62
   

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:55 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
That's false
No thats true. An American is one who lives in the Americas.

When have you ever let facts stop you ?

Quote:
you don't get to shoot up innocent civilians.
If they are half as psychotic as you they will be better off dead.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:58 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
It seems that there is a need for basic training in lies for grunts.
We are clearly not up to your standard if that was your point.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:07 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
No thats true. An American is one who lives in the Americas.



===================
Definition of AMERICAN


3
: a citizen of the United States

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/american

=================

Definition
American noun /əˈmer.ɪ.kən/ [C]
someone from the US
He said he was proud to be an American.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/american_2

=====================

A·mer·i·can

NOUN:

A citizen of the United States.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/American

==================

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:14 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Definition of AMERICAN
3: a citizen of the United States
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/american


Shall we use your reference ?

1: an American Indian of North America or South America
2: a native or inhabitant of North America or South America

You have never been clever but you seem to be getting worse. Have you considered changing your medication ?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:21 am
@Ionus,
Go ahead, use any reference you want, Ianus.

My comment was

"Foofie is an American".

The meaning was clear and indistinguishable from,

"Foofie is a citizen of the United States".

The dictionaries show that to be the case.

You headed off on one of your inane tangents that had no connection to the issue at hand.

Was this another one of your lies or just plain stupidity?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:44 am
@JTT,
Are you stone stupid ?

In YOUR reference, the FIRST definition for an American is a NATIVE. The SECOND is an inhabitant of NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.

Your ref further goes into a citizen of the United States....which United States ? The United States of Malaysia ? The United States of Soviet Russia ? In your ignorance you are unaware of the number of countries that have United States as part of their name, and even more have it as a part of their government. The United States of Germany, whilst not used, is an accurate description as would be the United States of Australia or Cananda.

There are too many assumptions for someone who is criticising the difference between a Jew and an Israeli.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:58 am
@Ionus,
I can't help it if your ignorance or your isolation prevents you from understanding idiomatic English.

Google exact phrase search - "Obama is an American"
About 1,470,000 results

Here's an article by John Pilger that you might find interesting. He recounts the war crimes, the brutality, the wasted lives; all because of an American invasion of an innocent country that wanted nothing more than its independence.

Quote:
Vietnam: the last battle. John Pilger reports from Saigon
2 December 2010

The rain sheeted down, time washed away. I looked down from the rooftop in Saigon where, more than a generation ago, in the wake of the longest war of modern times, I had watched silent, sullen streets awash. The foreigners were gone, at last. Through the mist, like little phantoms, four children ran into view, their arms outstretched. They circled and weaved and dived; and one of them fell down, feigning death. They were bombers.

This was not unusual, for there is no place like Vietnam. Within my lifetime, Ho Chi Minh’s nationalists had fought and expelled the French, whose tree-lined boulevards, pink-washed villas and scaled-down replica of the Paris Opera, were facades for plunder and cruelty; then the Japanese, with whom the French colons collaborated; then the British who sought to reinstall the French; then the Americans, with whom Ho had repeatedly tried to forge an alliance against China; then Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, who attacked from the west; and finally the Chinese who, with a vengeful nod from Washington, came down from the north. All of them were seen off at immeasurable cost.

I walked down into the rain and followed the children through a labyrinth to the Young Flower School, an orphanage. A teacher hurriedly assembled a small choir and I was greeted with a burst of singing. “What are the words of the song?” I asked Tran, whose father was a GI. He looked gravely at the floor, as nine year olds do, before reciting words that left my interpreter shaking her head. “Planes come no more”, she repeated, “do not weep for those just born … the human being is evergreen.”

The year was 1978. Vietnam was then being punished for seeing off the last American helicopter gunship, the war’s creation, the last B52 with its ladders of bombs silhouetted against the flash of their carnage, the last C-130s that had dumped, the US Senate was told, “a quantity of toxic chemical amounting to six pounds per head of population, destroying much of the ecosystem and causing a “foetal catastrophe”, the last of a psychosis that made village after village a murder scene.

And when it was all over on May Day, 1975, Hollywood began its long celebration of the invaders as victims, the standard purgative, while revenge was policy. Vietnam was classified as “Category Z” in Washington, which imposed the draconian Trading with the Enemy Act from the first world war. This ensured that even Oxfam America was barred from sending humanitarian aid. Allies pitched in. One of Margaret Thatcher’s first acts on coming to power in 1979 was to persuade the European Community to halt its regular shipments of food and milk to Vietnamese children. According to the World Health Organisation, a third of all infants under five so deteriorated following the milk ban that the majority of them were stunted or likely to be. Almost none of this was news in the west.

