The union in general

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting RJ Covino from 17:32, 1st Dec 2005

Do you want my honest opinion or do I still have to pretend to be a communist and/or Christ-botherer?

Your honest opinion, please.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[The chap]

Jesus, Grandpa, I don't know you, I just read this stuff and chip in once in a while.
That last post to the David Bean fella was about as self depreciating as it gets. You can't expect anyone to pay any attention to you if you are going to post such crass vulgarity. You call David "young man", you condescending fool, and go out of your way to point out that you and his friends (good of you to speak on their behalf) think he's a tosser, (or was it arsehole, anyway...) in fact I think you mention it twice. At least David had the elegance and decency to construct a decent message.
I can't believe you are so blantantly vulgar and expect anyone to be anything other than antagonised by you.

And I can't imagine anyone wanting to come and speak to you face to face to discuss differences because it strikes me that they would be wasting their breath.

I don't think people should read your posts anymore because it would be difficult to take seriously the ideas or contributions of one who is clearly so delicate and unbalanced as to personally attack those with whom he has disagreement. Those sort of people tend to want everything their own way and, by God, will make life a real pain for those who disagree so much as a tiny bit.

[Al]

"I don't think people should read your posts anymore"

We could still hazard a guess as to their content...

I am sure the following words and terms would feature heavily.

"real world"
"representational"
"questions to the SRC"
"man of the world"
"untrained"
"it were all fields 'round here when I were young"
"ann summers"

[Grandpa]

Al...shut up...you are as drivelling as I have been.

Anyway...on to business

[s][s] I care not for those who choose to insult in public, and yes, before you jump at me, I do consider what Bean said an insult.

I am totally within my rights to defend my position, and even have a quick jab back.

Surely you would feel similarly if attacked publicly?

I just choose to come back harder - therefore minimizing the chances of a recurrence.

I don't know half of the rest of you on this website, and so why should I truly be worried what you think of me personally?

Just to clear things up, I don't care what those of you I do not know think.[/s][/s]

And that's the last of it.

[l]But...[/l]

What you think of my ideas, however, is a different matter, and if you can bear to read an in-depth description and defence, here we go:

On the matter of David's thoughts about what I want to do being leaving the system alone until it magically straightens itself out, no, I wouldn't. If he actually read what I said then he'd see that I said, "simply get the representatives doing their jobs first."

Now, I see an explanation is needed, I had posted a similar thread, but it was removed. Whatever, here we go again:

Why, in my opinion, are the reps not doing their job?

Because the system is crucially flawed.

Why?...

Because the SRC does not operate in a representative way.

[s]'representative' = Serving to represent.

'Represent' = To be accredited deputy or substitute for (a number of persons) in a legislative or deliberative assembly.[/s]

How is the SRC not representative?

The SRC reps are chosen for their policies and what they want to do. Arguably, someone trying to get their agenda ‘done’ when having been asked by their represented students to do another thing is obviously less efficient at representing the demands of students than a rep who focuses only on what students want done. How on earth is a system that chooses its representatives by what they want to do actually representative of the wider student body? It isn’t. It is representative only of what the elected person thinks is important. What is important in this persons mind before s/he comes to be elected may not be the case after an election.

I would assume a representative to be pro-actively bothered about what his/her ‘public’ think are the current concerns, I will assume that all agree on this – it is so base to the thing in question that to disagree would mean either a representative should not be bothered about what the public think, or that representation has nothing to do with the concerns of the public whatsoever.
It has never, since I have been a student, asked us students what we actually think matters, in a proactive manner. Instead we leave it up to people that the majority of us have never heard of before elections/hecklings to 'represent' what we think. As a result, the modus operandi seems to be "if they have a problem, they will come to us".

Furthermore, this is the problem with all political processes: they assume that people will go out of their way in order to approach the system. They will not, as repeated low turnouts for local and national elections tell us. If people were on the whole convincingly concerned, in the majority, for the British political process, the results for such elections would not display a constant decline in turnout since 1987/1992.

source: http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/nps/voter_turnout.htm

But we cannot base student apathy in this university’s political processes on national figures – however, they do serve the purpose of showing current trends of widespread apathy in politics, which would generally uphold my argument.

