|
Obdicut posted:The orthodox answer is that, given that rape is he-said-she-said, that making accusations of rape opens up women to lots of attack and abuse, and that you gain nothing by it Some people think you can gain something from false rape allegations. Which is why they falsely say they were raped. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 8, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Some people think you can gain something from false rape allegations. Which is why they falsely say they were raped. True, i shouldn't have said it absolutely. i qualified it every other time. In the majority of times, the woman will gain nothing from it. in the cases where a woman might gain something from it--say, explanation for a pregnancy with someone other than their partner, the tendency to be a claim they were raped by an unidentified stranger, rather than accusing a particular person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:On any complex subject like this, the only real answer is 'look it up'. How could it be otherwise? You could use you words for informing and persuading, for instance. Like, imagine we're just having a conversation and I ask "so huh that's a curious thing why do criminologists think that".
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You could use you words for informing and persuading, for instance. Like, imagine we're just having a conversation and I ask "so huh that's a curious thing why do criminologists think that". Because of lots of research, which they collect in papers and publish, which are far too long and detailed to summarize here. If you want to know, you actually have to read papers on the subject. All such papers are cautious about the efficacy of the data, but the more detailed you get, the lower the number of false accusations you get. In Britian, for example, this examination showed a rate of about 3%: You'll see a table on page 136 with the figures from other such reports, as well. This paper, and its bibliography, would be a good start if you're interested. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/6478/1/Dow%C3%A2%E2%82%AC
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:True, i shouldn't have said it absolutely. i qualified it every other time. You can accuse people you know. For reasons such as rewriting a regretful sexual encounter as nonconsensual, to cover something up, or who knows why. But here's the thing. If you actually try and go to the police and get someone convicted, you do have a lot to lose. But you have way less to lose if you just make a general accusation in public (or private). The problem then comes from people who think that a rape accusation (be it an accusation made to the police or just made public) that didn't result in a conviction is an injustice. If you combine those two things, you end up with harassment / mob justice / etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You can accuse people you know. For reasons such as rewriting a regretful sexual encounter as nonconsensual, to cover something up, or who knows why. I'm sorry, why are you telling me this when I just gave such an actual example? You're acting as though i didn't just correct myself. quote:But here's the thing. If you actually try and go to the police and get someone convicted, you do have a lot to lose. But you have way less to lose if you don't actually try to get someone criminally convicted of the crime. The problem then comes from people who think that a rape accusation (be it an accusation made to the police or just made public) that didn't result in a conviction is an injustice. If you combine those two things, you end up with harassment / mob justice / etc. You still have a lot to lose if you don't try to get someone criminally convicted of the crime. Do you think that many times, a rape accusation that doesn't end in a conviction is an injustice--in that many rapes which aren't successfully prosecuted do occur?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What did that have to do with me saying that if you believe someone was falsely accused, then you disbelieve the person saying they were raped, and how do you believe that is equivalent to me saying that you should always believe the accuser 100%? Because the entire system of innocent until proven guilty is basically just a nicer way of saying "We assume the allegations are false". When entering into a court case about rape, the entire trial is to prove the accusation is indeed, true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Because the entire system of innocent until proven guilty is basically just a nicer way of saying "We assume the allegations are false". When entering into a court case about rape, the entire trial is to prove the accusation is indeed, true. This is not true. It is not a nicer way of saying "We assume the allegations are false". There is no assumption made, either of guilt or innocence. Evidence is prevented, and a jury makes a decision on the points of fact, guided by a judge in points of law. At no point are they instructed to begin from an assumption that the allegations are false. The system we have is that we only convict people when their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That obviously and definitely means that we acknowledge that many people who are, in fact, guilty of the crime will be let go, because there isn't enough evidence to convict them. This is not an assumption that they are factually innocent and that the allegations are false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is not true. It is not a nicer way of saying "We assume the allegations are false". There is no assumption made, either of guilt or innocence. Evidence is prevented, and a jury makes a decision on the points of fact, guided by a judge in points of law. At no point are they instructed to begin from an assumption that the allegations are false. There's technically no assumption made because until the judge bangs his gavel, he's innocent. Full stop. As