Quote from christianj New Legislation will Assure All Women..
The following bills were introduced by the Femocrat party in an emergency session of the house of representatives today – The Presumption of Future Divorce Act.
Marriage law is now changed such that signing the marriage certificate brings forward the wholesale transfer of assets from husband to wife that more usually takes place upon the future divorce. The new Presumption of Future Divorce Act states that in order to make any future divorce more efficient, men must transfer all bank accounts, businesses and property into the wife’s name on signing of the marriage certificate. It is hoped that this new legislation will bring down the cost and stress of divorce and allow women full control of her husbands assets immediately, without the extended delays common with the divorce process.Businesses celebrated the new law by offering all newly-wed women a special pampering weekend for only $5000 (specially reduced from $5100) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has been phenomenal. One newly married woman exclaimed: ”I could never have afforded this without this great change in the law. My husband would never spend like this and the financial freedom I now enjoy can only strengthen our marriage.” When asked, husbands-to-be shrugged and cited that it was not something that bothered them because: “divorce is something that happens to other people, and in any event, my wife is not like that.”
The DNA Contributors Act.
Government today formalized what has always been unofficially practiced and enforced by the family court and stripped all fathers of legally presumed parental rights. The new law means that all fathers are now officially renamed DNA Contributors and their sole legal right is the responsibility to pay for their child’s upbringing. Women’s groups said that this was a perfectly fair arrangement as “no mother would deny a man access to his child if he was a decent DNA Contributor”, and it would greatly simplify custody hearings because such hearings would simply no longer be necessary. “Formalizing the arrangement between mothers and sperm donor in this way, makes it much easier for mothers to deal with DNA Contributors who are not behaving as she would like”, said Charlotte Harpy of the campaign group ‘Mother Knows Best’. “And it also makes it easier for the DNA Contributors, because they now know ahead of time that they will fail to see their children if they go to court, rather than kidding themselves over years and years of court appearances, that there might be a chance. Everybody wins.” DNA Contributor groups did not offer a comment as they were too busy designing a logo for their new name: ‘DNA Contributors 4 Justice’. The Legal Human Castration Act.
From today, it is legally permissible for a wife to castrate her husband or boyfriend if she has suffered abuse from him in the past. The evidence required to prove that she received abusive treatment from the castrated spouse, is a sworn statement from the woman that he was indeed abusive and/or made her cry. The minimum required level of abuse for her to be acquitted, is set at shouting and/or door-slamming. Dame Brenda Hale was also said to offer that: “periods of ignoring her for longer than 60 minutes and the purchase of one or more unwanted gifts for the woman would also count as abuse severe enough to justify castration.” Further, the man would not be permitted to ask that she actually prove that he was abusive, because the Legal Human Castration Act presumes that in enduring the unpleasant task of severing his testicles, she has suffered enough. The All Female University Act.
All-female universities are to open now that so few men are doing well enough to attend university. It is thought that bringing proper focus to women – who now make up the vast majority of students – would help bring equality to education by delivering more appropriate tuition to women, who are continually denied this when men occupy the same campus. University doors and entryways can now officially be painted pink, rather than just metaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favor of the new measures.As Samantha Smughead, professor of Gender Studies remarked: “Women will finally be able to express themselves more freely with the patriarchal agents removed from the classroom and, anyway, men tend to make the campus look scruffy.” It is also thought that incidences of campus sexual assault and rape should be much reduced, seeing as the only men on campus will be janitors and gardeners. All such staff will be required to work in pairs and made to wear police monitored electronic tags. Additionally,
As I previously stated, this blog will undergo some changes. One of the changes that I am glad to announce will my new Guest Author - Joanna T. who is currently stationed in Switzerland, originally from England.. I look forward to Joanna's input and hope it will be a long and fruitful arrangement.. Joanna's task will be to present the other side of the argument, so to speak, in her own words and in her own redolent style. We have both arrived at a point where the ongoing, irrational negativity that has been promoted by feminists and thereby feminism, has indeed marred and denigrated the relationship between males and females. It really needs to be toned down and harnessed rather than fomented and encouraged. We need to take the next step. It is up to us to garner the troops in our efforts of ensuring that feminism and feminists are rejected and exposed for the clearly demonstrated pariahs they really are. This effort is part of that program.. Feminists hate the idea of any members of the