Time to rename the clouds
-
Time to rename the nation's capital.
And, by the way, weren't the Angles from Jutland and parts like that conquerors?
Time to rename England.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
https://www.space.com/astronomers-rename-magellanic-clouds-coalition
In September, astronomer Mia de los Reyes published an op-ed in the journal APS Physics, representing a coalition of astronomers calling for the renaming of two iconic, deeply studied and shining irregular galaxies near the Milky Way. One of these star-studded realms is named the Large Magellanic Cloud and the other, for reasons you'd probably expect, is named the Small Magellanic Cloud. But most importantly, what these two satellite galaxies have in common is they're named after Ferdinand Magellan.
Among other things, Magellan has gone down in history as the Portuguese explorer who murdered, enslaved and burned the homes of indigenous people while setting out to be the first person to circumnavigate the globe. As de los Reyes' article states, a first-hand account of Magellan's journey describes how he enslaved the native Teluche people, for instance, who lived in what is now Argentina, and placed iron manacles on the "youngest and best proportioned men." He's also recorded to have set entire villages ablaze in the region we now call Guam.
Magellan had his own personal slave as well, Enrique de Malacca, who he'd purchased before the journey and relied on to interpret indigenous languages — in fact, experts argue Enrique de Malacca's presence on the trip technically made him the first person to circumnavigate the globe after Magellan was killed in a fight with islanders in the Philippines. "Lapu-Lapu, the Mactan ruler whose forces killed Magellan, is often credited with slaying the explorer after run-ins with indigenous locals," according to National Geographic, though it's possible he didn't literally do the deed himself. Still, "as a result, [Lapu-Lapu] has become a national hero in the Philippines."
So, knowing all this, the recently-announced coalition finds no reason Magellan, who was also not an astronomer, should be the namesake of the LMC and SMC. "This particular topic is something I’ve thought about since learning about these galaxies," de los Reyes, who is an assistant professor of astronomy at Amherst College, told Space.com. "I’m Filipino-American, and Magellan is an infamous figure in Filipino history, so this has always been at the back of my mind."
And beyond being "a colonizer, a slaver and a murderer," as de los Reyes writes in the op-ed, astronomers also agree he was not even the first to identify these clouds.
"Magellan was murderous and awful but that isn’t the primary issue," David W. Hogg, a professor of physics and data science at New York University and Group Leader for astronomical data at the Flatiron Institute, told Space.com. "The primary issue is that the clouds aren’t his discovery."
"The clouds aren't his discovery."
OK, then. By that standard the continent on which I live should be renamed as well.
@George-K said in Time to rename the clouds:
Magellan has gone down in history as the Portuguese explorer who murdered, enslaved and burned the homes of indigenous people while setting out to be the first person to circumnavigate the globe.
That's what people do.
Always have
Still do
Always will
-
@George-K said in Time to rename the clouds:
Magellan has gone down in history as the Portuguese explorer who murdered, enslaved and burned the homes of indigenous people while setting out to be the first person to circumnavigate the globe.
That's what people do.
Always have
Still do
Always will
-
Time to rename the nation's capital.
And, by the way, weren't the Angles from Jutland and parts like that conquerors?
Time to rename England.
@George-K said in Time to rename the clouds:
Time to rename England.
It's definitely time to rename New England. Massholeville has a much better, erm, ring to it.
Then they could rename England as Olde Massholeville. I could get behind that.
-
I seem to be in the minority, but I really don't mind them renaming things to reflect modern sensibilities.
I'm guessing the locals don't call them The Magellanic Clouds either.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
I seem to be in the minority, but I really don't mind them renaming things to reflect modern sensibilities.
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
Link to video -
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
I seem to be in the minority, but I really don't mind them renaming things to reflect modern sensibilities.
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
Link to video@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things. If you're going to leave a statue up of, say, Oliver Cromwell, outside the Houses of Parliament, let's at least tell people about how he butchered the Irish. I'd prefer that they put the statue in a museum where it belongs.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things. If you're going to leave a statue up of, say, Oliver Cromwell, outside the Houses of Parliament, let's at least tell people about how he butchered the Irish. I'd prefer that they put the statue in a museum where it belongs.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
OK, let's get silly for a moment. Does anybody think it would be OK to have a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag? How about Stalin, or Mao? If not, then what about Napoleon? At what point is it OK to have a statue of some freaking monster, because in my humble opinion Oliver Cromwell wasn't just a guy who did bad things, he was a monster. And yet there he stands, outside the mother of parliaments. Not because he killed a king, who really had it coming. Because of all the other stuff.
