Jihad needs scientists

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 01 Mar 07 12:27:08 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

Sit on it and spin, ditz.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 01 Mar 07 12:34:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Each time you copy, the file has been in a writable mode.

Wrong. The host file has a snapshot taken of it. If large, it will
get read sequentially as the copy takes place. The TARGET file must
be "open" to be "created".

The original file is NOT EVER in "open" mode, and was not ever in a
"writable mode" during a simple copy function.

That is why any file which IS "open" and in write mode cannot be
accessed by any other user until said write has been performed, and
the file released.

Database "tables" are the exception, where the database engine
"opens" the table file, and allows what could be called a "co-edit"
session on the table. At that point, the lockout is at the "record"
level, and the same table line cannot be "co-edited", even though the
table itself can. That is all managed within the database engine,
however, not at the file level. This is why database hard drives can
become very fragmented. Tables get updated a couple kB or less at a
time. That makes for a very spotty file system (well, it used to)
NTFS changed all that, and Linux never suffered the problem.

Normal OS file rules prohibit file "co-edit" sessions.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 01 Mar 07 12:34:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Oh, definitely. We were on the mainframe world of timesharing
computing. It's requirements are very different from the small
computers you know about.

Bwuahahahahahahah! The bitGawd has spoken. Hilarious.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:57:17 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

I've got nine inches of serf to go up in your ass with, little girl.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:53:37 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is
turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed. Learn something for
once, will ya?

Fuck you. Like I said... MY BANK allows me to get the check if I
ASK FOR IT. So SHUT THE FUCK UP, you totally retarded twit!

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:53:37 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You said above that you do. Liar! (nothing new to see here folks,
move along)

Fuck you! I did NOT EVER say that I wrote checks at a store in

these forums EVER, you stupid fuck! I am not the only one you have
been arguing with, dipshit.

Put down the booze, and learn to read again.

No gas and electric, no grocery, no gas... no NOTHING. The only
check I write is to my landlord, you retarded fuck, and I never said
anything otherwise.

So fuck off!

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:25:44 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

Phil Carmody wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

snip blather

So his point wasn't worth getting.

Every time you touch a file it is written to.

Depends on the OS, dumbass.

Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.

Totally depends on the OS, dumbass, not to mention the underlying
file system.

Try again, dipshit.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 02:33:25 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.

The backup method I have been suggeting has no such problem. Making an
image of a drive does not risk changing its contents.

The guy is a fucking lunatic.

 

[Phil Carmody]

"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:

Phil Carmody wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

snip blather

i.e. you didn't understand.

So his point wasn't worth getting.

Every time you touch a file it is written to.

a) We weren't talking when you touch a file, assuming you know
what 'touch' is, which isn't likely given your general ignorance.
b) You're wrong, for one of the reasons explained clearly in the
'blather' that you didn't understand.

Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.

See 'b' above.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[Phil Carmody]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

What I suggested was a complete image of the
drive. This would store the times as they were at the time archive was
made and not change anything about any of them

Thank you for re-iterating that. Indeed, BAH's and unsettled
arguments, which I've been foolishly countering due to their
evident superficial flaws, are in fact completely irrelevant.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

Phil Carmody wrote:

"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:

Phil Carmody wrote:


kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:


ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

snip blather


i.e. you didn't understand.


So his point wasn't worth getting.

Every time you touch a file it is written to.


a) We weren't talking when you touch a file, assuming you know
what 'touch' is, which isn't likely given your general ignorance.
b) You're wrong, for one of the reasons explained clearly in the
'blather' that you didn't understand.


Touching a file is sufficient to introduce error.


See 'b' above.

Your blustering arrogance has no foundation. Too bad, you
do the verbiage so well.

 

In article <es829g$2hl$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <87fy8paqu8.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
ls -lu

I assume you had a point.

I think his point is that access time is part of the metadata
that accompanies the file.

It is not stored into the data part of the file. The file's sectors are
not rewritten so there is no change to that part. I believe that it is
the time you close the file and not the time you opened it that actually
ends up stored BTW. None of this matters to the backup method I
suggested.



So we have 3 cases:
- If it doesn't change the last-accessed time, then the "last-
accessed time" is in fact a falsity;
- If it changes the last-accessed time and stores the new access,
then the restored file will not be what it was a backup of;
- If it changes the last-accessed time but doesn't store the new
time, then the file in the backup is not identical to the
filesystem that it is a backup of.
All three of these are unsatisfactory. Therefore I contend that
this field is indeed not a useful field when it comes to considering
the behaviour of backups.

No, this is all silly. The backup I have been refering to is not cover in
the cases in your list. What I suggested was a complete image of the
drive.

