Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Kavanaugh's Sexual Assault Claim

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kavanaugh's Sexual Assault Claim

    I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

    But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

    So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

    Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

    Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

    Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

    Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
    "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Rev. Ray Mummert, arguing for creationism against evolutionary theory

  • #2
    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

    But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

    So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

    Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

    Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

    Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

    Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
    Wouldn't it have been nice for you to be so understanding with Judge Roy Moore as you are with Kavanaugh in your last paragraph.

    And I've not seen any news articles with so much detail as you describe in your 3rd paragraph. They may be out there, but I haven't seen them. If you don't mind the bother, would you provide a link to the article?
    To oppose an elected official simply because he/she was elected is the height of intolerance and ignorance......me

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
      I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

      But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

      So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

      Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

      Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

      Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

      Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
      As you well know, it depends on who you ask and what politics are involved.
      "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man." - Alex Vilenkin

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

        But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

        So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

        Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

        Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

        Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

        Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
        Judge Kavanaugh.

        Should he be nominated if a prosecutor brought a 20 year old case which has only innuendo to offer as evidence? .and he dismissed the case.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
          I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

          But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

          So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

          Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

          Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

          Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

          Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
          Apparently she passed a lie detector test, and there are therapist visits because of this. Before I trust it I'll wait to see how many reputable media sources are willing to put their rep on the line to report on it.

          People who defended Kavanaugh up until now are changing their minds about ramming him through, they want an investigation.

          Then there's completely naive individuals claiming "I wouldn't refuse a position to someone because they did a stupid thing in their youth!" I'd like to know if this individual routinely hires justices for the Supreme Court of the United States? You would be denied a security clearance in the military and civilian positions that handle sensitive information.

          Getting roaring drunk doesn't change a person into someone else. It just disinhibits them to do what they want to do, regardless of the consequences.

          Comment


          • #6
            Sinners have no authentic opposition to fornication.

            "She doesn't remember when and where" this happened?



            Originally posted by Kastewart View Post

            Apparently she passed a lie detector test, and there are therapist visits because of this. Before I trust it I'll wait to see how many reputable media sources are willing to put their rep on the line to report on it.

            People who defended Kavanaugh up until now are changing their minds about ramming him through, they want an investigation.

            Then there's completely naive individuals claiming "I wouldn't refuse a position to someone because they did a stupid thing in their youth!" I'd like to know if this individual routinely hires justices for the Supreme Court of the United States? You would be denied a security clearance in the military and civilian positions that handle sensitive information.

            Getting roaring drunk doesn't change a person into someone else. It just disinhibits them to do what they want to do, regardless of the consequences.
            It is ironic the heathen have absolutely NO opposition to fornication of any sort until they can uses it as a political leverage.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Crazy Ivan View Post

              As you well know, it depends on who you ask and what politics are involved.
              Unfortunately true, but this isn't just 'some political appointment', it's a SCOTUS justice. We have to be careful. Yes of course I'd say the same thing if the candidate was a flaming socialist, especially if they were. Of course I would say this if it were Merrick Garland or a conventional liberal like Ginsburg. Let's see if 'what politics are involved' are willing to take the right position. There are gads of other conservative SCOTUS candidates.

              I realize the timing is bad, but the GOP made the choice to ram this guy through before the midterms, in spite of how controversial he is to a majority of the nation. I hope it blows up in their faces. They deserve it. At this point I hope they are screwed. Not American citizens with conservative views, you guys deserve politicians of a much higher caliber than these.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
                Sinners have no authentic opposition to fornication.

                "She doesn't remember when and where" this happened?


                It is ironic the heathen have absolutely NO opposition to fornication of any sort until they can uses it as a political leverage.
                I'm glad to see a Тяумр Christian return to their preТяумр moral position on fornication. He really is a heathen with no opposition to fornication of any sort, and it was a dumb idea to let him represent you to the world.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                  I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

                  But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

                  So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

                  Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

                  Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

                  Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

                  Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
                  A DUI is different from a physical attack on another person.

                  At this point in time, women are coming forward to make clear that we should not be subject to groping on buses, other public places or workplaces. We should not be subject to sexually explicit catcalls while walking down the street. Men are not entitled to do this by virtue of being men, and should be held to account for such assaults.

                  Pretty much all women have been subjected to this mistreatment and worse, as was described by Kavanaugh's victim.

                  We are insisting that the men who engage in such actions be held to account. An incident that occurred in high school might be excused for a minor low level position, but the standard for SCOTUS should be much higher. That this victim was in therapy as an adult says this was in fact a serious and life-disturbing incident and it should not be brushed under the rug.

