It is fine for jeremypwr, DeathAngel, DireWolfM14 and users who are wearing sportsbet/bitcasino signatures. Eventually all of these users are shilling for the same employer to secure their weekly payments.

I am sorry, please allow PM from newbies in pam_alt_ account. It's sad to see everyone is busy with CH now. All off topic!

For the users who are still trusting LFC_bitcoin:

1. kingcolex (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (248 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. peloso (Trust: +2 / =3 / -3) (171 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. bitserve (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (922 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. TMAN (Trust: +28 / =0 / -1) (1305 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. Searing (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (323 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. Timelord2067 (Trust: +8 / =6 / -0) (470 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. jeremypwr (Trust: +18 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (1) 428 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Swordsoffreedom (Trust: neutral) (74 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. Globb0 (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (867 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. SiNeReiNZzz (Trust: neutral) (55 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. JayJuanGee (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 2029 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. bitebits (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (505 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. owlcatz (Trust: +48 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (20) 364 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. examplens (Trust: +2 / =3 / -0) (244 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. nutildah (Trust: +8 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (11) 2506 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. Joca97 (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. Fakhoury (Trust: +5 / =0 / -2) (23 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. SyGambler (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (665 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. psycodad (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (228 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. bones261 (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (823 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. Last of the V8s (Trust: +8 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (0) 3406 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. DeathAngel (Trust: neutral) (301 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. bob123 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (6) 1657 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. eddie13 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 992 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. BitcoinGirl.Club (Trust: +1 / =1 / -5) (730 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. Hhampuz (Trust: +85 / =3 / -0) (2128 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. buwaytress (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (861 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. Csmiami (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (342 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. JollyGood (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (703 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. CryptopreneurBrainboss (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (1391 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. El duderino_ (Trust: +24 / =1 / -0) (3871 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32. kenzawak (Trust: +0 / =1 / -13) (841 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
33. Don Pedro Dinero (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (188 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. o_e_l_e_o (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (4583 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
35. Kylapoiss (Trust: neutral) (187 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
36. fillippone (Trust: +10 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (14) 3762 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37. DireWolfM14 (Trust: +19 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1832 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
38. Harkorede (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (417 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
39. twiki (Trust: neutral) (4 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
40. MisterBitconio (Trust: neutral) (4 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trusting a shill who has no moral is any good for the community? There are some interesting actions came from him.
"He distrust users who distrust him"
"Miss representation of the PM sent from his pals"
"He never received money from sportsbet"
"He never asked bitcoingril to oppose flag"
"Added then removed then added again a questionable user in the trust list"
"He blindly backs his employer and asks others to do the same"

If I give this guy 0.02 BTC a week which is 0.002 BTC more than his current employer for the next few months or years then slowly he will start backing my action too 
You still think this guy cares about the community? He cares more about his employers. Your trust inclusion is his strength to benefit his employers not the community.

https://prnt.sc/tswrv9
could you oppose these false flags these ass hats have done against sportsbet, would help them.






https://prnt.sc/tsws74
Just to let you know suchmoon & nutildah have got my back, they've been PM'ing me all day.




https://prnt.sc/tswslg
makes me look like a shill



Paying over $200 per week for shilling is working just fine.
Suchmoon & nutildah was able to change the direction of the topic.
Most users in bitcoin forum are only signature honeybees.


Sorry BitcoinGirl.Club for all inconvenience. My goal was not to do any damage. Password sent to your PM.

Until next time!

Thanks bro BitcoinGirl.Club!
You really need to ship this T-shirt 


https://streamable.com/7w307k

https://prnt.sc/tswrv9
https://prnt.sc/tsws00
https://prnt.sc/tsws74
https://prnt.sc/tswsar
https://prnt.sc/tswslg
https://prnt.sc/tswss2


Good bye.

I do not see how this is connected with asking LFC_bitcoin to publish his PM. Give me a solid reason please.

I already gave my explanation of taking this path of staying anonymous.

Nothing here to make conversation. It is when they become reputed they think the community owe them. Don't you see how you, LFC are treating me with your offensive words? I apologize for using big ass words.

