to be more of them. Finding new punishments is fine, but the problem is that there appears to be a desire to legislate new crimes. I do not object to that, in principle, but I have seen no actual actions pointed out to criminalize. All the suggestions have been directed towards how to punish the evil-doers, while no one has explained what crimes the evil-doers are being allowed to commit. \*_(If one of them is interrupting a **Cafe Society** discussion to claim that Bush has destroyed movie making or responding to a **GQ** question with “Bush sux”, I do not see that as I watch **GD** –and I really did not see any of that among the people being lambasted, here, in the time I Modded in **GQ** )._ ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/226 "2005-05-28T04:00:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Ah. So, being wrong (in your opinion) is the same as being abusive? Hands up, all those reading this who think the quote Squink provided represents a violation of any GD rules or is personally abusive in any way. M4M, the paragon of justice, will lay out his opinion: ## Violation of GD rules? No. Tightly wound? Yes. Abusive? Sure. As in, **Sam** that argument of yours is beyond fruitcake. _Personally_ abusive? Nope. **Sam** stays within letter of the law. Ok, yuks aside, it’s my impression --and remember I haven’t been in GD much over the past year or so-- that Sam is reasonably civil _or more_ in GD. IMHO. > [@](#): > > Let me see if I get what you’re trying to claim - the people who hold ideas other than yours are in fact offensive and abusive merely because they hold those ideas, and therefore any attempt they make at trying to defend those ideas gives you license to attack them personally. Is that about it? Uh, no. It’s the “You’re a paranoid schizo” stuff (sorry, your _argument_ is paranoid schizo stuff) that he’s taking issue with. Still, methinks, that’s well within the bounds of GD. On preview: Seriously, doesn’t it reflect well upon Sam that he can retract a hastily written post? I for one have seen definitive effort by Sam to be civil, YMMV presumably. More to the point, gang, what conservative on the board is more conscientious about substantiating his viewpoint than Sam? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/227 "2005-05-28T04:00:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I do maintain, however, that the quote you posted does not violate GD rules in any way, although I will grant you that it was a bit inflammatory. I agree with this assessment. Now, how does this differ from the actions of those posters that others want to “rein in”? They may do more of the inflammatory stuff than others, but does anyone have an objective number of inflammatory posts that we can use to decide that a poster has crossed the line, even though no specific post is outside the rules? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/228 "2005-05-28T04:02:26Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I do believe my knee was jerking just a tad. Feel free to disregard it. Okey doke. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/229 "2005-05-28T04:05:53Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Ah. So, being wrong (in your opinion) is the same as being abusive? Hands up, all those reading this who think the quote Squink provided represents a violation of any GD rules or is personally abusive in any way. > > Let me see if I get what you’re trying to claim - the people who hold ideas other than yours are in fact offensive and abusive merely because they hold those ideas, and therefore any attempt they make at trying to defend those ideas gives you license to attack them personally. Is that about it? I see **Squink’s** point somewhat differently. It is fine to have a different, even factually incorrect, opinion. It is fine to defend your opinion, even if it is wrong, assuming it is held in good faith. I think **Squink** is taking issue with the characterizations of the cognitive processes or motives of the person on the other side of the issue. Allowing bias to cloud your judgement is a result of poor analysis, which reflects upon the analyst. Being likened to a “tinfoil hatter” is also a rather negative characterization. I agree that these are not pleasant debating techniques to be on the opposite side of. The reality, however, is that they are absolutely the norm for GD. I’ve done it, heck, **tomndebb** did it in post 215 of this very thread. Saying that having Bill Clinton in a non-“far left liberal” category would be the " consensus of every intelligent educated person in the U.S." **Clothahump** has already stated his opinion that Clinton is “a far left liberal” The clear implication is that **Clothahump** is not a member of the set of intelligent, educated people in the U.S. This type of insult is absolutely the norm in GD. Unfortunate perhaps, but a clear and understandable result of the style of **Cecil Adams**. **Cecil** set the tone for the board. It is hard to cry foul when one is simply mimicing “The Perfect Master”. So, the beat goes on. Given the behavior of the boards iconical, if generally absentee, father-figure, I don’t see this changing any time soon. Enjoy, Steven On Preview: Damnit, you guys take longer to resolve your differences next time. Asshats. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/230 "2005-05-28T04:09:37Z")