                  If Franken could be kicked out of the Senate for putting his hand on a woman's butt, why should Kavanaugh, with worse allegations, be given a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the USA?
                  Reality rules, Honor the truth - in memory of Chem1st.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by awsmmix View Post

                    Wouldn't it have been nice for you to be so understanding with Judge Roy Moore as you are with Kavanaugh in your last paragraph.

                    And I've not seen any news articles with so much detail as you describe in your 3rd paragraph. They may be out there, but I haven't seen them. If you don't mind the bother, would you provide a link to the article?
                    Roy Moore was accused of predatory behavior towards multiple teenaged girls, including some things that qualify as assault. Big dif.

                    Kavanaugh's accuser has come forward with disturbing details, and it turns out she discussed this assault with her husband and therapist in 2012.

                    We are talking about a lifetime appointment. Not the same thing as an election to Congress.
                    Reality rules, Honor the truth - in memory of Chem1st.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks a lot. 9 replies (by my count) - and ONE addressed the OP.
                      "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Rev. Ray Mummert, arguing for creationism against evolutionary theory

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by vibise View Post

                        A DUI is different from a physical attack on another person.

                        At this point in time, women are coming forward to make clear that we should not be subject to groping on buses, other public places or workplaces. We should not be subject to sexually explicit catcalls while walking down the street. Men are not entitled to do this by virtue of being men, and should be held to account for such assaults.

                        Pretty much all women have been subjected to this mistreatment and worse, as was described by Kavanaugh's victim.

                        We are insisting that the men who engage in such actions be held to account. An incident that occurred in high school might be excused for a minor low level position, but the standard for SCOTUS should be much higher. That this victim was in therapy as an adult says this was in fact a serious and life-disturbing incident and it should not be brushed under the rug.

                        If Franken could be kicked out of the Senate for putting his hand on a woman's butt, why should Kavanaugh, with worse allegations, be given a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the USA?
                        franken was a victim of your PC cause and the lynch mob mentality. Itís died down a bit, and mob lacks the power to push this agenda through, so itís going to fail.

                        The left is all about second chances, and rehabilitation, and nuance and blah blah blah, unless they are in the middle of emotion driven which hunts motivated by a hate of trump. Then Itís zero tolerance, especially if itís a political opponent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

                          But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

                          So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

                          Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

                          Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

                          Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

                          Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
                          I'll entertain your hypothetical. Its a tough call. On one hand, its not an incident that has an expiration date on it. However 30 plus years is also long enough to als put it into context with the rest of his life. It wouldn't be an automatic rejection, but would definitely be a consideration in my decision.
                          ďI like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.Ē
                          -Mahatma Gandhi quotes (Indian Philosopher, internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest, 1869-1948)

                          It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
                          -Sherlock Holmes in A study in Scarlet

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                            I make no claims as to the truth of the allegation of sexual assault being leveled at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Like many, I find the timing of the release of the allegation suspicious. But I also find reasonable the idea that the alleged victim did not want to make such a charge until she felt it was necessary in order to stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know if the allegation is true or not, and am glad I am not charged with determining it.

                            But I'd like to address a different angle - for the purposes of the thread, let's assume the allegation is true, and please, don't discuss in here whether or not it is true. We'll assume it is, just for the sake of this thread, so we can explore another angle.

                            So (again, for the purposes of this thread), Judge Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, when he was 17, had been drinking and was 'very drunk'. He (or a friend, or both) pushed a 15 year old female into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. She tried to scream, and Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth. She eventually managed to get free and escape.

                            Now, given that the above happened (again, for the purposes of this thread - I am making no judgement as to the truth of the allegation) - should it affect his nomination to the Supreme Court? Should someone who did this 36 years ago automatically be not entitled to serve on the Supreme Court? Or is it so far ago - with no hint of anything remotely similar since - that it should have no bearing? And is it enough to affect his existing appointment (Judgehood, if that's a word)?

                            Legally, if it had come to light at the time, presumably he would have been charged - would his record have been expunged when he turned 18? I don't know - perhaps someone else does?

                            Could how the law would have treated him at the time influence his ruling on the law today?

                            Are we getting to to the point where if you want to hold public office, you better not have done a single thing wrong in your entire life? DUI at 19? Forget it. You'll never serve. Peed against a wall on the way home from a concert when you were 17? Not a chance you'll ever get it. Is that what we want? Are we in danger of ruling good people who made a stupid mistake out of positions where they might have done a wonderful job?
                            I agree with Robert it’s a factor, and might effect my choice, depending on the balance of his life afterward, him being a conservative helps as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post

                              I agree with Robert it’s a factor, and might effect my choice, depending on the balance of his life afterward, him being a conservative helps as well.
                              Or hinders, depending on your side of the fence
                              "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Rev. Ray Mummert, arguing for creationism against evolutionary theory

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X