every jury is instructed, the defendant is an innocent man unless the prosecution proves to the jury he committed the crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:There's technically no assumption made because until the judge bangs his gavel, he's innocent. Full stop. As every jury is instructed, the defendant is an innocent man unless the prosecution proves to the jury he committed the crime. Yes, though this is the legal meaning of 'innocent', meaning that they are not legally guilty. It is not the same thing as factually guilty. Think of it this way: imagine that you are trying someone for theft, and someone else for perjury, with the charge being his testimony in the first case, that the other guy stole something from him. If you disbelieve both charges, you come up with something that is factually impossible, but legally possible. You can have contradictory innocent verdicts. You can even, rarely, have contradictory guilty verdicts but they're almost always overturned. Again, my point is this: The system we have is that we only convict people when their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That obviously and definitely means that we acknowledge that many people who are, in fact, guilty of the crime will be let go, because there isn't enough evidence to convict them. This is not an assumption that they are factually innocent and that the allegations are false. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:
It's really dumb to be an active member of the Something Awful forums who dislikes internet collectives dispensing mob justice. That's kind of uh the cornerstone of this community.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
i live in terror of internet
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is not true. It is not a nicer way of saying "We assume the allegations are false". There is no assumption made, either of guilt or innocence. Evidence is prevented, and a jury makes a decision on the points of fact, guided by a judge in points of law. At no point are they instructed to begin from an assumption that the allegations are false. There is an assumption of innocence because that is literally what "Innocent until proven guilty" means. All allegations are treated and scrutinized because the burden of evidence is on the accuser, not on the accused. And again; juries do not make decisions on points of facts at all. Juries are probably one of the dumbest ideas ever because it assumes people will act sincerely rather than simply jump to conclusions at those uneducated in proper judicial procedure often do. False allegations can be extremely harmful because you can just publicly ruin someones life far, far more than you ever could by throwing them in prison. This doesn't mean rape accusations are rampant, this doesn't mean that rape isn't a problem but what it does mean is that cases involving rape are extremely sensitive and complicated and should not be left up to the court of public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:There is an assumption of innocence because that is literally what "Innocent until proven guilty" means. All allegations are treated and scrutinized because the burden of evidence is on the accuser, not on the accused. And again; juries do not make decisions on points of facts at all. Juries are probably one of the dumbest ideas ever because it assumes people will act sincerely rather than simply jump to conclusions at those uneducated in proper judicial procedure often do. Okay, i'm not sure why you keep asserting this. What I am saying is that legal innocence and factual innocence are different. Do you get that? quote:False allegations can be extremely harmful because you can just publicly ruin someones life far, far more than you ever could by throwing them in prison. Um, how would there be more harm than an actual prison sentence? I mean, wouldn't the prison sentence come with all the negatives of the allegation as well? quote:This doesn't mean rape accusations are rampant, this doesn't mean that rape isn't a problem but what it does mean is that cases involving rape are extremely sensitive and complicated and should not be left up to the court of public opinion. Nobody is saying to leave cases of rape up to the court of public opinion, unless you mean something really strange by 'court of public opinion'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:There is an assumption of innocence because that is literally what "Innocent until proven guilty" means. What a lazy conflation of "innocent" and "not guilty." Venom Snake posted:Juries are probably one of the dumbest ideas ever because it assumes people will act sincerely rather than simply jump to conclusions at those uneducated in proper judicial procedure often do. Venom Snake posted:False allegations can be extremely harmful because you can just publicly ruin someones life far, far more than you ever could by throwing them in prison. You're a dark enlightenment type, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:False allegations can be extremely harmful because you can just publicly ruin someones life far, far more than you ever could by throwing them in prison. Hmmm quote:As for Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans, the three men managed to move on past their scandal-ridden Duke days. Before news of the trial broke, Evans, the only senior accused, had landed a job with J.P. Morgan Chase. During the trial, the offer was rescinded, only to be reinstated after his name was cleared. Evans declined the offer, and instead accepted a position as an investment banking analyst program at Morgan Stanley. Today, Evans works at Apax Partners, a private equity and venture capital firm, as a Senior Associate in the Consumer team. These guys seem to be doing a little better than your average felons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I don't understand the thread title. It's a young thread, has it been retitled already?