-
From some future perspective, I'm sure we're all liable to be labeled as having done, or implicitly supported, really bad things. So? From a future perspective beyond that one, they might respect us greatly. So? All I know is that the people largely responsible for the "right side of history" idea floating through the imbecilic minds of the people protesting at the DNC against Israel, or the people gluing themselves to artwork at museums, are not necessarily going to be on the right side of any history I particularly respect. Mostly this nonsense boils down to people selfishly trying to battle their own emotional demons by exorcizing them with virtuous yelling, screaming, and various fit-throwing. They need therapists, not protests. Anybody who thinks they have a solid handle on what is or is not the right side of history, is an imbecile.
-
I've never much liked protests. I know, without them the Civil Rights movement would likely not have prevailed. Still, I don't think I've ever been on a march in my life. Maybe if they tried to ban something I really like I would feel differently. I'd probably be willing to go to war over beer.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
OK, let's get silly for a moment. Does anybody think it would be OK to have a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag? How about Stalin, or Mao? If not, then what about Napoleon? At what point is it OK to have a statue of some freaking monster, because in my humble opinion Oliver Cromwell wasn't just a guy who did bad things, he was a monster. And yet there he stands, outside the mother of parliaments. Not because he killed a king, who really had it coming. Because of all the other stuff.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
OK, let's get silly for a moment. Does anybody think it would be OK to have a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag? How about Stalin, or Mao? If not, then what about Napoleon? At what point is it OK to have a statue of some freaking monster, because in my humble opinion Oliver Cromwell wasn't just a guy who did bad things, he was a monster. And yet there he stands, outside the mother of parliaments. Not because he killed a king, who really had it coming. Because of all the other stuff.
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down. Then the Cromwell stuff. Then maybe we get rid of confederate soldiers, too, like Lee and Jackson. Maybe after that we go after other slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. Then maybe after that we go after portraits of Shakespeare. Then maybe after that we destroy some JFK shit.
Where's the line then?
Oh, and who gets to play the fun game of Chairman to decide what's worthy of being erected and what isn't?
There was a painter who was visiting our university in Oz who couldn't return home because he had the audacity to paint portraits of shitty historical and political figures. So that people would remember.
I guess you'd side with the Chinese government and want his paintings to be removed, too, because they contained portraits of corrupt and brutal politicians?
Please love yourself.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
OK, let's get silly for a moment. Does anybody think it would be OK to have a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag? How about Stalin, or Mao? If not, then what about Napoleon? At what point is it OK to have a statue of some freaking monster, because in my humble opinion Oliver Cromwell wasn't just a guy who did bad things, he was a monster. And yet there he stands, outside the mother of parliaments. Not because he killed a king, who really had it coming. Because of all the other stuff.
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down. Then the Cromwell stuff. Then maybe we get rid of confederate soldiers, too, like Lee and Jackson. Maybe after that we go after other slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. Then maybe after that we go after portraits of Shakespeare. Then maybe after that we destroy some JFK shit.
Where's the line then?
Oh, and who gets to play the fun game of Chairman to decide what's worthy of being erected and what isn't?
There was a painter who was visiting our university in Oz who couldn't return home because he had the audacity to paint portraits of shitty historical and political figures. So that people would remember.
I guess you'd side with the Chinese government and want his paintings to be removed, too, because they contained portraits of corrupt and brutal politicians?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down.
They were all taken down decades ago. There aren't any Hitler statues. The fascists have already won.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down.
They were all taken down decades ago. There aren't any Hitler statues. The fascists have already won.
This post is deleted! -
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down.
They were all taken down decades ago. There aren't any Hitler statues. The fascists have already won.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down.
They were all taken down decades ago. There aren't any Hitler statues. The fascists have already won.
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down.
They were all taken down decades ago. There aren't any Hitler statues. The fascists have already won.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
There aren't any Hitler statues.
You have to know where to look.
A sculpture of German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler kneeling in a childlike pose has sold for $17.2 million in an auction held by Christie’s, fetching more than was expected for the controversial piece.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things. If you're going to leave a statue up of, say, Oliver Cromwell, outside the Houses of Parliament, let's at least tell people about how he butchered the Irish. I'd prefer that they put the statue in a museum where it belongs.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things. If you're going to leave a statue up of, say, Oliver Cromwell, outside the Houses of Parliament, let's at least tell people about how he butchered the Irish. I'd prefer that they put the statue in a museum where it belongs.