Just because students are held to be more politically active than the general population is no reason to say that they necessarily are in St Andrews. For example, the first politically focused student demo at this university in a few years rallied the support of about 150-200 students. What’s that, just fewer than 3% of students? Huge success. I’m not saying that I disagree with the ethical investment campaign – simply that it is a good example of a political campaign currently ongoing within the student sphere of St Andrews that has effected a minimal turnout for what it says is a ‘success’. It was a success if you think a success is holding a demo/rally and it carrying itself off peacefully – but if you think it was a success in that it attracted a tiny percentage of students, then I think you are quite empirically wrong. However, I digress with my examples from more distant shores than the SRC.

Now, I would in no way challenge peoples’ right to demonstrate about whatever they wish, that is not my point. The point is that the Ethical Investment Campaign is simply an example of a campaign that not a majority are in favour of. They state on their website that ‘over 1600’ people signed their petition which was presented, however, how many of these were students? All, some? Anyway, even if there were 1700 students who signed this petition, that would still be shy of a quarter of the total amount of students in this university.

How is this relevant to the SRC?

The SRC does not ask those it represents what they think is the matter, this I have already stated. It is a fact – ok, the student’s association may run the odd referendum, but do you see 7000 students all of them queuing up to take part?

Additionally, how many non-SRC students have come forward to the SRC with representational points of concern over the last year? I don’t know the actual answer, but I would suggest it is less than 50. 50 students out of a rough 7000 is less than 1%.

If the SRC were to target the students, I can guarantee that it would have more than a 1% success, especially if it did it in the way I would suggest (which I shall outline if someone asks).

If less and less people (both nationally, and within the student population) are coming forward for things that people think ‘should be done’, then we need to redesign what these things are. How is this achieved, in relation to the SRC? It is achieved by openly asking students what they think are the issues that concern them, finding out which of these takes highest priority, and then focussing on these issues.

This is the flaw in all political processes.
Politicians do not find out ‘what matters’. They assume and put their own agendas first.
This is not a ‘democratic’process, it is simply the process of agenda setting through some skewed form of legitimacy.


[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Ben Reilly]

Grandpa-- isn't that the purpose of elections? For the student body to choose based on the stated views of those who stand? If somebody has concerns that they believe are not being addressed, then they should stand and say what those issues are in their publicity.

And do you really believe that is possible to fully discuss issues in the necessary depth in referendum campaigns?

Surely the point of a representative system is simple- the student body as a whole does not have the time, knowledge, interest or expertise to look at the issues in enough depth, therefore that role is delegated.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Grandpa]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 13:30, 4th Dec 2005
Grandpa-- isn't that the purpose of elections? For the student body to choose based on the stated views of those who stand? If somebody has concerns that they believe are not being addressed, then they should stand and say what those issues are in their publicity.

Aargh! But Ben... the SRC should be out there trying to get views from students because no students come to SRC in order to ask them anything. What's the point in having reps if no-one approaches the SRC. I know you are saying that people should come...but you missed my point entirely...politics doesn't work unless it is proactive on the half of those who want to do it. And if they wont come to you, then by golly you have to go to them. Otherwise I see no reason for an SRC - how can you be Representative if you don't know what people want???????????

And do you really believe that is possible to fully discuss issues in the necessary depth in referendum campaigns?

You wouldn't need to. I can see I'll have to explain how.
[s]And although this method would involve, say, one weeks worth of pro-active ''grass-roots politics'' (if you'll forgive the cliché) of work to be done by the SRC, once per year, it would actually address the concerns of the students in a direct way. Rather than what we have at the moment, which is so laissez-faire it doesn't address students' views at all.[/s]

Right...this is what you'd need to do:

1. Print off a load of questionnaires on single sided A4 asking students to list their main concerns (it'd need to be worded differently) with respect to all elected representative positions. This would be done by splitting the page into X equally sized parts, one for each rep position. The student would enter a brief description of a)concern, b)a proposed solution. [c) possibly other stuff, I don't know]. For a simplified version, you could offer a limited number of issue areas per representational area, but this is less representative in the outcome - how do you know a lot of students wouldn't want something other than that which you've offered..? Or! you could mix the two! Offer a list, with tick boxes and a bout 5 or 10 extra lines for their own ideas if they have them...and preferences could be numbered by the student in order 1 - 15 or whatever!!!