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:What a lazy conflation of "innocent" and "not guilty." No? Juries are stupid because they are just normal people off the street. Hi, hoping your legal case would be worked over and decided upon by a group of experienced law professional! Ha, we just decided to get 12 bums off the street who know nothing instead. Innocent means not guilty of something, trials should not be conducted on the assumption the accuser is correct because it defeats the point of the trial. And if your wondering about how accusations can ruin your life in the modern age; a large amount of companies will do research on you before they hire you and if you have a dirty history on the internet (whether your own fault or not) people will shy away from you. Not to mention the threats and harm that come from the internet anyway in the form of doxxing and harassment. SedanChair posted:Hmmm Reinstated after his name was cleared? Shocking it seems. 8 years ago is before twitter, before even facebook took off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, though this is the legal meaning of 'innocent', meaning that they are not legally guilty. It is not the same thing as factually guilty. From a quick google this isn't what factual innocence means at all, you must have your terms confused. Do you have any citation at all for what you are talking about because it sounds like a lot of handwaving to avoid the fact that innocent until proven guilty is a pretty basic cornerstone and the fact that occasionally people who committed the crime will be found not guilty is utterly irrelevant. tsa fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
tsa posted:From a quick google this isn't what factual innocence means at all, you must have your terms confused. Do you have any citation at all for what you are talking about because it sounds like a lot of handwaving to avoid the fact that innocent until proven guilty is a pretty basic cornerstone and the fact that occasionally people who committed the crime will be found not guilty is utterly irrelevant. You don't need google to understand this. There are people who actually have committed crimes, who are found not guilty in a court of law. They still have, in fact, committed the crimes. I haven't, in any way, said that the system should be at all otherwise. What I am saying is that we all know, and acknowledge, as you did, that there are people who are factually guilty--meaning they did in fact commit the crime--but legally innocent. Not sure what you mean by this not being relevant. Relevant to what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Innocent means not guilty of something It absolutely does not. Innocent of something implies not guilty of that thing, but not guilty of a thing does not imply innocent of that thing. OJ killed his wife, yo. Be serious. On topic, there are lots of rapists who have been found "not guilty"; do you regard literally all of them as "innocent"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It absolutely does not. Innocent of something implies not guilty of that thing, but not guilty of a thing does not imply innocent of that thing. OJ killed his wife, yo. Be serious. On topic, there are lots of rapists who have been found "not guilty"; do you regard literally all of them as "innocent"? Yes because you can either have society or you can have pure justice, not both. If someone is proven not guilty then they don't need deserve punishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It absolutely does not. Innocent of something implies not guilty of that thing, but not guilty of a thing does not imply innocent of that thing. OJ killed his wife, yo. Be serious. On topic, there are lots of rapists who have been found "not guilty"; do you regard literally all of them as "innocent"? This is some of the most disingenuous nonsense I've ever seen. OJ Simpson did almost certainly kill his wife. He is not innocent of killing his wife. He is guilty. He was found innocent by a jury, but the jury was wrong. Being "found innocent" means you are acquitted, but not all acquitted people are actually innocent of their indictments, just as not all convicted people are actually guilty of their indictments. "Innocent" and "guilty" are antonyms, so, unless you want to get into dialethic theories of truth value, this shouldn't be that loving difficult. There is always a fact of the matter, regardless of whether it's correctly identified in a courtroom, as to whether an accused person is guilty or innocent. No person is guilty and innocent at the same time in relation to the same accusation. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:He was found innocent by a jury, but the jury was wrong. He was found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:He was found not guilty. Are you just loving with me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
I was falsely accused of rape. It was awful. I was having a sexual encounter with a roommate on new years. We had sexual relations prior, we shared the same group of friends. We had just finished roughly about the same time the person in the next room yelled for us to keep it down. The change in her expression was almost immediate. She began screaming and hid under the table. I was extremely worried about her, I cared about her a lot. I knew she was taking medication for a bipolar disorder... Whatever the correct medical term for that is. She also had PTSD from a rape she was a victim of years ago. I assumed she was having a breakdown or a flashback. I put my hand on her shoulder and asked if she was okay, no response. I put a blanket over her and ran over to the next room to get help. It was her brother in the next room who had yelled at us (He was staying over for the holiday.) I told him his sister needed help and brought him into the living room where we were. He saw the scene, turned to me, and started screaming at me "What the gently caress did you do?!?!" He took a swing at me, which I ducked from. I begged him to help her, it wasn't how