Mens Movement joining together with members of opposite sex and demonstrating that reason and affability reigns in the MM also show that we are not the women haters they claim us to be. It's rubbing salt into already festering wounds.. Regardless how you personally view it, it cannot continue or it should not escalate as we are both on this planet to make our lives the best we possibly can. The other issue is that feminism and it's hate doctrine is primarily designed to drive a wedge between the sexes and I really do not want to be seen or be doing anything to promote any long term plan that feminism has in that direction. This is primarily going directly against feminisms aims and plans, this is the next step.. Joanna's latest article has struck a cord with me as I have been promoting the MGTOW lifestyle ever since I and a few other lads started the MGTOW movement. The founders of MGTOW, Ragnar, Johan, Myself and Zen, to name a few, got together to work on this when there was no other alternative lifestyle or options for men to pursue. It was either, get married and have kids or be scorned for being a free loader. Society at that time had that mindset and if there is one single issue that feminists can claim they did for men, it was to generate our determination to demand that men should have different options to determine their own lives rather than going down the same path, generations before had done in automatic and robotic fashion. Women were being forced to change so it only made sense that men should be given different options as well.. Hence MGTOW was born and hence we have this article. The effects of MGTOW on the opposite sex has never been revealed or explained as I for one was very interested to see if it had any effect at all apart from introducing the marriage strike. Not that that was the idea of it all to begin with but it was a minor consideration on my part.. SO I welcome Joanna T on board and I can guarantee that she is one of us. I will ask Joanna to tell her own story some time in the future, her own impression and thoughts on feminists and feminism.. MGTOW - good or bad for women? Joanna T. The Sanctuary. There are three phrases that strike fear into the hearts of modern marriage-minded women.
'Marriage on the decline', 'MGTOW' (Men going their own way), 'Marriage strike'.
A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Or worse, never to have been approached in the first place.
Feminism encourages women to hide this fear.
Some do it well.
But here-in lies the problem: a fear will always remain as a fear unless it is resolved.
A quirk of Nature results in the following observations:
A man does not need a woman. He is capable of being a solitary entity his whole life, and he won't care.
His work/passion/hobby is his primary focus.
A woman needs people around her. The most efficient way to increase the entourage who share her DNA is to team up with a man. So technically, a woman needs a man.
A man's greatest physical need is sexual fulfilment (according to Dr Kevin Lehman). A man's greatest social need is his freedom.
These two needs are in direct conflict with each other. Marriage (read: a woman) satisfies one at the expense of the other.
But in the old days, men often chose marriage and hoped for the best with the other need. Sometimes it worked out well.
Other times it did not.
Then feminism separated 'woman' from 'marriage'.
All of a sudden, a man could eat his cake and have it too. A win-win situation!
Being a logical being, he did.
A woman's natural reaction to MGTOW
There's a terrorist behind every rock and bush.
There's terrorists that tweet.
There's terrorists that monitor communications.
There's a terrorist on your street.
Look, over there there's a terrorist buying cargo pants at the GAP.
I think there's a terrorist hiding behind that log!
My gosh, terrorists are everywhere. Two of them just drove past.
Oh No! The terrorists are in my house, one of them is my dog.
The terrorists are in the open, hiding in plain sight.
I'd go out and stop them if I could.
But the government says it isn't right.
"Leave the killing to us citizen!" the authorities yell
Hide under your bed and switch off the light.
Let the governmentt take care of us and cast a special anti-terrorist magic spell.
Life is really easy when you close your eyes and dream
Just make sure a terrorist isn't hiding in your mind, waiting to take you to Hell.
Quote from Richard Worth checking out Frank Furedi: Paranoid parenting
Exerpt: Time to fight backThe promotion of paranoia in relation to every aspect of children’s lives accomplishes the very opposite of what it sets out to do. ...The promotion of suspicion towards adult behaviour seriously undermines the ability of grown-up people to play a constructive role in the socialisation of youngsters. The estrangement of adults from the world of children has the perverse effect of leaving youngsters to their own devices and diminishing their security. We do not have to abide by the rules concocted by self-appointed experts intent on policing how we engage with children. Nor do we have to acquiesce to a culture that denigrates parental competence and fuels suspicion about adult motives towards children. Although none of us can opt out of the culture that we inhabit, we can challenge it. We can challenge it in small ways, by protesting against the many idiotic but all-too-insidious bans that aim to restrict children’s freedom or adults’ access to youngsters. We can challenge it by encouraging our children to develop a positive attitude towards the outdoors and the adult world. Most important of all, we can challenge it by working together as active collaborators...