That has the problem of also preserving the bad spots of the disk.
I'm assuming that you do want an image of the disk and not drive.

This would store the times as they were at the time archive was
made and not change anything about any of them

The only times that matter for backup are the time of creation and the
last modification. It doesn't matter when the last access happened.

You are in error. Last access is an important datum.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.2050cf07addd0e6298a031@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <0sccu2tencv0vqes1nru8uec7if9e8f4cm@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:02:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped
traveling.


Bullshit. My landlord gets a check, and his bank submits it to my
bank who has it ON FILE RIGHT NOW, I get an image of the check in my
mailed monthly statement, and can look up a full size image of all my
checks online.

Dumber-than-a-dim-bulb, you're wrong.

No. You are. I can even request the return of the check.

Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is
turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed.

This is the bug in the process, IMO. The process depends on the human,
who is scanning the physical paper, to destroy it.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <hpmfu2d1ci78p6oiku9qe8acr9p4u2tcc8@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:53:37 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Not if it's been cleared via "check 21". The check paper check is
turned into bits and the hard copy destroyed. Learn something for
once, will ya?



Fuck you. Like I said... MY BANK allows me to get the check if I
ASK FOR IT. So SHUT THE FUCK UP, you totally retarded twit!

Lots of pecker tracks in those two lines. You're going to need
to eat more protein.

So does mine but they are pressuring people to accept pictures
instead. The checks I send to my mother no longer come back
because her bank only does this stuff electronically now.
One presumes that her bank destorys the paper but I'm no longer
going to bet my checking account contents on that assumption.

/BAH

 

In article <es84ft$5ks$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <87y7mhb0fx.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[.... swapping ...]
Wrong. If it's not moved onto the swap medium, it's lost.
My kind of computing doesn't like losing data, yours might,
but as we know BAH computing is BAD computing.

This is almost exactly right. The write to the swap volume is only needed
if the page is dirty (ie: has been written to)

This is part of the "complex issues" skipped to keep the list short.

Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the
swap file?

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.2050c846d665a64098a02e@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <es6g5o$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.204fae3c3b2b61c298a019@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <es160h$8qk_005@s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

Doesn't that involve online-edness?

Likely. I don't know if there is a way around this.

The more I investigate, the more I'm finding that there is no way.
Depending on power and networks being up just to eat is not
my idea of self-sufficiency.


I smell a bad odour w.r.t.
PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering
financial data.

I've never seen any evidence of either, other than the billions
phishing attempts. ...just don't bite the bait!

Right. But if you're doing this paypal stuff for your financial
business, how in the hell are you going to distinguish between
fishing and acutal business? This is an area that nobody seems
to be addressing...at least I can't smell a whiff of it looking
at it from the outside.

Simple: If email is from PayPal it's a phishing attempt Email from
eBay has your username embedded in it (a simple mail filter puts
those phishing attempts where they belong).

[puzzled emoticon here] Why would phishes put my username
into the contents? It can't be that simple .

I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is
quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing.
They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't
like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been
imported from Viet Nam and Mexico.

Credit cards are likely the most secure, personally.

She has never had a credit card.

It's time to get her one.

How? You need credit to get credit.

Just make sure it's paid on time.

That's going to be the next problem as their ailing increases.
I've tried to convince her that paying some bills for the whole
year is the smartest thing to do but Dad is always nixing it
and she listens to him.

My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy
outright and have no information embeded that can tie the
transaction back to a personal bank account.

Watch out for the scam where the numbers are copied off the rack
where they're displayed.

I first have to find the rack. This would have been a job for
super-JMF to go hunting for me .

They have (or had at Christmas) them in the grocery stores here.

I'll look. It seems like you have to buy their personal cards
before you can do any monetary exchanges these days.

You might also try your bank for Cisa/MC logoed ones.

But those can be tied to the accounts in the bank. Aren't they?

I'm beginning to think that my approach is going to be the best
way. Dump some cash into the coffers of the biller twice a year.
That's what I'm doing at the moment and it seems to work for
everything but credit cards. Congress passed some law that
edicts any 6-month positive balance has to be sent back to
the credit card user.

Really?

Really. It's a fucking PITA because I have to wait for the bill
to come before I can pay it. The usual turnaround time is less
than 2 weeks which also includes the snail mail time.

I've had a positive balance on my corporate Amex for
years. Can't figure how to get rid of it.

Oh, now that's interesting. There must be a different set of
rules for business than for individuals.

Oh, and my water bill. Their software
can't handle funcking negative amounts; it drops the negative sign.


I can believe it. They likely think $0.00 is a positive balance
due too (queue story about the check written for $0.00 to pay the
$0.00 balance due, threatened with collections).