it looked... all that poo poo. I went upstairs to give them privacy and waited. He came up to confront me and I told him everything. He was initially pissed and defensive but after he heard everything and had a moment to think he told me he believed me because he had heard most of what we did from his room and it sounded consensual. The next morning two of our mutual friends came over at her request and heard her story. They never asked me for mine. I knew them for years and they didn't even ask me what happened. They took her to my bff (her ex's) place and she told him her story, from there it exploded. He was extremely angry at me, and to this day we are not on speaking terms and cannot be in the same room together. My three friends and her made a conference call to her brother, who told them everything. This convinced one of my three friends. One of the others grabbed two of my oldest friends and grilled them about me, everything I've ever done, if I was capable of this, etc. Their defence of me convinced him not to evict me. (He was the landlord.) My ex bff was not convinced. He put the word out that I was a violent rapist. I lost all of my friends. I can't go out to bars. Some people took the opportunity when they seen me to tell me I was a piece of poo poo etc. Some just silently cut me out of their lives. I lost my job. Couldn't afford my car. Our house used to be a party house. Nobody comes over any more. Some rooms are vacate because we can't find anyone who wants to live with me. My landlord was my friend before he was my landlord, and he's a good guy. Now I am a massive social and financial burden on him. Some of my family believe me... Some don't. I can't defend myself. I try but any attempt to show she is without credibility is met with disdain. How dare a rapist slander his victim? It's enough to make the average person explode at me in rage. I spend my days alone in my room, getting high whatever way I can and contemplate suicide. I can't do it. I'm going to move across the country, get a fresh start. I always considered myself a feminist. I still do. I know the statistics of false rape allegations. Am i even allowed to be mad? Are these not reasonable reactions people should have? I don't know. I don't know anything anymore. To this date, no one has ever asked me for my side. I want to grab my friends and shake them and tell them i didn't do it, they know me! I can't, looking crazy just makes me look more guilty, more capable of anything. I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. I don't support putting the victim under the microscope, or make false allegations a crime, or any of that bullshit. I guess just to show the accusation isn't as bad as being a victim of a violent crime but it's still the worst thing that has ever happened to me. I guess some problems just don't have a right answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
audacity posted:I was falsely accused of rape. It was awful. I was having a sexual encounter with a roommate on new years. We had sexual relations prior, we shared the same group of friends. We had just finished roughly about the same time the person in the next room yelled for us to keep it down. The change in her expression was almost immediate. She began screaming and hid under the table. I was extremely worried about her, I cared about her a lot. I knew she was taking medication for a bipolar disorder... Whatever the correct medical term for that is. She also had PTSD from a rape she was a victim of years ago. I assumed she was having a breakdown or a flashback. I put my hand on her shoulder and asked if she was okay, no response. I put a blanket over her and ran over to the next room to get help. It was her brother in the next room who had yelled at us (He was staying over for the holiday.) The thing is that you guys are both victims of the same lovely power structures. The falsely accused and the rape victims both benefit from a system that treats sex crimes in a reasonable way. Even if the discourse here is somewhat disappointing, at least everyone apparently agrees that the extant system is terrible at handling sex crimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Reinstated after his name was cleared? Shocking it seems. 8 years ago is before twitter, before even facebook took off. I am not sure that people on facebook and twitter have the power to affect hiring decisions at J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:The thing is that you guys are both victims of the same lovely power structures. What do you mean? Are you talking about their mutual friends, acquaintences who chose to get involved, etc?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Because of lots of research, which they collect in papers and publish, which are far too long and detailed to summarize here. If you want to know, you actually have to read papers on the subject. All such papers are cautious about the efficacy of the data, but the more detailed you get, the lower the number of false accusations you get. In Britian, for example, this examination showed a rate of about 3%: You'll see a table on page 136 with the figures from other such reports, as well. This paper, and its bibliography, would be a good start if you're interested. So I read the paper and it was interesting. I'd like to know what you think the take away is from this piece of research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I am not sure that people on facebook and twitter have the power to affect hiring decisions at J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank. I think they do. Your name and reputation can be utterly ruined by a bunch of crazy twitter people who won't stop tweeting about how much you're a rapist and such, even after you're proved innocent. So when a recruiter is googling your name and out comes billions of twitter results of how much of a rapist monster you are, they might decide not to hire you cause you'd hurt their PR. Even if you were