A lot of books that I’ve read argue that Cromwell wasn’t really as despicable as the common opinion paints him, that his responses to certain provocations were perfectly in line with common practice of the 1600s, and was actually far less in many ways than what the Irish did to their own people and certainly did to the English settlers. It’s actually similar in a lot of ways to Israel and Palestine.
The Brad
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
People are far more familiar with the name of the street on which they live than they are television shows. And the names of places tell the story of the history of that place in ways that television shows can't.
Removing what's come before you and what's shaped the modern day is cutting your own culture off at the knees. And every culture that has done so has ultimately perished.
So have those who stay too rigid, too, of course.
Those that find a balance between honoring the past while changing with the needs of the day are the ones that survive.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things.
First of all, go find me someone who has shaped history who doesn't fit that description.
Second, I don't think that's an adequate enough view of what things like statues are. All physical objects change in their meaning as time passes. Photos, statues, place names, your parents' VCR. It's just what happens. Those statues may have been erected by a localized group to honor a particular man, but now those statues also serve as a reminder about a certain time and place, and someone who's responsible for where we are today, for better or worse. That's a far more accurate depiction of history than some cartoonish idea of "we're morally superior in every way to our predecessors."
OK, let's get silly for a moment. Does anybody think it would be OK to have a statue of Hitler outside the Reichstag? How about Stalin, or Mao? If not, then what about Napoleon? At what point is it OK to have a statue of some freaking monster, because in my humble opinion Oliver Cromwell wasn't just a guy who did bad things, he was a monster. And yet there he stands, outside the mother of parliaments. Not because he killed a king, who really had it coming. Because of all the other stuff.
Fine, yeah, Hitler statues go right down. Then the Cromwell stuff. Then maybe we get rid of confederate soldiers, too, like Lee and Jackson. Maybe after that we go after other slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. Then maybe after that we go after portraits of Shakespeare. Then maybe after that we destroy some JFK shit.
Where's the line then?
Oh, and who gets to play the fun game of Chairman to decide what's worthy of being erected and what isn't?
There was a painter who was visiting our university in Oz who couldn't return home because he had the audacity to paint portraits of shitty historical and political figures. So that people would remember.
I guess you'd side with the Chinese government and want his paintings to be removed, too, because they contained portraits of corrupt and brutal politicians?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Time to rename the clouds:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Time to rename the clouds:
You don't think there's any correlation between erasing history and something like this?
I don't think we should erase history. I think learning about history would be a really great idea. Many people I speak to casually are surprisingly ignorant about history, and don't think the names of buildings have much of an impact on that. I don't see that renaming a city is doing that. I think that people not reading history books in favour of reality TV has a much bigger impact.
I don't think it's necessary to continue to honour people who did really bad things. If you're going to leave a statue up of, say, Oliver Cromwell, outside the Houses of Parliament, let's at least tell people about how he butchered the Irish. I'd prefer that they put the statue in a museum where it belongs.
A lot of books that I’ve read argue that Cromwell wasn’t really as despicable as the common opinion paints him, that his responses to certain provocations were perfectly in line with common practice of the 1600s, and was actually far less in many ways than what the Irish did to their own people and certainly did to the English settlers. It’s actually similar in a lot of ways to Israel and Palestine.
@LuFins-Dad said in Time to rename the clouds:
A lot of books that I’ve read argue that Cromwell wasn’t really as despicable as the common opinion paints him, that his responses to certain provocations were perfectly in line with common practice of the 1600s, and was actually far less in many ways than what the Irish did to their own people and certainly did to the English settlers. It’s actually similar in a lot of ways to Israel and Palestine.
Well, he certainly wasn't alone in his barbarism.
Isn't making excuses for this behaviour simply moral relativism, something we've been told is a Very Bad Thing?
-
If not, then what about Napoleon?
Napoleon statues should stay. So should all those of Nelson.
Beethoven and Liszt as well.
@Renauda said in Time to rename the clouds:
Beethoven and Liszt as well.
I draw the line at Johann Strauss.
-
I had a discussion with a conservative Christian friend of mine, who is I stress a very good and caring person I get on very well with, who essentially said that Darwin was a very bad man because he had antiquated views about genetics, and henceforth his theory was tainted with racism and evil.
I pointed out that one of the founding fathers of his own church, Martin Luther, was a raging anti-semite.
Where do you go with that? We agreed to disagree, but it's clear that people are selective in who they choose to condemn.