If you butter your bread on both sides your hands get messy. You can not eat your cake today and have the same cake tomorrow: you can not have it both ways. Equal or special, you can not have it both ways. Pink for this and pink for that but we want everyone to be equal: you can not have it both ways. Build a family or fuck around: you can not have it both ways. Tell the truth or spread an appearance you can not have it both ways. Girls want to run around professing their pride in being a slut, yet complain when others use their own words: you can not have it both ways. It is time for us all to grow up, attain some maturity. You can not promote Fatherhood by attacking DADS. You can not promote children by excluding Fathers: you can not have it both ways.
From the OED Slut n. a slovenly or promiscuous woman Promiscuous adj.
1 having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships: she’s a wild, promiscuous, good time girl I promiscuous behavior
2 demonstrating or implying an unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/ http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...lk&FORM=VQFRAT http://slutwalknyc.com/ http://www.slutwalkchicago.org/ http://www.facebook.com/SlutWalk http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/130720908.html http://www.slutwalkminneapolis.org/ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...5iDybwYXL0awvJ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851725.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42927752...ave-slutwalks/
"...any person, including a natural or foster parent, who, knowing that he or she has no privilege to do so or heedless in that regard, takes or entices any child under the age of eighteen years from the custody or care of the child's parents, guardian, or other lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities with respect to the child commits a class 5 felony." (Colorado Revised Statutes 18-3-304)
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex." (Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973)) With these laws on the books, my son was taken out of Colorado to a remote location in Montana by his mother and her relatives in 1998, and I did not see him again for almost two years. No law enforcement, prosecutorial or judicial action was taken in either state to my continuing complaints that this was an abduction in progress.
In subsequent custody proceedings, which it took those two years to convene, the question of his mother seizing custody by criminal means and unilateral parental decision-making with no court order empowering her to do so was never allowed as an argument. The entire proceeding was premised on the notion that of course the mother would receive sole custody (which she already had seized and held illegally for two years) and no civil attorney would even agree to take my case were I to challenge this. Fifteen years of marriage, and over a year of fathering since his planned conception, bore no weight with anyone in terms of custody determination, and I was made to apply for the job of part-time father.
Much has happened since then. I have had some good time, hard-won in the courts, with my son, who was four months old when he was taken from his home and from his father. He has had a child's-eye view of a very ugly divorce since the beginning of his life, and it is very difficult to have a sound and trusting relationship between us with the wall of hatred and accusation hanging between his parents. Now, in his early teens, we barely talk. I don't blame him, though I wish he could see things from my point of view, but I also pray he will never have to.
But a decade and a half of both our lives, and his place in my large and widespread family, have been lived in a condition created by one parent seizing a child criminally, with the law failing to act in any capacity in response, then going on to endorse and underwrite that seizure with every subsequent decision. Instead of the years of fathering this boy that I can never give back to him, years of adventures and deer hunts and road trips and talking about girls and helping him in school, we are awkward acquaintances, and I have lived as a combination of part-time long-distance dad, sometime vagrant, debtor, litigant and defendant, under-employed and aging away from a once-thriving career, but also dad and stepdad to three girls in the meantime.
Now, I'm older, wiser (I hope), better-informed and -experienced in the law, and just now I have some time on my hands and the globe at my fingertips, and I mean to do something about it, not just for me and my son but for all the fathers and sons and daughters and grandparents and relatives who languish under this intolerable and enormous injustice. Despite laws in every US state prohibiting both parental abduction and gender discrimination, the tactic of taking children from their homes and denying them their fathers without legal authority is a standard starting point for court-ordered childhoods in single-mother homes, with all the attendant personal, social and economic consequences to generations of one-parent children. It's time we made this right. Who wants to help? My current focus is to draft national legislation for a standardized procedure by law enforcement and courts immediately following a complaint of parental abduction or wrongful removal, and I invite all comments, suggestions, stories and resources you may wish to share in this good fight. (to be continued...)