[stunned emoticon bursts out in unbelieving-but-believing laughter]
I wonder if the programmers coded on a 1620 with all the flags
removed.

Was their hardware the type that had negative zeroes?

I will have to commit a miracle to convince my mother to pay
ahead, though.

I think a payment from an account set up specifically for the
purpose would be good enough.

Not yet. Dad recently allowed automatic deposits to happen.
It is so much easier to herd cats.

/BAH

 

In article <PSDFh.4217$854.1426@trnddc04>,
"John Barrett" <ke5crp1@verizon.net> wrote:

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.2050c846d665a64098a02e@news.individual.net...
In article <es6g5o$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.204fae3c3b2b61c298a019@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <es160h$8qk_005@s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <erul1i$8qk_008@s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

So far, I haven't been
able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will
be able to use.

How about PayPal, or the equivalent?

Doesn't that involve online-edness?

Likely. I don't know if there is a way around this.

The more I investigate, the more I'm finding that there is no way.
Depending on power and networks being up just to eat is not
my idea of self-sufficiency.


I smell a bad odour w.r.t.
PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering
financial data.

I've never seen any evidence of either, other than the billions
phishing attempts. ...just don't bite the bait!

Right. But if you're doing this paypal stuff for your financial
business, how in the hell are you going to distinguish between
fishing and acutal business? This is an area that nobody seems
to be addressing...at least I can't smell a whiff of it looking
at it from the outside.

Simple: If email is from PayPal it's a phishing attempt Email from
eBay has your username embedded in it (a simple mail filter puts
those phishing attempts where they belong).

I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is
quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing.
They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't
like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been
imported from Viet Nam and Mexico.

Credit cards are likely the most secure, personally.

She has never had a credit card.

It's time to get her one. Just make sure it's paid on time.

My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy
outright and have no information embeded that can tie the
transaction back to a personal bank account.

Watch out for the scam where the numbers are copied off the rack
where they're displayed.

I first have to find the rack. This would have been a job for
super-JMF to go hunting for me .

They have (or had at Christmas) them in the grocery stores here.
You might also try your bank for Cisa/MC logoed ones.

I'm beginning to think that my approach is going to be the best
way. Dump some cash into the coffers of the biller twice a year.
That's what I'm doing at the moment and it seems to work for
everything but credit cards. Congress passed some law that
edicts any 6-month positive balance has to be sent back to
the credit card user.

Really? I've had a positive balance on my corporate Amex for
years. Can't figure how to get rid of it.

Oh, and my water bill. Their software
can't handle funcking negative amounts; it drops the negative sign.


I can believe it. They likely think $0.00 is a positive balance
due too (queue story about the check written for $0.00 to pay the
$0.00 balance due, threatened with collections).

I will have to commit a miracle to convince my mother to pay
ahead, though.

I think a payment from an account set up specifically for the
purpose would be good enough.

--
Keith

Most banks offer visa debit cards tied directly to the account,

Until I can set limits, this is 100% unacceptable.

most
utilities will auctomatically debit a bank account via EFT/ACH, or will link
to the bank debit card, banks offer free automatic bill pay so you can set
up recurring fixed payments (I use that for my rent and student loan), and
with direct deposit, I know the cash will be in the account to cover the
bills without my having to worry about it

I havent written a check in 10 years or more... I dont order checks when I
open a new account ... I do it all electronic, and I have a paper trail
every time I use my card because I keep reciepts (you can still keep a check
register if you like -- probably a good idea actually -- since the card is
electroncally no different than a check -- there must be cash in the account
!!)

Someone tries to forge a check on my account -- I can show clearly that I
have every check in my possesion that the bank ever issued to me, and that I
have never ordered checks for the account...

You can order checks from Current; your strategy isn't sound. There's
a bug of omission in it.

makes check fraud kinda obvious
And the bank offers fraud protection for misuse of the card so I'm
covered that way

Which you have to pay for. Why do I have to pay my month's grocery
money to "protect" myself from their lack of coding sanity checks?

This is also unacceptable. I'm slowing nudging the banks to include
sanity checks of _my_ specs, not theirs.

Your bank representative should be happy to help you set all this up without
you having to have a computer at home or an internet account -- there have
been a couple of times I've been in a crunch and used the computers at a
bank branch to get online and make a change or a funds transfer -- no sweat
at all -- I bank with washington mutual -- you go into a branch and its not
at all like the usual bank -- just a bunch of computers and a couple of
ATM-like cash dispensing machines -- you talk to the agent -- they key the
data and had you a reciept with a code -- you go to the machine, key the
code and get cash

its all electronic at some point no matter what you do -- might as well go
electronic all the way.