I don’t understand why so many people here are afraid of dissent. I can understand displeasure at personal insults, but as long as they are not true, and are just matters of opinion or name-calling, what does it matter? My main objection is to misinformation that may actually do _harm_ to someone. **Sam** , for what it’s worth, I don’t think you’ve been abusive – not that I can recall and certainly not in the way that \*_manny_ could be insulting. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/231 "2005-05-28T04:13:31Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > What problem? I was answering a specific question posed by a mod. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Which post would that be? Jesus, I meant it as a general thing. You see a post that you consider trolling you report it. You don’t whine about it months or years later. It’s pointless and annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/232 "2005-05-28T04:14:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The idea sounds nice. My problem, as a Mod, is trying to figure out just where one is supposed to invoke this “week off.” The people about whom the complaints are being lodged are not violating actual board or forum rules: they are not posting personal attacks; they are not deliberately changing the quotes of other posters or inventing sources that do not exist, their “off topic” hijacks are not much different than similar posts by people who do not share their views.\* > > In fact, the only difference that I can see between the people who are being targeted at the moment and **Brutus** or **duffer** is that there happen to be more of them. > > Finding new punishments is fine, but the problem is that there appears to be a desire to legislate new crimes. I do not object to that, in principle, but I have seen no actual actions pointed out to criminalize. All the suggestions have been directed towards how to punish the evil-doers, while no one has explained what crimes the evil-doers are being allowed to commit. > > \*_(If one of them is interrupting a **Cafe Society** discussion to claim that Bush has destroyed movie making or responding to a **GQ** question with “Bush sux”, I do not see that as I watch **GD** –and I really did not see any of that among the people being lambasted, here, in the time I Modded in **GQ** )._ I wasn’t thinking so much about punishment as _Refereeing_. As in, “All right, back to your corners, you hotheaded clowns!”. Something that isn’t a punishment. Hell, maybe you lock the entire thread to avoid singling anyone out. How about that? If, in your judgement, a debate has stopped being civil and is turning snarky and abusive, just call a time-out by locking the thread for a day, or a week, or whatever. That might help the board be more self-policing, as other members are surely to start getting pissed off when the clods step all over a thread and cause everyone to have to halt the discussion for a while. I understand these are imperfect solutions, but I don’t have any perfect ones in my bag of tricks. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/233 "2005-05-28T04:17:16Z")
> [@Tomndebb](#): > > I agree with this assessment. As do I. > [@](#): > > … > does anyone have an objective number of inflammatory posts that we can use… You’ll never be able to achieve a consensus as to what all is inflammatory. That changes from year to year, and from person to person. Sooner or later, each of us will end up getting really pissed about something that someone says, and that no one else gives a shit about. If you try using some number based on say, how many times ‘report this post’ gets clicked for each poster, you’ll end up with some version of mob rule, and get into arguments about whether the shrill liberals, or the whiney conservatives are stuffing the ballot boxes. That seems like an unpleasant place to make the mods live. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/234 "2005-05-28T04:27:43Z")
I’ve got it! Shrodingers Post! The penitent posts as usual, but there is a 50% chance that his post _appears_ to have been added to the mix, but isn’t really. Nobody can see it but the penitent. Or it is there. Maybe. He doesn’t know! So he _won’t_ say the same asshole thing again, 'cause everybody will be, like, “Yeah, we heard, Cognitive Dissonance, STFU! OK?” After about a week of seeing how little difference it makes, he will probably seek professional help or join the Hairy Krishna. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/235 "2005-05-28T04:48:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I agree with this assessment. Now, how does this differ from the actions of those posters that others want to “rein in”? They may do more of the inflammatory stuff than others, but does anyone have an objective number of inflammatory posts that we can use to decide that a poster has crossed the line, even though no specific post is outside the rules? I haven’t been hanging out in GD that much lately, so I don’t know what specific complaints anyone currently has. Certainly I don’t have any. But I can tell you that in the past, the actions of others have gone FAR past this. Often in the form of a third person gang pile-on, which are extremely frustrating. They go something like this: Poster A: I believe that \ Poster B: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Poster C: You expected better of Poster A? Poster B: Nah. Par for the course from people like him. Poster D: Why do guys keep talking him? Might as well talk to a tree. Poster B: A tree would be more interesting. Poster E: \ Good one! Poster F: Well, now that Poster A’s ideas have been so thoroughly shot down, let’s talk about something else. This kind of pile-on was very common, and should be against the rules even if any particular post is just skirting the line of the rules. It’s also a very effective way to shut down the debate, because if Poster A: tries to come back with a further point, the same pile-on will happen again, only this time people won’t BELIEVE that he’s still talking because five other people already refuted him. Then there’s the casual derision, the calling of conservative posters “tighty righties” and other epithets, and similar shots back at the left, which may not be against the rules but certainly don’t predispose the other side towards civil debate. This stuff contributes to the coarsening of the conversation which makes it all the harder for either side to fight ignorance. And to be fair, my ‘tinfoil hat’ comment fits in this category as well. And of course, with some posters it goes way beyond this. Collounsbury eventually got banned for it, but he was basically allowed to abuse other members for months before he finally got the axe. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/236 "2005-05-28T05:09:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > …Then there’s the casual derision, the calling of conservative posters “tighty righties” and other epithets… Hell, **Sam** that’s not an epithet, that’s mere muggery. Hell, not even a Canadian is that delicate! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/237 "2005-05-28T05:34:26Z")
I will admit it’s kinda grown on me. Especially since the Righties have gotten markedly tighter. I don’t think I’ve agreed with a thing the Republicans have done during Bush’s second adminsitration. Feh. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/238 "2005-05-28T05:50:02Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I don’t think I’ve agreed with a thing the Republicans have done during Bush’s second adminsitration. Feh. [new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin hopes to restore the canceled Hubble servicing mission](http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11752849.htm) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/239 "2005-05-28T06:32:06Z")
**Sam:** Because they aren’t conservatives, they are _reactionaries_! Now, I know that terms seems as quaint as “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but think how it applies! A conservative advises prudence when it comes to social and political change. A reactionary tries to nullify changes that have already taken place. It’s a fools errand to put the toothpaste back. Further, I betcha _Werewolf of London_ is the only Warren Zevon GeeDubya has ever heard of. If that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/240 "2005-05-28T08:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > I wasn’t thinking so much about punishment as Refereeing. As in, “All right, back to your corners, you hotheaded clowns!”. Actually, I have done exactly this on a couple of occasions–and been taken to task in the **Pit** and in e-mail for being too intrusive since no one was _violating_ the rules. (The complaints did not bother me or make me change my Modding style. I understood the objections to my “interference.” However, it does point up the problem I have with the complaints running through these three threads. Everyone is sure that they know that some other poster needs to be banned or admonished or cooled off or something. Yet, no one can propose a specific rule to enforce that would prevent all the terrible board-destroying actions that they perceive.) I am going to break a personal rule regarding comments on posters to make this point one time: **Reeder** is constantly held up as an example of all the terrible things that the Mods “allow” that demonstrate their “liberal” bias. I submit that the only significant difference between **Reeder** and **december** is that **Reeder** has had the good sense to post more of his rants in the **Pit** while **december** consistently posted his rants in **GD**. In fact, **Reeder** was even ordered to keep his Bush rants in the **Pit** down to one on the opening screen at a time–an order with which he complied. Now, I am not claiming that no one finds **Reeder** ’s contributions excessive and irritatating. However, **december** was banned for specific actions–actions that **Reeder** has not been caught doing. So why is there a claim that **Reeder** is being favored, when **december** was allowed to pursue the exact same program without hindrance for years until he crossed over a particular set of rules that **Reeder** has not yet crossed? > [@](#): > > This kind of pile-on was very common, and should be against the rules even if any particular post is just skirting the line of the rules. OK. Now frame a rule that prevents pile-ons that can be enforced. Do we say that no poster can comment on the quality of another person’s post? (This would be a major artificially imposed change to board culture. It would also have eliminated **milum** in his first week, leading to more claims of “liberal” bias.) Do we declare that the _n_th poster that responds to the perceived errors of a particular post or poster have now constituted a “pile-on” so that everyone who feels a need to respond to any post has to count the extant responses and withhold comment if the limit has been reached? Are you proposing this rule for any particular Forum, or for all Fora, including the **Pit**? I am not trying to dismiss your suggestion, but I want to be sure that any new rules are _workable_ and do not invoke the law of unintended consequences. Like art and pornography, a lot of these situations fall into the “I know it when I see it” category–and no two people ever see these situations the same way. (Even the same person can see the same situation differently after a night’s sleep or from the perspective of a few weeks away from the heat of a thread.) Placing Mods in the position of having to “know” when the situation has changed from the general mêlée of a rough and tumble debate to a pile-on without clear rules is simply going to triple or quintuple the number of anti-Mod threads in the **Pit**. (Yeah, we’re tough and can take it, but that is not going to make the board a better place, either.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439.md?page=13)