Austerity, grief at the millions dead or missing and an incredulity that the war was no more became the rhythms of life in a forgotten country. The “democracy” the Americans had invented and life-supported in the south, which once accounted for half of Amnesty’s worldwide toll of tortured political prisoners, had collapsed almost overnight. The roads out of Saigon became vistas of abandoned boots and uniforms. “When I heard that it was over,” said Thieu Thi Tao Madeleine, “my heart flies.”

Still wearing the black of the National Liberation Front, which the Americans called the Vietcong, she walked with a limp and winced as she smiled. The “Madeleine” was added by her French teachers at the Lycee in Saigon which she and her sister Thieu Thi Tan Danielle had attended in the sixties. Aged 16 and 13, “Mado” and “Dany” were recruited by the NLF to blow up the Saigon regime’s national intelligence headquarters, where torture was conducted under tutelage of the CIA.

On the eve of their mission they were betrayed and seized as they cycled home from school. When Mado refused to hand over NLF names, she was strung upside down and electrocuted, her head held in a bucket of water. They were then “disappeared” to Con Son Island, where they were shackled in “tiger cages”: cells so small they could not stand; quick lime and excreta were thrown on them from above. At the age of 16, Dany etched their defiance on the wall: “Notre bonjour a nos chers at cheres caramades.” The words are still there.
The other day, I returned to Vietnam, whose agony I reported for almost a decade. A poem was waiting in my room in the Caravelle Hotel in Saigon. Typed in English, it was a “heartfelt prayer” for “the stones [of life] getting soft”, and ended with, “I’m still living, struggling … please phone.” It was Mado, though I prefer her Vietnamese name, Tao. We had lost touch; I knew of her work at the Institute if Ecology, her marriage to another NLF soldier and the birth of a son against all the odds of the damage done to her in the tiger cages.
Through the throng of tourists and businessmen in the Caravelle lobby navigated diminutive Dany, now 57. Tao was waiting in a taxi outside. Five years ago, Tao suffered a stroke and lost the use of her voice and much of her body, but these have now returned and although she needs to take your arm, she is really no different from when she told me her heart “flies”. We drove past the sentinels of the new Vietnam, the hotels and apartment blocks under construction, then turned into a lane where wood smoke rose and children peered and frogs leapt in the beam of our headlights.
The walls of Tao’s home are a proud montage of struggle and painful gain: she and Dany at the Lycee Marie Curie; the collected exhortations of Ho; the letters of comrades long gone. It all seemed, at first, like flowers preserved between the pages of a forgotten book. But no: these here the very icons and inspirations of resistance that new generations must recreate all over again, for while battlegrounds change, the enemy does not. “Each time we are invaded,” she said, “we fight them off. At the same time we fight to keep our soul. Isn’t that the lesson of Vietnam and of history?”
I was once told a poignant story by a Frenchman who was in Hanoi during the Christmas 1972 bombing. “I took shelter in the museum of history,” he said, “and there, working by candlelight, with the B52s overhead, were young men and women earnestly trying to copy as many bronzes and sculptures as they could. They told me, ‘Even if the originals are destroyed, something will remain and our roots will be protected’.”
History, not ideology, is a living presence in Vietnam. Here, the experience of history forged a communal ingenuity and patience to the extreme human limits. The NLF leadership in the south was an alliance of Catholics, liberals, Buddhists and communists, and most of those who fought in the northern army were peasant nationalists. With its structures and disciplines, communism was the means by which Vietnam’s protracted wars of independence were fought and won. This is appreciated by Vietnamese today who idly refer to “the communist period” as if the party was no longer in power. What matters here is Vietnam. Visit the museums in Hanoi and it is clear that the word Ho Chi Minh never stopped using was “independence”: “the right you never surrender”. In retirement, President Dwight Eisenhower wrote that had his administration not delayed (sabotaged) the national elections agreed at the United Nations conference on Indochina in Geneva in 1954, “possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for Ho”.
I thought about this on the journey back from Tao’s. More than 20 years of war would not have happened. As many as three million people would have lived. No babies would have been deformed by Agent Orange. No feet would have been blown off by the cluster bombs that were tested here. On the overnight train to Danang, I could tell the bomb craters that joined together, leaving not even Pompeiis of war, except perhaps on a distant rise the gravestones of the anti-aircraft militia. They were often young women like Mado and Dany. In Hanoi, I took a taxi to Kham Thiem Street which I first saw in 1975, laid to waste by B52s which had struck every third house. A block of flats where 283 people died is now a monument of a mother and child. There are fresh flowers; the traffic thunders by.
Sitting in a café with these unnecessary ghosts, I read that Britain’s military chief, General Sir David Richards, had called for Nato “to plan for a 30 or 40 year role” in Afghanistan. Nato is said to spend $50 million for every Taliban guerrilla it kills, and cluster bombs are still a favourite. The general expressed his care for the Afghan people. The French and Americans also said they cared for the “gooks” they killed in industrial quantities.