You easily made this justification but don't find anything wrong with LFC_bitcoin even with the evidences. post 1 post 2

Everything is looking fine in your judgement because LFC_bitcoin is a reputed member and this is an account with no history even when references are attached against LFC_bitcoins recent activities. You can simply ask him and BitcoinGirl to be transparent without making this conversation any longer. Buy you won't because you feel an alt account is demanding you. This proves the Ego you built up over the years and perhaps you consider the community owe you.

Fine, I will ask LFC_bitcoin and BitcoinGirl.

They will easily say it to me but not you and other reputed users.

This is the problem with this community. Ego!
When accounts are established they think community owe them and is correct whatever they say. They become so fat with Ego that when a low rank account wants to justify anything they simply hammer them with their big ass.


Why would you think so? Because this is a low value account?

I do not know if LFC is trying to censor anything in here but moves coming from LFC and the other facts are not very good to believe that he said to take a look. He defiantly said to Oppose the flag and said it to some selective friends and dealt in private.

If LFC and some other reputed members are not giving me any value of my words then why Bitcoingirl.club will? May be some of your reputed members can request both LFC and Bitcoingirl.club to share the exact messages.

Why make it private while we already have an open thread for asking support or oppose a flag? Why to some selective friends but not to general to everyone?

Can we ask LFC_bitcoin, BitcoinGirl to share the message, BitcoinGirl already talked about receiving PM and LFC_bitcoin admitted of sending PMs to some users.
We are interested to know what was in there that bought oppose to the flag from people who had no contribution in the topic but opposed the flag? We want to be sure that LFC_bitcoin did not tell them anything that create an alert but "take a look at the flag".

Or we just believe LFC_bitcoin and BitcoinGirl that LFC_bitcoin said, "take a look at the flag" like we believe that SP is a highly reputed sportsbet and they will not scam anyone. This will be ironic.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5486/54869057.html
Then why BitcoinGirl was saying about opposing the flag?

How it is nonsense?

The two methods are not looking same.

Not perfectly fine because he was asking to oppose the flag. Read the response his Wall Observer friend which he cut off.
Why he cut off something if there were no reason?

A user with no record of feedback activity but only one sent to SB and member rank with no interest in the forum who has not made any reputation is very close to newbie account, even if that was a Full member account.

You did not think but caught red handed.

> 7/24/2020 9:34:05 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts rohang DT2
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5264620.msg54873718#msg54873718
> 7/26/2020 1:54:07 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 no longer trusts rohang
https://bpip.org/TrustLog

Your arguments are very fake.
> You sent PM to your friends and asked to oppose a flag to save your employer
> You added users with no history to your trust list so that their feedback show as DT and reflects on the flag opposition

Clear?

Surprised to know your level of intellectual and defending methods but Good laugh LAMO

I see your being humiliated here not efialtis.

I do not think he will. He proved he has very low level of IQ and a pathetic liar. Better ask BitcoinGirl. I hope he will co-operate, he immediately addressed his mistake and apologized to efialtis.

Except he asked to oppose the flag to save his employer again please see the response from his friend which he cut off. I am sure that will be an issue for you. Thank you for your input.

I am very sure that LFC_bitcoin is a liar and lying:

Can you ask BitcoinGirl, El duderino_ and others those oppose the flag and working for SP and Bitcasino?

You did not ask them to oppose the flag? Be honest. We have screenshot to prove which will make your situation worse.

Asking them to oppose the flag is helping them to decide their action. This is untrustworthy, this is called manipulating.

So you are denying that LFC_bitcoin did not PM you and you did not see an opportunity to be included in his trust list?
https://bpip.org/TrustLog
https://prnt.sc/toyf4g

May be because of my alt account you are not taking my posts in account and missing information. I hope I posted it from my main account but sorry I have my reasons to have this alt account anonymous.


In Wall Observer LFC_Bitcoin, El duderino_ are very close friends. Here you will find the other guy - BitcoinGirl, in the post he confessed that he received PM and the edited post (cut off part) clearly had LFC_bitcoin asking to oppose the flag. efialtis has screenshot available.

Look up post history of rdbase and see some of his posts. LFC_bitcoin knows he is a benefit seeker from sportsbet.io. See the thread he manages for sportsbet.io although they do not pay him. Plus rdbase is also fairly close to LFC_bitcoin in Wall Observer.

