Shorter Dean Del Mastro: Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
I’d have a good deal more sympathy for Del Mastro if he and his colleagues weren’t such loathsome guttersnipes themselves.
You might very well think that…
You might very well think that…
Shorter Dean Del Mastro: Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
I’d have a good deal more sympathy for Del Mastro if he and his colleagues weren’t such loathsome guttersnipes themselves.
Red Tory v.3.0.3 
Husky it is!
Why does he always look like he ate a shit biscuit before a pic of him is taken?
Oh, poor Dean is offended because someone inferred that he’s gravitationally challenged? I’d believe him more if it wasn’t for the fact he once owned a restaurant in Peterborough called…
Are you ready for it?…
‘The Fat Italian’
It closed less than a year after it opened too.
That mug probably turned a lot of people off their dinner. Probably turned a few things in the kitchen too.
Fat maybe be off the table but fugly sure isn’t.
Fat maybe be off the table but fugly sure isn’t.
It’s a frikkin’ trifecta: fat, ugly and an asshole.
None Shall Call Him FAT!
Howabout lard barrel?
So, I guess I’ll start it off? Dean’s so fat he had to go to Sea World to get baptized.
Take Dean Del Mastro …please!
bar–room–chee
Dean’s so fat, when he was diagnosed with the flesh eating disease, the doctor gave him 13 years to live.
Man, it’s nice to be able to cast aside the challenging, substantial stuff, put the feet up, and play “Blogging Tory” for a minute. I’m serious; we work hard, and we deserve the odd indulgence. Right–here’s mine:
Del Mastro’s so fat, he doesn’t sit–he docks.
Next?
I suspect he only wanted to say, once again and for the cameras, “ADSCAM!”
Charlie Angus was the only grown up in the room.
For TofKW http://www.instantrimshot.com
Del Mastro’s so fat when he walks past a window we lose four hours of sunlight.
Any Dr. would call Del Mastro “morbidly obese”. That is the technical term & it’s probably written in his chart by his own Dr.
Any Dr. would call Del Mastro “morbidly obese”.
Actually, his picture is beside the entry for ‘obese’ in my dictionary.
Dean is so fat, people jog around him for exercise.
drums…
…thanks S&S!
All jokes aside, the man is only about 39 (believe it or not). Look at his face, etc………headed for a heart attack. He should look after himself instead of his stomach.
This whole Point of Order thing was just a big production for the audience (BT’s). After all the nasty partisan shots he’s given out, he should be able to take it like a man.
“Dean is so fat, people jog around him for exercise.”
Lol.
Almost fit Harper too not all that long ago.
Geez, if you look at the Con caucus….lots of obesidy there. Too many cocktail parties or what?
Some that weren’t obese are growing. Look at Lisa Raitt – she’s gained a lot of weight. James Moore is getting really huge.
I know there’s weight problems in the other parties, but the Tory caucus is pathetic.
Geez, if you look at the Con caucus….lots of obesidy there. Too many cocktail parties or what?
Perhaps they should start baking the babies at caucus meetings instead of deep-frying them.
Sandi,
Glad you mentioned Lisa Raitt. Watching her on QP yesterday I noticed she seemed to have gained weight suddenly but thought maybe it was my imagination.
“Almost fit Harper too not all that long ago.”
Nah, Harper was definitely getting dangerously pudgy, (too many Boston Cremes with his double/double whilst chilling with the Tim Horton’s crowd no doubt) – but he had never obtained minor-planetoid status like Dean Del Fatso. Speaking of which…
Dean is so fat that NASA has satellites orbiting him.
drums…
BTW – I don’t normally enjoy deriding one for their appearance, however I can’t stand people who dish it out and then cry when it is returned in kind. Del Mastro deserves books of fat-jokes delivered to his constituency office.
You know, this brings up an interesting observation.
For several years now, I have been reading the Canadian political blogs and following news comment threads. I have noticed on more occasions than I care to count, how shallow the political left is when it comes to commenting on someones physical appearance. I am not saying that the right does not do it as well, but not to the degree that comes from the left…in fact, they seem to take pleasure in it.
I think we even touched on it here at RT in the past.
It would almost give the impression that the political left thinks itself some sort of master class of human with no imperfections….well, might I suggest a realistic look in a mirror?