Updated 22nd-March-2012 at 09:21 PM by Rof L Mao Esq
As someone might guess, we are in a gender war. We didn't declared it, but we are in it. And this is the strangest war of history, because both genders are put against each others by the same actor, the feminism.
When communication fails and negotiation does not take place, conflict is then inevitable. That's the reason ambassadors are for, to negotiate conflicting interests by harmonizing different cultures and languages. And women and men are so beautifully different.
I feel the need to share with you few of my thoughts, on why we have issues in reneweing a social pact between the genders, why feminism is carrying men into the belief that women are betraying the current social pact and why women do not get it.
There are several components that contribute to this "great betrayal", but one stands above the others. It is the twisting of the language and in particular the improper handling of the most abused and yet unknown word, the noun "right". THE RIGHT
People have a common belief that a right is something inherently "good". But this is not true.
This belief has also partially to deal with "linguistic" patterns (in many languages, such as English, the same word is used as an adjective to describe something which is "fair" or as oppostite to "wrong"), but the real reason we tend to nurture this "optimistic assumption" that once a right is "conquered" we get to better social conditions, comes from our habit to use this word as a description of collective interests.
When a group owns a right, all the individuals belonging to that group have the some benefits, at the same extent. Unfortunately we tend to drop the awareness that a "right" has inherently a price to be paid; if that price is not fairly shared among the group members, then this price must be paid by another social group (can be a race, an ethnic group, a country, and of course also a gender).
Indeed a "right" is simply the claim of an entitlement, by either an individual or a group, to a property, to a resource to the fulfillment of specific needs. Nothing more nothing less. When someone states "it's my right" the meaning is "this resource is mine". And since in nature resources are limited, a right implies a conflict, ever, no exception.
So when someone claims a rights, is he/she/it prone to give something in exchange? Rarely, unless a negotiation is started.
The reason of this digression on the "right" will come clearer in next posts when I will address some practical examples of laws, norms, and why we have a gender conflict simply because we didn't communicated properly or because negotiation did not happen at all or the negotiation treaty has been thrown in the bin.
Before leaving, a basic principle: "when someone claims a right, ever, and I mean ever, do ask who are the stakeholders; who gains, who pays" .
Do not be fooled by fairness, when someone claims a rights is not asking, that someone is pretending it, and soon or later will try to enforce it with violence. So be bold, ask it, explicitly and wihtout hesitation. It is your own "right" that is under threat.
Updated 5th-May-2012 at 08:49 AM by Fabrizio Napoleoni
For starters, a confession/disclaimer: I used to play games online, and after rampant cheating, even on Valve's Steam service, I've given it up. Even when I did play, I didn't play much. I've played solo MUCH more, so I'm reasonably comfortable discussing video games and gaming culture in some detail, and with considerable confidence. I've distanced myself from video games a lot over the past two or three years, so while I am somewhat dated, the roots still run deep. Plus, real life can be far more awesome, but that's a discussion for another day.
At Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) 2012, a well-attended panel gathered together a group of female gamers to discuss the harassment that women undergo when they venture into the cesspool of human behavior that is X-Box Live specifically, but also internet gaming in general. These women paint a stark picture of the harassment and misogyny that female gamers experience when they play with others over the internet. As evidence, they've collected thousands of examples of sexually themed harassment at: ht tp://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/ and ht tp://fatuglyorslutty.com/. (Links deliberately broken) Truly, the examples showcase some deeply disturbing behavior which cuts across all age levels and races, and sometimes even gender. A number of explanations have been offered for this phenomena. The anonymity of the internet, the immaturity of the average X-Box Live users, thirteen year old boys, institutionalized misogyny, rape culture etc.
In the same spirit, Anita Sarkeesian, feminist pop-culture critic recently launched a Kick-Starter campaign to fund a project which is going to examine the portrayal of women in video-games, and female video-game tropes. I haven't paid much attention, but this project was reportedly trolled mercilessly by the usual internet suspects. What I HAVE been paying attention to is the parade of feminists, white-knights and manginas who've come screaming out of the woodwork to "speak out" against this behavior. See:
for starters. Nothing to see here for the seasoned MRA. Or is there?