So El duderino_ does not have a paid signature but good guy can not deny the request from his friend.
rdbase saw an opportunity to gain some trust and accepted the bait from LFC_bitcoin and it worked. https://bpip.org/TrustLog
The other guy possibly could not connected his reasonings with LFC_bitcoin although they are good friends so he wanted to stay neutral but made the mistake of mentioning his friends in his innocent post.

DireWolfM14 may have some sense of humor but possibly he is sold because of the weekly payment he receives from SB so he really needed to save his ass by opposing the flag. Plus, this is very much possible that LFC_bitcoin sent him PM to support sportsbet.io

The rest other guys are clearly no way weight any value, they are fake users and not bringing any value to the forum except milking from signature campaign of sportsbet.io and bitcasino (both are same company), check their post history if you do not believe me. It was not very hard for LFC_bitcoin to convince them to oppose the flag by the PM he sent to them.

Ask LFC_bitcoin about how many PMs he sent to oppose the flag although I doubt he will tell you the truth.

May be the victim guy made mistake by creating type 3. One could suggest him to create flag 2. This way we do not see members are arguing with the wording of a flag instead of supporting or opposing it. First time I saw a clear mention of correct flag type.

Because you are making sure that the opposed users stay in DT or become DT to look this/these flag/s bad. More...

And every time you will find LFC_Bitcoin takes action after his competition makes a selection or deselection. And lots of new entrusts from LFC_Bitcoin only who are opposing this flag or already opposed the flag. Timestamp makes it very clear.

After reading some responses I found out that I have offended some users with my initial post. I apologize. My goal was to present things sarcastically and get attention from the mentioned users. I did not mean to offend anyone except some shills. I updated my original post and I hope this is fine now.

A clean version is below,



flag=2161
LFC_Bitcoin is manipulating others with his PMs and DT position. Is this only for 0.018 BTC a week?

I would like Suchmoon, LoyceV, Lauda, Jollygood, hilariousandco, The Pharmacist, Avirunes, owlcatz, Lutpin, TheUltraElite, Hhampuz,  teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, TalkStar, YOSHIE, Yahoo, Little Mouse, Steamtyme, logfiles, ScamViruS, big_daddy, bL4nkcode, lovesmayfamilis, cryptoaddictchie, witcher_sense, notblox1, Alex_Sr  and all those good forum users  to look at the case we have here.

I wish marlboroza was online.



Thank you marlboroza, good to see you online and back to action.

flag=2161
Opposition: LFC_Bitcoin, swogerino, DeathAngel, kryptqnick, rdbase, El duderino_, DireWolfM14, rohang

Interesting facts: But first some references
> DeathAngel is in bitcasino
> swogerino is in sportsbet.io
> kryptqnick is in sportsbet.io
> DireWolfM14 is in sportsbet.io
> rdbase is a heavy shill of sportsbet.io https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208617.0, Wall Observer friend of LFC_Bitcoin most possibly received a PM to oppose the flag
> El duderino_ is very close Wall Observer friend of LFC_Bitcoin opposed the flag right after receiving the PM from his friend.
>There is another one who supported but then removed the flag. He is also very close friend to LFC_Bitcoin. Proof will be given if necessary.
> rohang is a noob account who claims that he won 1 BTC and some other winnings.


7/24/2020 9:34:05 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts rohang DT2
7/25/2020 8:21:45 AM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts swogerino DT2
7/25/2020 8:21:45 AM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts kryptqnick DT2
7/25/2020 4:57:22 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts rdbase DT2
https://bpip.org/TrustLog


Fact 1: LFC_Bitcoin is adding useless users in the DT system even noobs like rohang. In other words DT manipulating
Fact 2: LFC_Bitcoin is PMing his close circles to oppose the flag.
Fact 3: Except El duderino_ and rdbase, all these users are directly benefiting financially from the company sportsbet

Summary:
LFC_Bitcoin is doing this to make his DT network stronger with these users so that the oppose gets stronger against the flag and save sportsbet.
LFC_Bitcoin, DireWolfM14, DeathAngel, swogerino are shamelessly protecting sportsbet.io for their own interest, receiving weekly payment from signature campaign.
LFC_Bitcoin and his gang already gave the impression^* to this flag that there are a lot of DT members already opposed this flag so with a quick view anyone will assume that this is not a valid flag so move on.