To belittle someone or make fun of their physical appearance or mannerisms is pretty childish and repulsive. We teach our children not to bully others, yet so many of us act like children.
To belittle someone or make fun of their physical appearance or mannerisms is pretty childish and repulsive.
And you accuse the “left” of this?
Shakes head in disbelief….
You know, this brings up an interesting observation.
For several years now, I have been reading the Canadian political blogs and following news comment threads. I have noticed on more occasions than I care to count, how shallow the political left …
God, you took a long time to get around to the predictable scolding.
I touched on the point earlier, Jim. If Del Fatso weren’t such an asshole, no one would care about his weight. There are plenty of admirable people who are large. There are plenty of strikingly beautiful people who are also assholes…my personal favourite is Megyn Kelly, from FoxNews/i>. Beautiful, intelligent…and a total bitch.
Jim,
Nice try but need we review some of the incredibly insensitive and outright racist remarks posted by several members of the Blogging Tories over the past several years, which will clearly show how full of shit your argument is?
This is not about the continuing Con vs Lib / Left vs Right bullshit saga, as I stated before this is how “I can’t stand people who dish it out and then cry when it is returned in kind.”
PS – there are plenty of asshole MPs on the left too, Mulcair quickly comes to mind.
And all the comments about Michelle Obama’s appearance from the right, isn’t shallow?
http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/091118/capress/i12585515401171781319.jpg?x=300&y=337&sig=BCrQuMUZ0wiyV013ebVe5A–
Can’t wait to hear the comments about this one…
“To belittle someone or make fun of their physical appearance or mannerisms is pretty childish and repulsive. We teach our children not to bully others, yet so many of us act like children.”
Well, I guess we’ve been told – now tell that to Stephane Dion about the Cons demeaning and belittling him.
Clean up your own door step before working on someone else’s.
PS – there are plenty of asshole MPs on the left too, Mulcair quickly comes to mind.
You’ll forgive me if I challenge this point, but I tend to have a problem with assertions that seek to establish equivalencies where none really exist.
First of all, the Right openly embraced the value of anger and hate in politics in the early 90’s starting with Newt Gingrich. This spread to Canada (through the Reform Party and Mike Harris’s Conservatives) and was recently re-asserted by Gerry Nicholls, one of the staunchest “Conservatives” in Canada.
Populist anger is the defining characteristic of the modern Right, and while I hesitate to pass judgment on that (because the topic exhausts me), it’s gone past the point of being anything resembling legitimate, righteous anger to being a substitute for critical thinking which causes hateful remarks (or passive aggressive variants thereof, which can include forced cheerfulness) to become the Right’s default reaction to anything it’s faced with. Everyone else’s “assholishness” just tends to be a response in-kind.
There are some legitimate reasons for this, one being a rather long period of our various elites being dominated by out-of-touch intellectuals, academics and various and sundry professionals who are conditioned to interpret any sign of passion as unworthy of attention or consideration, the worst stretch of that being the Clinton administration, which had a distorting effect on Canadian politics, mostly because we paid too much attention to it.
It’s not significant that populist anger exists…it’s always there. What is significant is how the Right’s elite has pandered to it and has promoted candidates whose only qualifications have been their ability to mirror that anger in public.
About the only examples of unbidden leftist assholism come from its Marxist wing which automatically demonises anyone who isn’t denouncing all commercial enterprise as a form of exploitation and from the identity politics obsessives who can’t live without anger. Other than these entirely uninfluential elements, the problem is really entirely on the Right.
Whoa. Sorry. Too long. It’s just that I’ve been fascinated with the coarsening of public discourse for a long time.
Firstly, I am not speaking of racist remarks, which are equally reprehensible, if not more so.
Secondly, what does Michelle Obama have to do with Canadian politics.
Funny, for all the criticisms that are hurled at the Blogging Tories, I find it generally a far better read and much more balanced than LibBlogs. It is also far busier with many more active bloggers.
Alot of bloggers on LB merely post some sort of two line slam or insult. Or some pictures of Polar bears…which although amusing, have no releavance to the Canadian political scene. When the posts have little to do with our country, they should at least be entertaining. I especially liked the link to the scary British PSA’s that RT posted awhile back.