I want a human watch dog guarding the bank gates. There is
a short list of people you groom and be kind to. Your secretary,
your car doctor, and your bank teller.

/BAH

 

In article <es6qts$kgg$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <es6ggr$8qk_003@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es45pa$fiu$4@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[.....]
If it's a rumor, then the experts believe it, too.

That happens all the time. Lots of people get fooled by good sounding
stuff that they have never really experimented on.

This radio station has experts who know the subject. For example,
and IRS person is on for shows about income taxes. A lawyer for
estate planning. A doctor for medical subjects. Computer geeks
for computer usages. And the people are local which means the
people know each other. This station does a lot of shows
with the retire auld farts in mind. There still is a Santa
Claus in some areas of the US.

If you had google, I'd suggest you google on "N rays"

Why are you rejecting the fact that a radio station has experts
on their shows to give the local audience the services they need?

*** begin insert ***
RenĂŠ Prosper Blondlot (1849-1930) was a French physicist who claimed to
have discovered a new type of radiation, shortly after Roentgen had
discovered X-rays. He called it the N-ray, after Nancy, the name of the
town and the university where he lived and worked. Blondlot was trying to
polarize X-rays when he claimed to have discovered his new form of
radiation. Dozens of other scientists confirmed the existence of N-rays in
their own laboratories. However, N-rays don't exist. How could so many
scientists be wrong? They deceived themselves into thinking they were
seeing something when in fact they were not. They saw what they wanted to
see with their instruments, not what was actually there (or, in this case,
what was not there
**********

This sort of thing goes on all the time. Even experts have biases and
fool themselves all the time.

So you are claiming that the tax lawyers on that show, whose
expertise is almost exclusively for the aged, does not know
anything about social security and the latest changes? Are
you claiming, with no evidence since you haven't listened to
any of those shows, that the computer geeks who answer questions
don't know anything about computer systems?


<snip attempt to smoke and mirror the thread>

This is a perfect example of your attitude in reading what I
write. You start out with the premise that anything I write
is 100% wrong and continue from there.

The example that started this thread drift was the local
problem of crooks "stealing" signatures off checks. I still
don't understand exactly how this is done nor how the
new kind of pen prevents it. The police are involved and
the radio station has given people
ways to prevent this from happening. This is what the station
does. And everybody listens to them; it's good radio business
to cater to your customers.

/BAH

 

In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet?

This is what happens when you free the serfs.

Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best
use of those other fluids.

/BAH

 

In article <es6rgr$kgg$6@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <es6h92$8qk_001@s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <es5i08$ujr$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
The "in a writable mode" makes this a very different statement.

Each time you copy, the file has been in a writable mode.

The output side must be writable but not the input side. This means that
there may be an error in the copy you make but you don't change the source
file.

Which file will be restored? Not the original. Our distribution
tapes had copies of the originals.

When the copy process does the verify, the error will almost
certainly be detected.

You also keep assuming that only hardware errors happen and that
all hardware errors are detected and that those, which are
detected, will be reported.

Honey, you are not paranoid enough.

[.....]
That is a case where the file has been modified not merely opened for
reading.

Has the date changed? Then some part of the overhead of the
file has changed. If you are saving this file to a backup tape,
you are writing that file to another device. If you have
an OS that keeps track of written blocks, then the list of
those blocks can be changed, especially if a bad spot forms
on the device.

This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we
were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always
done.

No, it is not. Verifying requires a second "save" to occur.
Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified
in one night. Nowadays you have disks that have capacities
in the giga-thingies.

Those are only a few of the things that can go wrong. There
is always the midnight editor. On a network? There are lots
of opportunities to get a file modified without your knowledge.

None of this changes the fact that you mixed up back up, restore and
repair. The whole reason you do a back up is because files can be changed
when they shouldn't. This is not a question we have been arguing.

I have, almost consistently, been talking about files disappearing.
Plus all the things that can go wrong along the way.

"Reliable" systems are defined by a threshold in the number
of errors/some_number of operations. But you knew that, no?

Yes, I knew that but it appears that BAH doesn't understand about the
difference between making a back up, doing a restore and repairing damage.

I do. I simply posed the situation where the problem that caused the
mess is also on the backup. Doing a restore will restore the
mess maker.

As I pointed out, this is exactly what a restore would do. It puts the
files back as they were on some date in the past. If the files are not
right on that date, those incorrect files are exactly what you want a
backup to have on it. You have mixed up the question with one of repair.
That is a different topic.

If you are restoring the virus that is causing you to rebuild your
system, you will be rebuiling your computer system over and
over and all over again. You will never, ever, get out of
restore mode until you stop restoring the virus (a.k.a. the mess
maker).

/BAH



>