Is this fair play and the forum environment allows it?

^*

I am so much surprised to see users are watching the recent accusation against sportsbet.io but not saying words. Clearly they are avoiding this case so that they do not lose their chances to receive possible favours from well established casino. Favours such as invitation for watching football match, receiving t-shirts, football, free bets etc. May be they will lose the chances of joining the signature campaigns which are paying 0.01 and 0.018 BTC a week, it's good to have back up plan even if one is in the highest paying campaign right now. I saw users who are advertising sportsbet and bitcasino in their signature are opposing the flag so that they can save their employers ass. Signature spammers like swogerino, DeathAngel are prime example. I looked through DeathAngel's post history. Feel free to have a look and bring a useful post that he made to benefit the community in a long time. Look through their trust page, you will find how shamelessly they are shilling sportsbet and bitcasino with the feedback they left for them. Even some of the Wall Observer friends who do not have any interest on the case but opposing the flag just because their friend sent them PM to oppose it. flag=2161.

LFC_Bitcoin is manipulating others with his PMs and DT position. Is this only for 0.018 BTC a week?

I wonder if Suchmoon, LoyceV, Lauda, Jollygood, hilariousandco, The Pharmacist, Avirunes, owlcatz, Lutpin, TheUltraElite, Hhampuz,  teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, TalkStar, YOSHIE, Yahoo, Little Mouse, Steamtyme, logfiles, ScamViruS, big_daddy, bL4nkcode, lovesmayfamilis, cryptoaddictchie, witcher_sense, notblox1, Alex_Sr  and all those scam hunters has received the same PM or may be a different one with the request that please do not say a word to this case because sportsbet is a multi millionaire company and today or tomorrow you will have a benefit.

I wish marlboroza was online.

This case is saying a lot about the motivation the users has who spend their time in this community. Very few are volunteering their time, majority are here to make as much money as they can. This is a shame for Bitcointalk community.

You are all wrong in your guesses. Did you miss some more?  

Anyway, actmyname and LoyceV already gave some fine response here. These days were gone when we used to wait for someone to be on DT and then starts talking about their feedback ratings especially from the users who received the reds. The new dynamic DT system allows anyone to be on the DT with just one inclusion by a DT1 and every month we are seeing DT1 users are rotating randomly.

Lauda's feedback really needs some attention since she still has a lot of people who have her in their trust lists (Both entrust and distrust). And I have this feeling that most of the inclusion and exclusions are based on her past good time and long term users in the forum. Some people think, including Lauda in their trust system will save the forum from the scammers who she tagged.


She seems to have her own theory when she leaves the feedback. Now should we all have different theories to tag the people who we do not like? This is going to create a mess.

Lauda left 5050¹ feedback for forum users and most of them are Reds. Someone left 5k+ feedback defiantly deserves appreciation. This gives immense respect towards a user.

No problem with the respect she earns but should we leave all these feedback left by Lauda only? Can't we have more DT members tagging those users? I get it that it's a huge job but this is also truth that if Lauda is out from DT then the real scammers get the tickets because the feedback will not reflect in their trust page.

Besides Lauda also get this monopoly unannounced power that for her work people will keep her in their trust list and she will feel so satisfied that she will not notice her mistakes which will eventually lead her to leave wrong feedback. Too much power is not good. It make things centralized.

In fact we are seeing some² controversial feedback coming from her. In some cases she even do not care to start false argument with other users. An example:
It was about if the word "pajeet" is racist or not. Lauda has to deny it that it's not resist or her support for some users who she favors will be weaken. There are many more examples can be given where Lauda blatantly changing the direction of a topic just to deny that she is wrong. But still we see a lot of DT trust her judgement.  

Do we have this in mind that distrusting her will give open ticket to some of the scammers?

---

Let's have a look on some of the recent feedback she lefts for users^3/4.
For TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53919541#msg53919541 Wrong use of trust feedback system Feedback system is not here to stop people to talk.