As well, I have seen very little of the racist rants at BT that you speak of. If I did, I would most certainly call the blogger out on them.
As for being predictable, I suppose that I am guilty as charged.
I just believe that we could get alot more done if we could actually discuss issues instead of being partisan hacks that constantly spew venom and insult each other. It actually says alot about the state of the world in general.
Truth is I am very centrist and probably share alot of beliefs with most of you.
I am also very self aware and a believer in Karma, so I try to treat others as I would prefer to be treated. Don’t get me wrong, I love a lively debate, but when it degrades to name calling and pointing out ones physical imperfections, it is no longer a debate and can solve nothing.
I just believe that we could get alot more done if we could actually discuss issues instead of being partisan hacks that constantly spew venom and insult each other.
I hope you are aware that this latest incident arose from Dean Del Mastro going on a lenghthy diatribe in committee in which he accused Liberal members of Parliament of being criminals.
That’s where it starts. That’s where it’s always been starting for at least a decade now.
This isn’t about bloggers; it’s about the Conservative elite.
Jim,
As for outright racist remarks; good ‘ol ‘Five Feet of Raging Racism’ herself Kathy Shaidle quickly comes to mind, followed quickly by her ‘Blazing Cat Shit’ husband Arnie Lemaire. Then there is of course Mark Steyn who calls the Chinese “chinks” and “gooks,” the Japanese “japs;” calls Indians “wogs;” calls natives “Injuns;” calls Muslims “monkeys” and rapists, and so on. He also suggested the disabled more or less got what they deserved in 9/11. I won’t even bother to go through Ezra Levant’s past musings.
However Jim I do agree with you when you wrote “I am also very self aware and a believer in Karma, so I try to treat others as I would prefer to be treated. “ Which is why I now gleefully give back to Dean Del Fatso what he so greatly deserves. Also, if he’s so fragile towards personal criticism, why the hell would he run for elected office?
“I just believe that we could get alot more done if we could actually discuss issues instead of being partisan hacks that constantly spew venom and insult each other.
– I agree fully. A shame more Harper supporters don’t subscribe to this.
Ti, you make a good point that annoying MP’s such as Mulcair are a natural reaction to the never-ending anger of the populist faux-conservatives.
I just believe that we could get alot more done if we could actually discuss issues instead of being partisan hacks that constantly spew venom and insult each other.
This is nice in theory, but in practice, I’ve generally found very little value in having multi-partisan discussions, particularly across the great divide of “the Right” and…well, normal people. Unless people are ready to introduce additional, hopefully credible information that will advance someone’s understanding of an issue or, out of good faith, need to correct errors of fact, they’re almost entirely a waste of time.
Our elected representatives are tasked (and paid, lavishly) to do that work for us.
The difficulty you’re having Jim is perhaps with your desire to be a “centrist.” That really doesn’t exist, conceptually. The deliberative process that results in compromise can be looked at as “centrism” but it should never be anyone’s starting point. The recommended starting point is to gather as much information as is possible and educate oneself about a particular issue to the point where one sees as a variety of directions in which to proceed, if the issue is of concern at all. It’s at that point that someone’s values system, their politics in other words, determines what choices people make.
I get the impression this is rarely how “Conservatives” these days come to decisions about choices.
“I find it generally a far better read and much more balanced than LibBlogs.”
Do you mean Dr Roy and his spellink?
For Jim http://www.sadtrombone.com
sapphireandsteel
November 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Do you mean Dr Roy and his spellink?
Calling people out for their spelling on the interweb would be a full time job.
I am just glad blogs aren’t hand written…you ever try to read a Doctor’s scribblings? 😉
Ouch that would be nasty. The internet has made great strides in giving most of us poor handwriting.
My grade five teacher would be horrified, with both the handwriting and that uppity internet.
I am just glad blogs aren’t hand written…you ever try to read a Doctor’s scribblings? 😉
That reminds me of this.
“I just believe that we could get alot more done if we could actually discuss issues instead of being partisan hacks that constantly spew venom and insult each other. It actually says alot about the state of the world in general.”
Just wondering, but are you the same Jim who called me names and insulted me because I dared to question your assertion that “any” beat cop would support demolishing the gun registry?