2. These would be distributed outside all lecture theatres, the union, the quad, halls of residence over fresher's week and week 1.

3. A suitable means of collection could be organised (e.g. a sealed box on each floor of each residence, or in the computer room at albany and fife parks, or in the tv room at melville, at the library entrance, in the union entrance,etc etc etc...you get the picture...maybe there's an even better way of doing it...but I think that actually offering people something they can refuse and doing it in person is the most likely way of getting a response. Also, maybe it should be done after the SRC/SSC election week and the new reps can then get stuck in...).

4. Reps bring back all completed questionnaires, and cut (by means of guillotines) the replies and put onto respective piles.

5. Reps then take responsibility for a pile NOT related to their post, and tally up all reply types and list 1 - 10 or whatever, in descending order.

6. The results are published WIDELY, not just in emails etc etc, but maybe in The Saint, maybe on posters around halls and lecture areas...and the reps now know what students want representing, in what order of importance and can get on with the now meaningfull task of representing the students.

The whole process would take no longer than a week for the flyering of questionnaires, and a day in one of the rooms in the union to sort it all out.

Think about it...7000 students....if 80% of students were to reply (even if 10% replied, it would still be more relevant to the representative process than not doing this at all), but if 80% were to reply, that's 5600 replies, with say, 10 people sorting out the results, that's only 560 peices of paper each. Not a huge deal, and would take at the longest a few hours to do your bit (my bit...I'd definately help out).

And yes, if you are intent on being as representative as possible, then discussing how to tackle each issue would be the most important item on each committee agenda and would recieve the full attention of those involved....you may even get the odd few interested students turning up at src to give their tuppence worth. And how good would that be for public relations....

In short I do think it is possible to fully discuss issues in the necessary depth, as to imply that you can't is to imply that the representative process is flawed in it's most basic concept - the ability to represent.

Surely the point of a representative system is simple- the student body as a whole does not have the time, knowledge, interest or expertise to look at the issues in enough depth, therefore that role is delegated.

Well then, offer them the choice of either having you dictate what they need representing on, or ask them yourself...either way they aren't being asked right now, and should be every year.

Anyhow, if you found out what they thought then you'd know.

Stuff such as 'what can we do to make life better for this type of student, that type of student, these types of student, etc etc. No-one asks anyone, that's why representation is not representation.

By the way, I forgot to mention that if you wanted this to work...it would need to be really really well advertised.


[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Al]

Quoting grandpa from 11:57, 4th Dec 2005
Al...shut up...you are as drivelling as I have been.

Did you not say, in response to someone else, 'I find it hard to know how I can make a sound when posting on a silent webpage'? How then can I "shut up"?

[Grandpa]

Did you not say, in response to someone else, 'I find it hard to know how I can make a sound when posting on a silent webpage'? How then can I "shut up"?

don't write as i do, do as i say

or would this make it easier for you:

stop replying to my posts and stop posting on my threads.

mwahahahaha


[hr]

come over to the dark side

[Al]

But if people didn't reply to you, you'd never learn anything...

[Grandpa]

Al, i was talking to YOU. no-one else, just you.

and it was a joke.

lighten up young lady

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Ben Reilly]

Grandpa--

You seem to view the SRC as some sort of static body that is not composed of students, nor selected by students.

Like I said, if people have an idea, then stand. Let's see what the student body thinks of it.

I should probably also say that the survey idea is possibly of use in terms of gaining widespread views on the issues- but it should be viewed as neither exhaustive nor determinative.

[Laura]

I don't get this needing to ask every single student what they think about every single issue. The point of having elections is that you elect people to positions who you trust to represent the student body on a particular area- the point of policies and pledges is that you vote to elect someone who you think can do the job in the best way to represent you, you give them a mandate to do what they stated they would on their publicity and you have contact details for them if you have any particular concerns to be represented to the SRC or issues you need pointing in the right direction on.