When I was last in Vietnam 15 years ago, making a film, my only brush with officialdom was the Ministry of Culture’s concern that the footage I had shot at My Lai, where hundreds of mostly women and children were slaughtered, might offend the Americans. In Saigon, the War Crimes Museum has been re-named the War Remnants Museum. Outside, tourists are offered pirated copies of the Lonely Planet guide, with its tendentious devotion to an American sense of “Nam”.
Perhaps the Vietnamese can afford to be generous, but the reason, I think, runs deeper. Since Dai Thang, “the great victory”, the policy has been to end a seemingly endless state of siege. Colour and energy have arrived like breaking waves; Hanoi, with its mist-covered lakes and boulevards once pocked with air-raid shelters, is now a gracious, confident, youthful city. There is the kind of freedom that ignores, navigates and circumvents the old Stalinist strictures. The newspapers take officials to task and damn corruption, but then, occasionally, there is the bleakest of headlines: “Alleged agitator to face trial”. Cu Huy Ha Vu, 53, has been charged with “illegal actions against the state”. Such is an ill-defined line you dare not cross.
Bill Clinton came to lunch at my hotel in Hanoi. He runs an AIDS charity that does work in Vietnam. In 1995, he "normalised relations" between Washington and Hanoi and made the first US presidential visit in modern times five years later. That meant Vietnam was allowed to join the World Trade Organisation and qualify for World Bank loans provided it embraced the “free market”, destroyed its free public services and paid off the bad debts of the defunct Saigon regime: money which had helped bankroll the American war. The reparations agreed by President Richard Nixon in the 1973 Paris Peace Accords were ignored. Normalisation also meant that foreign investors were offered tax-free “economic processing zones” with “competitively priced” (cheap) labour.
The Vietnamese were finally being granted membership of the “international community” as long as they created a society based on inequity and exploited labour, and abandoned the health service that was the envy of the developing world, with its pioneering work in paediatrics and primary care, along with a free education system that produced one of the world’s highest literacy rates. Today, ordinary people pay for health care and schools, and the elite send their children to expensive schools in Hanoi’s “international city” and poach scholarships at American universities.
Whereas farmers in difficulty could once depend on rural credit from the state (interest was unknown), they must now go to private lenders, the usurers who once plagued the peasantry. And the government has welcomed back the Monsanto company and its genetically-modified seeds. Monsanto was one of the manufacturers of Agent Orange, which gave Vietnam its chemical Hiroshima. Last year, the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal by lawyers acting for more than three million Vietnamese deformed by Agent Orange. One of the justices, Clarence Thomas, worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto.
In his seminal, Anatomy of a War, the historian Gabriel Kolko says that the party of Ho Chi Minh enjoyed “success as a social movement based largely on its response to peasant desires”. He now says that its surrender to the “free market” is a betrayal. His disillusion is understandable, but the need to internationalise a war-ruined country was desperate, along with building a counterweight to China, the ancient foe. Unlike China, and despite the new Gucci emporiums in the centre of Hanoi and Saigon, the Vietnamese have not yet gone all the way with the brutalities of “tiger” or crony capitalism. Since 1985, the rate of malnutrition among children has almost halved. And tens of thousands of those who fled in boats have quietly returned without “a single case of victimisation”, according to the EU official who led the assistance programme in 1995. In many parts of the country, forests are rising again and the sound of birds and the rustle of wildlife are heard again, thanks to a re-greening programme initiated during the war by Professor Vo Quy of Vietnam National University in Hanoi.
For me, keeping at bay the forces that pour trillions into corrupt banks and wars while destroying the means of civilised life is Vietnam’s last great battle. That the party elite respects, perhaps fears, a people who, through the generations, have devoted themselves to throwing off oppressors is evident in the state’s often ambivalent responses to unauthorised strikes against ruthless foreign employers. “Are we in a Gorbachev phase?” said a journalist. “Or maybe the party and the people are watching each other for now. Remember always, Vietnam is different.”
On my last day in Saigon, I walked along Dong Hoi, no longer a street of hustlers and beggars, bar girls and shambling GIs looking for something in the cause of nothing. Then, I would stroll past the Hotel Royale and look up at the corner balcony on the first floor and see a stocky Welshman, his camera resting on his arm. A greeting in Welsh might drift down, or his take-off of an insane colonel we both knew. Today, the balcony and the Royale are gone, and Philip Jones Griffiths died two years ago. He was perhaps the most gifted and humane photographer of any war. Single-handed, he tried to stop a “search and destroy” operation that would kill a huddled group of women and children, eliciting from an American artillery offer the memorable response: “What civilians?” One of his finest photographs is a Goya-like picture of a captured NLF soldier, terribly wounded and surrounded by the large boots of his captors, yet undefeated in his humanity. Such is Vietnam.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/vietnam-the-last-battle-john-pilger-reports-from-saigon








Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:07 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I can't help it if your ignorance or your isolation prevents you from understanding idiomatic English.
So your argument is yes it is wrong but everyone does it ? Does that work for Lemmings ?

Quote:
He recounts the war crimes, the brutality, the wasted lives; all because of an American invasion of an innocent country that wanted nothing more than its independence.
I knew you just loved Vietnam. It was exciting days for you wasnt it ? Any mention of North Vietnamese war crimes or breaking of conventions ? No ? Then you are either biased or they didnt happen.

You do realise that you show symptoms of mental ill health ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:10 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
The United States of Germany, whilst not used, is an accurate description...


No. It isn't and wasn't not only used - no-one besides you ever got this idea.

(At any time in history, there has never been a "united state of Germany" - at any time, Germany or part of it were "united", it has been a different form. See e.g. the various constitutions .... and history books.)
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:12 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
So your argument is yes it is wrong but everyone does it ?


You say a lot of truly stupid things but you never explain yourself. Don't bother trying. I know that you aren't capable.

You didn't read the article, did you? Too many big words for you, maybe too much pain.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Does Germany consist of states ? Are they united ? The german model of Federalism is used by New Zealand. So I have an example just next door.

Examples of United States of Germany : Holy Roman Empire, Rhine Confederation.

Quote:
Germany is made up of sixteen Länder (singular Land, colloquially but rarely in a legal context also called Bundesland, for "federated state") which are partly sovereign constituent states of the Federal Republic of Germany. Generally referred to in English as states, the term is left untranslated in the official English version of the Basic Law,[1] though sometimes translated as federal states in other publications.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:24 am
@JTT,
Quote:
maybe too much pain.
What would a left whinger like you know about pain ? Been late for dinner one day ? Broke a nail at a "Peace" rally trying to scratch out the eyes of a facist pig cop ?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:29 am
@Ionus,


The year was 1978. Vietnam was then being punished for seeing off the last American helicopter gunship, the war’s creation, the last B52 with its ladders of bombs silhouetted against the flash of their carnage, the last C-130s that had dumped, the US Senate was told, “a quantity of toxic chemical amounting to six pounds per head of population, destroying much of the ecosystem and causing a “foetal catastrophe”, the last of a psychosis that made village after village a murder scene.

And when it was all over on May Day, 1975, Hollywood began its long celebration of the invaders as victims, the standard purgative, while revenge was policy. Vietnam was classified as “Category Z” in Washington, which imposed the draconian Trading with the Enemy Act from the first world war. This ensured that even Oxfam America was barred from sending humanitarian aid. Allies pitched in. One of Margaret Thatcher’s first acts on coming to power in 1979 was to persuade the European Community to halt its regular shipments of food and milk to Vietnamese children. According to the World Health Organisation, a third of all infants under five so deteriorated following the milk ban that the majority of them were stunted or likely to be. Almost none of this was news in the west.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:34 am
@JTT,
And if they returned the missing USA servicemen, Vietnam would have been treated better (probably). The French had the same problem. The Vietnamese cited difficulties in remote areas, etc and the French asked how much would it cost to ease these difficulties ? They got their men back. The USA didnt. If they loved their kids they could have found the missing men anytime they wanted.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:40 am
@Ionus,
jtt: I can't help it if your ignorance or your isolation prevents you from understanding idiomatic English.

Ionus wrote: So your argument is yes it is wrong but everyone does it ? Does that work for Lemmings ?

I was unfair. Please go ahead and explain both your comments. I think you think you know something.

What is 'it' in 'yes it is wrong'?

What does this have to do with lemmings, small 'L'.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 01:54 am
@Ionus,
Well, keep your opinion.

Honestly, Ionus, I'm quite good in (German) constitutional law, in legal, historical as well as political aspects.

I have a different opinion - which certainly might be reasoned that we have and use different terms in German.