Ti-Guy, you have given me a lot to think about today:
Populist anger is the defining characteristic of the modern Right… long period of our various elites being dominated by out-of-touch intellectuals, academics and various and sundry professionals who are conditioned to interpret any sign of passion as unworthy of attention or consideration
The one thing I find that has accompanied this streak of populist anger that is now the bedrock of a lot of discourse from the Right is the rise of anti-intellectualism, labeling academic institutions as “liberal enclaves” if you will or adjusting scientific inquiry to suit their own leanings. What I would like to ask is this anti-intellectualism is really borne out of the frustration directed at intellectuals who have done more damage than good? Or is just simply manufactured for political gain?
It has always been my impression that with the rise of a technocratic state, the intellectuals were largely marginalized. Given the populist anger directed at intellectuals, this has furthered the dependence on technocrats while curiously ushering a whole new class of individuals who are judged more on their ideological purity than qualification, which is further bolstered by how well they connect and give the appearance that they are folksy are one of the masses. This seems rather contradictory, but from what I have observed, ideological purity can be devoid of any intellectualism, and that is the kind that is prevalent today. I mean, The Fraser Institute is a belief tank more than a think tank, and it is amazing how its defenders get offended when I suggest such a thing.
to be a “centrist.” That really doesn’t exist, conceptually. The deliberative process that results in compromise can be looked at as “centrism” but it should never be anyone’s starting point
I suppose ‘centrism’ does not really occupy any real space whatsoever, but I would contend that it is possible to completely derive ones choices or value system more objectively than simply having that information filtered through one’s one pre-existing politics. If anything, ‘centrism’ would be based more on the primacy of objectivity over politics, borrowing from a consequentialist point of view. Paradoxically, it is an ideal, but since it does not ascribe any particular set of politics, this could explain why many ‘centrists’ have varied points of view. It is an ideal I naively aim for, since it allows for revision and refinement of one’s own views, but I am realistic enough to understand that my own politics will filter information; the question I concern myself is to what extent that occurs, which would be the minimum possible.
Understandably, centrism is annoying because it is largely undefinable, and it is often invoked to make one seem aloof and unfettered from ideology, even though its aim are just ideological as any other. The corollary to this is that one should consider technical experts as the most appropriate stewards, which, as we have seen, is hardly the best course. A truly headache-inducing conundrum, I say.
Sadly, yes Gayle, that would be me.
I too am human, so when someone is as obtuse about a subject that they obviously know nothing about as you are, well, I have my limits.
As well, I did not say that “any” beat cop would support the demise of the registry, I merely pointed out that there are those that do.
When you demanded examples and I gave them to you, you continued playing silly buggers. When I stated why the CACP opinion should be taken with a grain of salt due to their list of benefactors, you refused to listen and returned with vitriol.
Either you are unwilling to hear the other side of the facts or you are dumb as a post, or a combination of both.
Personally, I don’t care which it is because I think you are a twit and not worth the arguement.
Ha ha ha
Now you are lying too.
So much for your mature discourse.
I think you need to look up the word hypocrite, or the phrase “holier than thou” and come back and try again.
Jkg:
In a technocracy, intellectuals and technocrats are largely indistinguishable from each other, since the modes of articulating and expressing ideas can only occur with the application of well-defined and approved technique. There are of course, many more intellectuals than we are commonly made aware of (artists, hobbyists, hermits, daydreamers, etc.) but the ones that have been influential have been the technocrats. It’s particularly acute in an age of sophisticated information technology.
On centrism: I find that discussion headache-inducing in the abstract as well. One’s value system is a complex thing, developed over time and with experience, whereas one would expect one’s position on specific issues to vary.
I suppose I’m describing the approach I take with issues that crop up in politics…I learn as much as I can and then determine whether particular choices I’m faced with appeal to me or not. About the only thing that is unchanging in my value system is that I’m generally unconcerned about my own individualism and freedom when it comes to governance, since it is by nature, a collective activity (also, living in one of the freest, fairest societies on Earth, I’m not overly hysterical about threats to my individualism or my freedom). Which explains that, whatever my politics might be, they’ve never been “Conservative.”
Priceless. First, we get the unctuous, schoolmarmy scolding:
Alot[sic] of bloggers on LB merely post some sort of two line slam or insult.