For andulolika reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231508.msg53994888#msg53994888 Wrong use of trust feedback system Tagging people because they leave open opinion which she does not like.

For KawBet reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230966.msg53977918#msg53977918 Tagged in a gray area.
 
For user jbreher reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2399315.msg24699396#msg24699396 Wrong use of trust feedback system Tagged because the user has different view about Bcash/BSV.

For user savetheFORUM reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230557.msg53967974#msg53967974 One can have alt account. Tagging them for defamation and attacks (even if they do), is not valid use of trust of course.

For user l19765 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230268.msg53960824#msg53960824 I may not tag a user because of sending me PM but I will not see it's wrong to tag as well. Possibly it's a good feedback considering the user is newbie.

For user kolonel_x reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229738.msg53946506#msg53946506 A valid feedback. Connection looks good.

For user watergold reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229738.msg53946506#msg53946506 A valid feedback. Connection looks good.

Flag created for mich reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1417
Flag created for domsch reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1416
I am not sure about the cases as I did not see them deep so I will ignore these two.

For user hacker1001101001 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53934003#msg53934003 very funny reason. Does not look a good use of trust system. It's an attempt to stop those who speak against her.

For user bonesjonesreturns reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.msg53931673#msg53931673 She thinks like that hence she tagged but this should not be the good use of trust system.

For user joksim299 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=926825.msg12889870#msg12889870 I will agree since the lender is not around.

For user Leonard2016 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3282826.msg34229263#msg34229263 considering the shady practice I will agree with this tag

Flag for poochpocket reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413
Flag for hacker1001101001 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412
Even if they are connected still leaving red does not look good. These flags are more like the personal conflict between two users.

Another tag for TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228504.msg53927419#msg53927419 result of personal conflict between these two users.

RapTarX and Little Mouse
Accounts connected: Little Mouse (UUID = 2344286), RapTarX (UUID = 2530429).
Deception. Multi-accounting. One of two accounts is either farmed up or the result of account trading.
Reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228825.msg53921446#msg53921446
Even if they are connected but still very much harsh to tag these accounts.

For user allahabadi reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227531.msg53907095#msg53907095 She tagged the user because she did not like the way the user talked to her (it seems)

Flag and tag for Bitcoin.Gold
Tag reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228799
Flag reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1408
I will keep gray area in this project

Another tag for TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228550.new#new this seems she likes to tag TECSHARE for anything he talks against her. Totally idiotic move from Lauda.

For user Kalemder reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837 Even if they do which goes with distrusting them but we can not leave tag for it.

---

There are 25 entries which are taken in considerations and out of 25 I have:
16 wrong tag
04 right tag
03 gray area which means I can not agree or disagree
02 Out of my scope. Need more research.

This means 16 out of 25 tags are very questionable and that's 64% of the feedback she left are questionable. In other words, it's wrong/harsh/personal conflict. And still a lot of us have her in our entrust list. Shouldn't we reconsider our reasons of entrusting her?

Let's be fair. I will invite few DT members or somehow reputed members to review the above 25 feedback and
a) If your discovery are same as me, meaning more feedback are controversial than proper use of the system then do ~Lauda
b) If you find majority of her feedback are good then do entrust her.

We can do the review, can't we? Let's take some responsibility in our shoulder instead of letting her to do most of the things (Tagging users).

Otherwise it will be sad to see the response like The Pharmacist made which is below:
Giving an opinion like this does not do anything for the community.

---

¹ Please do some +/- it's not a big deal to have the accurate number  
² May be not some but more and more
³ I tried to archive using LoyceV's tool but not sure if I have done it correctly. I will use an screenshot for backup. This screenshot has her latest 50 sent feedback.
⁴ We are considering top 25 feedback to find a conclusion. It's not possible to review all the feedback in this topic but it's a start after all.

LoyceClubArchive https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872;page=sent;offset=0

If I have the access of my main account then I would of course (the coward things was a sarcasm by the way, there are no blacklisting or such thing.). I can assure you that there are no sinister motive. I am talking because I feel like it's need to be talked and anyone can take my move from any dimension.

I have no financial interest here but anything to care about the forum affairs which looks wrong.