innocent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Some people think you can gain something from false rape allegations. Which is why they falsely say they were raped. I can't tell if this is a joke. There's a lot to gain from false rape accusations. For example, it's more socially (and in some places, legally) acceptable to get an abortion if you say you were raped, and in many cases it's also a viable damage mitigation strategy for women who are caught cheating on their SOs, especially if they are financially dependent on said SO. You hear rape victims say that they would rather die than get raped. Well, guess what: a lot of people who are falsely accused of rape also say that they would rather get falsely accused of murder, because living with the stigma of the latter is a lot easier. When a murder suspect is found innocent, that's usually the end of it. Whereas when a male rape suspect is found innocent, a lot of people just assume it was because we live in a patriarchal society and the jury must have been mostly male and he was probably actually guilty, but got away with it. So it follows them for the rest of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So I read the paper and it was interesting. I'd like to know what you think the take away is from this piece of research. I don't rely on single papers. The takeaway from that, and from other pieces of research, are that rates of false accusation are extremely low--which fits with the assumptions of common sense, so is hardly startling--whereas rates of unreported rape--and rapes that are dismissed by the police when reported--are quite high. As I said, you should also read all of the papers listed in the bibliography if you want to approach this seriously. For a start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I can't tell if this is a joke. There's a lot to gain from false rape accusations. For example, it's more socially (and in some places, legally) acceptable to get an abortion if you say you were raped, and in many cases it's also a viable damage mitigation strategy for women who are caught cheating on their SOs, especially if they are financially dependent on said SO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Truly we must resist and defeat feminism in order to remove the patriarchy from society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Are you just loving with me? enraged_camel posted:You hear rape victims say that they would rather die than get raped. Well, guess what: a lot of people who are falsely accused of rape also say that they would rather get falsely accused of murder, because living with the stigma of the latter is a lot easier. When a murder suspect is found innocent, that's usually the end of it. Whereas when a male rape suspect is found innocent, a lot of people just assume it was because we live in a patriarchal society and the jury must have been mostly male and he was probably actually guilty, but got away with it. So it follows them for the rest of their lives. Note that a friend of mine stationed on the lovely Kitty was falsely accused of raping an Admiral's daughter about a decade ago. She recanted when pressed for details that would lead to a criminal accusation, but that didn't stop the Navy from handing him his NJP big chicken dinner and effectively ruining his life. Not everyone acquitted of malicious rape allegations have their innocence make national headlines. Saying the Duke boys have normal lives after their accusations so that means false rape accusations aren't really a big deal (wink, nudge) is like saying black people are fairly treated in the justice system because hey, OJ got off right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I like that when discussing those accused of rape, private citizens must scrupulously adhere to the criminal justice system's standards of guilt. However, OJ is given as an example of a person who was obviously guilty despite his being exonerated by the criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You're a dark enlightenment type, aren't you? no, but people are terrible at making evidence based decisions so we should at least try to do better by having trained professionals decide on whether to lock up someone for a crime instead of asking a dozen morons Jack of Hearts posted:I don't understand the thread title. It's a young thread, has it been retitled already? doctor oblivious or: how i stopped watching good movies and learned to love the dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
enraged_camel posted:I can't tell if this is a joke. There's a lot to gain from false rape accusations. For example, it's more socially (and in some places, legally) acceptable to get an abortion if you say you were raped, and in many cases it's also a viable damage mitigation strategy for women who are caught cheating on their SOs, especially if they are financially dependent on said SO. I think you meant to quote the person I quoted, since I agree that there's some gain to be had. But yeah. There is a possible gain from falsely alleging a rape. If the argument is that there are few false rape allegations because the negatives of making a rape allegation (all the judgment and negative attention) outweight the positives, then it follows that removing those negatives (by being more willing to believe in the veracity of accusations) will make it easier for people to make false rape allegations, which'll result in more false rape allegations. Which, hey... people can make a legitimate argument that it's the only way of prosecuting more rapists and argue why that's worth it. They might even convince me. What doesn't convince me is 'there are no negative consequences to fully believing any rape accusation because the rate of false accusations is so low that you'll be right most of the time'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
over/under how long itll take dnd to get butthurt about this thread and it either closed or renamed and moved?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