I'm all up for transparency and accessibility, but what I am less up for is the SRC having to do a cross campus questionnaire on every issue that every member or officer brings to the table, or a referendum on every motion that comes to SRC. That would be missing the point of the electoral system, and the point of having an SRC altogether.

Having said all that, having discussed a WebCT online survey thingy for something else entirely last night, I don't think it's an altogether bad idea that something along the lines of the survey given to SRC members during Summer was put online for people to answer. Putting out a paper version of this to seven thousand people would be completely unworkable, and leaving them about for people to answer never works that well.

On the whole, the "I've never been asked what my thoughts are on anything" is a statement that expresses a lack of understanding of what the system is set up to do. You don't elect reps to wander around town asking every bloody person what they should do about an issue or how they should vote on a motion- you elect them to act on the people who contact them's comments and their own instincts. The SRC shouldn't be coming out to students to see what their views are, students should be going to it to express them. As has been said on another similar Grandpa thread- when the SRC has attempted to make itself more accessible to students in the past by touring its meetings, turnout wasn't better than it is in the Committee Room.

[hr]

"What I hanker for, of course, is to be put at the beck and call of some very important hush-hush sort of man who needs to be driven very fast in a long-nosed powerful car to mysterious destinations...But either this type of man is dying out- which I should deplore- or else, which is more likely, he does his own driving."

[Al]

Young lady? What a very odd thing to say. Still, I suppose that you are a very odd person. And a very immature one.

[The chap]

"Young lady". You're at it again, Grandpa, you condescending idiot. You were only born in 1979, so your only around the 26 mark! You think those few extra years have given you some mature standing in the student community? Nope, only in your head.
If you are going to argue with people you should never point to your apparent strengths or advantages, you simply prove yourself through intellegent, comprehensive and well structered arguements. Your continuous mention or hinting towards your age difference as some sort of hallmark of the validity and strength of your viewpoints is remarkably immature; right up there with the "my Dad's bigger than your Dad," school of arguement.
Still, since we're being childish, here's some silliness I just rustled up....

G geriatric
R rambling
A arsehole
M making
P pathetic
A arguements

[The chap]

"Young lady". You're at it again, Grandpa, you condescending idiot. You were only born in 1979, so your only around the 26 mark! You think those few extra years have given you some mature standing in the student community? Nope, only in your head.
If you are going to argue with people you should never point to your apparent strengths or advantages, you simply prove yourself through intellegent, comprehensive and well structered arguements. Your continuous mention or hinting towards your age difference as some sort of hallmark of the validity and strength of your viewpoints is remarkably immature; right up there with the "my Dad's bigger than your Dad," school of arguement.
Still, since we're being childish, here's some silliness I just rustled up....

G geriatric
R rambling
A arsehole
M making
P pathetic
A arguements

[Grandpa]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 15:42, 4th Dec 2005
Grandpa--

You seem to view the SRC as some sort of static body that is not composed of students, nor selected by students.

Balls! I never said such a thing. What I did say though is that representation could be made truly representative by asking people what matters.

Like I said, if people have an idea, then stand. Let's see what the student body thinks of it.

Or do you mean what the SRC thinks of it?

I should probably also say that the survey idea is possibly of use in terms of gaining widespread views on the issues- but it should be viewed as neither exhaustive nor determinative.

and why should it not be determinative? You neither give good reason nor say how it could not be exhaustive! It's not even an argument. Of course, you know if you asked all students what THEY were concerned with, you would have an exhaustive list of issues.

I think you'll find that it could quite easily be determinative and exhaustive.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Laura]

Quoting Grandpa from 18:04, 4th Dec 2005
and why?

People elected to the SRC represent specific areas and therefore do research into these areas, sometimes understanding more about specific policies and being able to give a more educated view on them than the average student. This is simply because being in the job will push them into teaching themselves the structure of the association, the structure of the university, the way academic departments work, the way Scottish law works, the way students are represented on a national level etc- they naturally become, over a period of time, able to deal with problems that arise and have a better understanding of them than the people actually having the problems who have never taken an interest into student politics.