I try to treat others as I would prefer to be treated…[W]hen it degrades to name calling…it is no longer a debate and can solve nothing.
Then we get the sputum:
…[Y]ou are dumb as a post…I think you are a twit and not worth the arguement[sic].
It never takes long for the concern troll to drop the mask, does it?
Not to mention the fact Jim blames me for his conduct. So much for that whole “taking personal responsibility for your own situation” stuff the conservatives like to preach about.
Ive noticed quite a few of them hiding behind political correctness as of late. Guzzentite comes to mind…
Hey, I am not lying. You are a sanctimonious twit, Gayle.
Not many commenters on the interweb get my ire up, but you are the exception.
I see your demeaning posts everywhere. Do you ever sleep?
I am beginning to think that “Gayle” is one of the open personas used around the LPC war room.
You are one of the most rabid LPC hacks I have ever had the misfortune to come across.
Sadly, for the most part, your comments are just vapid, condescending trash. Your knowledge of Canadian firearms law is seriously lacking, yet you try to come across as an expert.
Seriously, I do try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and be reasonable in my interactions with them. In fact I have tried to reason with you before…bet to no avail…because you are a close minded hack, or like I said, a group of them.
See ya around the interweb, Sweety.
Jim…just use expletives. It’ll save you (and the rest of us) a lot of time.
There’s nothing like the Right’s avoidance of swearing to fuel a lengthy, boring, hissy and juvenile rejoinder that manages to say absolutely nothing at all.
Ti-Guy
November 19, 2009 at 9:43 am
Jim…just use expletives. It’ll save you (and the rest of us) a lot of time.
Heh…I’ll think about it.
My avoidance of swearing has nothing to do with my political leanings, it is a result of raising kids.
In fact, I think the insult Gayle the twit is speaking of involved me calling her a “cow”.
In Gayle’s case though, I may try harder. 😉
My avoidance of swearing has nothing to do with my political leanings, it is a result of raising kids.
That’s the problem right there. You don’t teach your kids anything about swearing by avoiding its use. They learn about it regardless. You teach them when it’s judicious and when it isn’t.
By the way, I’m not on your side here. Whatever issues you have with Gayle, she’s usually exceedingly civil. Although why she hangs around wingnut blogs and persists in…*urg*…talking to them remains a mystery to me, especially when her nemeses start dragging fights they’ve had with into other venues.
You are probably correct about the swearing issue. At their age now, my kids seem to know all the juicy words, as well as ones I’ve never heard of.
LOL, I wouldn’t ever expect you would be on my side over any issue. Taking my side would probably cause you to burst into flames!
As for Gayle, I am sure she can be civil, but much like yourself I find it difficult to hold my tongue when someone is obviously way outside of their lane spouting off like an expert.
I never really had a problem with her comments until she became an expert on Canadian firearms law, the parties involved and the arguements around it.
I don’t want to reopen a discussion on the issue here. Suffice to say that I do know a fair amount on the subject and have a good working knowledge of the Firearms Act.
Gayle has a “my way or the highway” attitude on the subject that I find frustrating.
End of story, really.
Jim
You are a liar.
Now, rather than misquote and mischaracterize our “discussion” from another blog here, why don’t you just go back to the other blog and try, just once, to bring forward some facts that support your opinion.
I am certainly not going to agree to transplant our previous discussion to this thread.
By the way Jim, can you post a link to our discussion about the Firearms Act, and how you were presenting facts and information about it and I was demonstrating how I did not understand it?
I ask, because all I remember is you making some assertions about beat cops, and getting angry when I asked you to provide evidence to back those assertions.
I would love to return to the thread where we were discussing the actual act, its merits and its purpose. Please post a link so we can continue that discussion.
Gayle
I have not lied.
You wanted examples and I gave them to you. You certainly did not miss them because it seems you are everywhere on the net.
I even went as far as to try and explain in laymans terms how the firearms act was bad law and you implied that it was OK for the state to seize everything firearms related from me and charge me as a criminal for something as innocent as forgetting a trigger lock on a gun I took to the range.
Jackboot much?
As well, nowhere here have I quoted anything from you.
Stick to the facts. Oh wait, you don’t use facts, just hyperbole.