If you take the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands as an example, well, that could be a different aspect ...
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 02:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I have a different opinion
You have always been polite Walt, and I appreciate that. So I respectfully ask why would you consider seperate states that join in to a federation not a United States ?I know the term is not used, but in principle isnt that what they are ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 02:28 am
@JTT,
The common usage of American for citizens of the USA. Everyone in the AMERICAS is entitled to call themselves American. Everyone who lives in a federation or confederation of states is entitled to call themselves the United States. The correct description for the country being discussed is the United States of America, or the USA. All the idioms you are familiar with should not be used when you are belittling someone for accuracy between Jewish and Isralei...and I bet you have no idea of the historical difference.

Quote:
I was unfair.
Gee, that has never happened before...I wonder what came over you ?

Quote:
What does this have to do with lemmings, small 'L'.
Lemmings are a small mammal that in folklore jump over cliffs. They do this because they run in packs and do what the others do.

You have a thing for capitals but dont understand the meaning of the words.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 12:29 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
The common usage of American for citizens of the USA.


That's correct, so why did you raise all this nonsense, besides it being your stock in trade?

Quote:
Everyone in the AMERICAS is entitled to call themselves American.


Of course they are, but the fact is, they don't. You can call yourself an American if you wish.

Quote:
Everyone who lives in a federation or confederation of states is entitled to call themselves the United States.


Again, they are so entitled, but they don't for a number of reasons that obviously elude you.

[/quote]The correct description for the country being discussed is the United States of America, or the USA. [/quote]

Do try to keep the issues straight. The discussion was about a person, Foofie, not a country.

But you're even wrong above, using America is as correct as using the United States of America, or the USA. Of course, certain language situations would favor one over the other.

Quote:
All the idioms you are familiar with should not be used when you are belittling someone for accuracy between Jewish and Isralei[sic]


Again, you've really got to keep the facts straight. Even after I told you, and you've been arguing all this nonsense about 'American' and issues of political science that you know nothing about, you still get the issue wrong. I was referring to Foofie in regard to 'his' being an American.

Such is the military mindset.

Those idioms are not my idioms. You're just being an idiot. American is used to describe the people, singularly and collectively, and it is idiomatic for all dialects of English. For you to claim otherwise is absolutely preposterous.

A Google search for Australia only, "American" gives us,

About 18,000,000 results

For the UK only,

About 192,000,000 results

For the USA only,

About 1,290,000,000 results

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 05:29 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
it being your stock in trade
You havent mentioned how evil the USA is and how the righteous glorious peoples republic of Vietnam will crush the imperialist running dogs.....your stock in trade.

Quote:
Quote:
The common usage of American for citizens of the USA.
That's correct,
You agree with a title ? Wouldnt someone of even limited intelligence address the issue rather than the title ? Oh, wait...hahahahaaha....I forgot it was you.

Quote:
Quote:
Everyone in the AMERICAS is entitled to call themselves American.
Of course they are, but the fact is, they don't.
The fact is they do.....you need to travel more. They call citizens of the USA something else in Latin America. Sucking up to the USA is not going to make amends for all those crimes you comitted during war.

Quote:
Quote:
Everyone who lives in a federation or confederation of states is entitled to call themselves the United States.
Again, they are so entitled,
And some do...if you werent so obsessed with the USA you would know that......

Quote:
Quote:
The correct description for the country being discussed is the United States of America, or the USA.
Do try to keep the issues straight. The discussion was about a person, Foofie, not a country.
The discussion was about Israel. See the title at the top ? God what a fool.

Quote:
using America is as correct as using the United States of America, or the USA.
No, it isnt. Government letters do not have a letterhead saying from the penmanship of America. If people from the USA want to refer to themselves as Americans, I wont stop them, but it behoves the rest of the world to be less self absorbed. And using Jew for Israeli is unacceptable according to you. You do know that being Jewish is a requirement for immigration to Israel dont you ? What sort of people are near you ? Doctors and nurses ?

Quote:
Such is the military mindset.
Yes accuracy and efficiency. Something you pathetic little whining shits have always been jealous of...tell us again about how I am a war criminal but you wont bring charges to bear against me ?

Quote:
I was referring to Foofie in regard to 'his' being an American.
So she is not a citizen of the USA now, she is 1) a native of the Americas; 2) an inhabitant of North and South America. Make up your scattered pathetic little mind !!

Quote:
A Google search for Australia only, "American" gives us, About 18,000,000 results
For the UK only, About 192,000,000 results
For the USA only, About 1,290,000,000 results
Thats a lot of searches seeing everyone already knows what it means...according to you....

Quote:
For the USA only,
Dont you mean for the America only ?
 

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 04:52:13