The reason I'm bothering to say this is that, if you did survey seven thousand students, what you would most probably end up with is the sort of stuff SRC reps are contacted about all the time- i.e, complaints about matriculation cards not being accepted as dicount cards everywhere so we should join the NUS, complaints about the differences in academic school policy and the problems it causes them, or the crapness of the library, or essay guidelines, or lecture timetables. Whilest I realise it is very helpful to the SRC to know all these things, and would support the idea of a survey to some extent, Ben is right in arguing it cannot be considered exhaustive or determinative because what students may demand in their answers to said survey might be identified by the SRC as unworkable within the law, within university policy, within Association policy etc. You elect your SRC to know the ins and outs of what is and what is not possible, and the way some things can be put into practice in the best possible way for students and some cannot.

The demands of the student body may be quite uneducated demands, because they don't have the time or inclination to research the issues. The NUS thing is a classic example- the amount of people who ask me why we're not in it and moan about not having some of the 'perks' they identify with carrying an NUS card is an issue that may crop up in such a survey. To go into SRC saying "people want TopShop cards so we'd better join" wouldn't make us good on representational issues. Controversial as it may sound, providing for the whims of every student is simply not always the best way to represent the student body : (

It could never be viewed as determinative for these reasons... it's not how the system works, or how it should work. We don't have a direct democracy. Because they don't work.

[hr]

"What I hanker for, of course, is to be put at the beck and call of some very important hush-hush sort of man who needs to be driven very fast in a long-nosed powerful car to mysterious destinations...But either this type of man is dying out- which I should deplore- or else, which is more likely, he does his own driving."

[Grandpa]

Quoting Laura from 16:24, 4th Dec 2005
I don't get this needing to ask every single student what they think about every single issue.

No, I said ask them what the issues are, not ask them about every single issue. That would do away with the SRC, I'm talking about a plan that makes the SRC so much more legit than having a bunch of people around a table who have no idea what the students think.

The point of having elections is that you elect people to positions who you trust to represent the student body on a particular area- the point of policies and pledges is that you vote to elect someone who you think can do the job in the best way to represent you, you give them a mandate to do what they stated they would on their publicity and you have contact details for them if you have any particular concerns to be represented to the SRC or issues you need pointing in the right direction on.

Yes, I know that.

Now, let me ask you this...how many student non-representatives approached the SRC last year?

How many of those few requests actually had any progress?

I'm all up for transparency and accessibility, but what I am less up for is the SRC having to do a cross campus questionnaire on every issue that every member or officer brings to the table, or a referendum on every motion that comes to SRC. That would be missing the point of the electoral system, and the point of having an SRC altogether.

Well, not quite. I suggested, in my eagerness to come up with an example of a system that would be all encompassing, is that you could ask students about what they thought were relevant issues and/or what they of the issues that each representative had. But then again you are happy with a system that largely ignores students full stop, oh, apart from at election time.

Having said all that, having discussed a WebCT online survey thingy for something else entirely last night, I don't think it's an altogether bad idea that something along the lines of the survey given to SRC members during Summer was put online for people to answer. Putting out a paper version of this to seven thousand people would be completely unworkable, and leaving them about for people to answer never works that well.

Another example of a system that dearly wants to work, but fails. When were students told about this? Have you any idea of the number of online web ct surveys that actually get completed? If there was publicity, did it work? Did you get a larger return than expected? Or at least as great? What was the percentage of returns???

Can anyone answer any of these?

On the whole, the "I've never been asked what my thoughts are on anything" is a statement that expresses a lack of understanding of what the system is set up to do.

Again, like I was saying, the system as it is ignores what people think.

You don't elect reps to wander around town asking every bloody person what they should do about an issue or how they should vote on a motion- you elect them to act on the people who contact them's comments and their own instincts.

No, you elect reps to be representative - but we are at loggerheads here, can't you tell?

I think it's quite fun.

I think we should elect people to find out what students think, after all, it's their Union - they should have a direct say in what stuff it does.

Anything else is a poor excuse for representation.

The SRC shouldn't be coming out to students to see what their views are,

No! Cerainly not. Let's Ignore the students, stuff what they say, our personal agendas are so much more important.

students should be going to it to express them.