Fuck, you are a tool…No wait, strike that, a tool implies usefulness.
I don’t remember where it was, so if you find it be sure to let me know.
Meanwhile, rot.
How did we get from fat dudes to gun laws?
I don’t remember where it was, so if you find it be sure to let me know.
Right here
Googled “jim” + “gayle” + “gun” + “cow”
Ain’t technology grand?
Jim
Sapphire is right. If you want to contiue your little vendetta with your lies and gross mischarcterizations of our arguments I suggest you start your own blog. I am not going to abuse RT’s blog by addressing your points here. Go back to the original blogs and make your points there.
Actually, it was here.
http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2009/11/07/upcoming-strategy-needed-for-defending-the-long-gun-registry/
Did you call me a “useless piece of leftist shit” there too?
If he did, it’s because you made him do it.
Jim,
If your 1st posted comment here you wrote this:
“To belittle someone or make fun of their physical appearance or mannerisms is pretty childish and repulsive. We teach our children not to bully others, yet so many of us act like children.”
Yet, when I clicked on the links provided below to 2 other blogs where you were commenting YOU were the one to begin, IMMEDIATELY., to belittle, demean & name call Gayle. And you did right away here too.
You’re nothing but a bloody hypocrite & it isn’t worth one iota reading anything you’ve posted. And I hope Gayle doesn’t bother responding to anything you say from now on.
Oops. That should be:
“IN your 1st posted comment here you wrote this:”
Not *If*
Maybe Jim can hook up with Canadiansense. I hear she’s single and I bet they’d have great conversations.
Actually, if you reread my posts in this thread I talk about making fun of someone’s percieved physical shortcomings.
By calling you all leftist pieces of shit, I am not attacking your physical attributes. Therefore, to call me a hypocrite would be inaccurate.
It would be nice if we could have reasoned debate and actually try to work toward consensus on issues, but I see that would be impossible.
So fuck it, you leftist pieces of shit.;)
Jim,
Key phrase here, that you said: “To belittle someone …”. That is exactly what you do & continue to do ad infinitum. Oh how you love to skew any criticism.
It would be nice if we could have reasoned debate and actually try to work toward consensus on issues, but I see that would be impossible.
Impossible and utterly pointless. What would change in reality? Would you vote differently? Would I? Would that effect how the MP’s are crafting and voting on legislation?
Unless you have additional, credible information to contribute (with sources, hopefully) or can point out errors in logic and reason, you’re just wasting people’s time. Go beat your wife or get drunk or something.
I didn’t call you a hypocrite. Wanker seems far more fitting.
I find it funny that gun nuts are looking for consensus, when the consensus has been established already, in that no one has confiscated their killing sticks so far.
I don’t hunt, I don’t have to hunt, I don’t like the taste of game and I think sport shooting is a ridiculous waste to time and energy. Ergo, I have no use for a gun. My starting point is, therefore, that no one should be allowed to have them. They’re deadly weapons.
My compromise position is that people can have them, but they need to be regulated and those who do want them do so at the leisure of the rest of us.
That the response to this is belligerence and anger does absolutely nothing to dissuade me from being concerned about the type of people who do support guns. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Ti-Guy
November 20, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I find it funny that golf nuts are looking for consensus, when the consensus has been established already, in that no one has confiscated their killing sticks so far or turned their courses into low rent housing.
I don’t golf, I don’t have to golf, I don’t like the taste of the game and I think sport golfing is a ridiculous waste to time, energy and developable land. Ergo, I have no use for golf clubs. My starting point is, therefore, that no one should be allowed to have them. They can be deadly weapons.
My compromise position is that people can have them, but they need to be regulated and those who do want them do so at the leisure of the rest of us.
That the response to this is belligerence and anger does absolutely nothing to dissuade me from being concerned about the type of people who do support golfing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Oh dear. Must you leave us, Jim?
Don’t rile him up, or he might set up a stake-out just across the street from take me out with his high-powered gap wedge.
…*ahem*…
Don’t rile him up, or he might set up a stake-out just across the street from me and take me out with his high-powered gap wedge.
A subject close to my heart cheers, do you have a RSS feed I can use?
Hello! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout
out and tell you I genuinely enjoy reading through your articles.
Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same subjects?
Thanks for your time!