Yes, er, Laura....they don't, on the whole, actually know what goes on at SRC meetings, and as a member of that body it is your collective responsibility to get out there and actually let people know who you guys are and what you do. A lot of people are apathetic about the whole thing...because no-one bothers to ask them what they think.

As has been said on another similar Grandpa thread- when the SRC has attempted to make itself more accessible to students in the past by touring its meetings, turnout wasn't better than it is in the Committee Room.

The SRC has tried to reach people in the past, and failed...So why be scared/against trying something else? Certiainly you tried things before, but they did not work, so try things again, but try different ones.



[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Grandpa]

Quoting The Chap from 17:58, 4th Dec 2005
"Your continuous mention or hinting towards your age difference as some sort of hallmark of the validity and strength of your viewpoints is remarkably immature; right up there with the "my Dad's bigger than your Dad," school of arguement.
Still, since we're being childish, here's some silliness I just rustled up....

G geriatric
R rambling
A arsehole
M making
P pathetic
A arguements

Firstly, having seen how 'immature' I can be and stooping to my level, you are quite as bad, if not worse than I for having done so.

If I were immature, in comparison to you, you would never have dared that little humourous stunt.

Having said that, yes, I shall not, on this occassion stoop to what has now been claimed your level of operation - by none other than yourself.

Better luck next time - but there probably won't be one.



[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[Grandpa]

Quoting Laura from 18:34, 4th Dec 2005

People elected to the SRC represent specific areas and therefore do research into these areas, sometimes understanding more about specific policies and being able to give a more educated view on them than the average student. This is simply because being in the job will push them into teaching themselves the structure of the association, the structure of the university, the way academic departments work, the way Scottish law works, the way students are represented on a national level etc- they naturally become, over a period of time, able to deal with problems that arise and have a better understanding of them than the people actually having the problems who have never taken an interest into student politics.

There's no reason why this cannot continue.

The reason I'm bothering to say this is that, if you did survey seven thousand students, what you would most probably end up with is the sort of stuff SRC reps are contacted about all the time- i.e, complaints about matriculation cards not being accepted as dicount cards everywhere so we should join the NUS, complaints about the differences in academic school policy and the problems it causes them, or the crapness of the library, or essay guidelines, or lecture timetables. Whilest[sic] I realise it is very helpful to the SRC to know all these things, and would support the idea of a survey to some extent, Ben is right in arguing it cannot be considered exhaustive or determinative because what students may demand in their answers to said survey might be identified by the SRC as unworkable within the law, within university policy, within Association policy etc. You elect your SRC to know the ins and outs of what is and what is not possible, and the way some things can be put into practice in the best possible way for students and some cannot.

The demands of the student body may be quite uneducated demands, because they don't have the time or inclination to research the issues. The NUS thing is a classic example- the amount of people who ask me why we're not in it and moan about not having some of the 'perks' they identify with carrying an NUS card is an issue that may crop up in such a survey. To go into SRC saying "people want TopShop cards so we'd better join" wouldn't make us good on representational issues. Controversial as it may sound, providing for the whims of every student is simply not always the best way to represent the student body : ([/quote]

When did I say it was? I only said that trying to would be a good step. But that's out of the question...as it seems.

Furthermore, I think you are right - you may get demands that are impossible to fulfill, however, you may also raise some other things that you or I have never even thought of. But what the heck, lets stay as we are and we'll never find out.

It could never be viewed as determinative for these reasons... it's not how the system works, or how it should work. We don't have a direct democracy. Because they don't work.

Whaaaat? I never said anything about a direct democracy. I said we need to address students more directly. Which we most certainly do not. I never said anything about some sort of direct democracy. However, you may have thought I did - but no, most things arive at a compromise

Taking into account your point on unfulfillable demands, the system I propose could still be determinative, and exhaustive. Apart from the issues that cannot be addressed, why should we not be concerned with what people really think and want? Your answer is to let them come to you...my reply: they never will, if you truly want to know what people are concerned about, then go and ask...otherwise, dilly dally and guess and fulfill personal agendas. It's worked till now, no reason it can't carry on doing so.




[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]