In all of these examples, the usual feminist suspects have been quick to denounce this behavior, though their explanations for this behavior have been utterly bereft of genuine incite or understanding. Nobody, except perhaps Bernard Chapin and possibly other MRA's have bothered to even speculate on why this issue is an issue at all. In other words, why this is happening is of no interest to the white-knight brigade, they only care insofar as ending this behavior. Given what Chapin has said, this seems like a pipe-dream, but never bother a white-knight while he's making an ass of himself.
So why is this happening? Does the internet naturally make people into misogynists? Not quite, but the culture of internet gaming is one of the few remaining spaces of safety for men, and men are reacting very negatively to again, being forced to yield yet another of their safe spaces to the politically correct feminist machine and their white-knight enablers. What's more astonishing on the surface, but understandable in detail is how feminists for all their eye-rolling pseudo-intellectual rhetoric have failed to understand the real reason for this, that being the invasion of yet another space that was safe for men and unabashed, untamed masculinity. I've witnessed this same raw, overt masculine behavior before in yet another safe male space "adult entertainment" clubs. Like the internet, a club where exotic dancers congregate is one of the few spaces where our misandric society is willing to tolerate overt masculinity. Within one of these spaces, both the internet, and a strip bar, a man is free to act out, be boisterous, cheer, to say and do things that he isn't permitted to do normally in modern western society. Indeed, there are few, if any of these safe male places remaining. As women began to penetrate previously male exclusive spaces, the percentage of spaces where a man could feel free to express himself became less and less, and I believe that the masculinity he desired to express became increasingly overt. As there were fewer and fewer places where a man could be a man, the few places that remained called for more hyper-masculine behavior, until the eventual result is the mess that is X-Box Live. Female gamers are a very recent phenomena, and their invasion of X-Box Live in particular and internet gaming in general has resulted in a considerable backlash. Some of the rampant misogyny is intended as simply the kind of trash-talk that the men share with each other even when
"I think the school staff were man-haters, and resented me because, as a doting father, I upset their prejudices. They thought incest was the only possible explanation for a father's love."
by Dan Abshear
In January 2007, staff at my eight-year-old daughter's public school in Missouri interrogated her for an hour to determine if I had molested her. There was absolutely no reason for them to do this.
I worked out of my home at the time and largely raised my daughter, while my now ex-wife worked. I had established rituals during her school days.
These included taking her to our favorite local doughnut shop in the morning and often bringing lunch to her at school.
During my visits to my daughter's school. I always found the teachers to be very warm and kind people.
However, the administrative staff were rather distant judging by their body language, and their unwillingness to interact with me. They were mostly middle-aged women.
On one unforgettable day, they interrogated my daughter for about an hour. When I picked her up, she was crying.
She said she was asked leading questions such as, "did your daddy ever touch you there? Do you think your daddy likes touching you there?" The answer to such questions was 'no,' of course.
I spoke with her for hours that night, which was difficult for me. In the days that followed, she did not appear permanently scared by that interrogation.
My daughter was completely unaware that parents were even capable of such acts described in graphic detail by school staff.
There was no evidence for these allegations. My daughter was and is a straight "A" student, and an incredibly balanced individual. What caused my daughter's school to make these outrageous charges and traumatize my daughter remains unknown to me this this day.
WIFE BRUSHES IT OFF
Her mother was unresponsive regarding these false allegations.
An expected reaction might have been one of shock and disbelief.
Instead she displayed apathy.
My then wife, who was in fact a radical feminist lesbian, and likely a psychopath, became good friends with the rather attractive female principal of this school in the following weeks.
Her behavior was the first red flag that she posed a danger to myself and my family.
I started to research the legalities and learned that schools get a lot of money from the government for prosecuting fathers like myself, regardless if he is guilty or innocent. I realized that I might go to prison if this situation were not resolved.
So I sent some legally threatening emails to the principal including a threat to sue the school district and contact the media. They dropped it and I continued to have lunch with my daughter at her school.
On one occasion, I returned home to find a police officer waiting for me.
The police officer told me to stop going to my daughter's school, because school staff told the police I had a 'threatening disposition'.
I stopped going. I think the school staff were man-haters, and resented me because, as a doting father, I upset their prejudices. They thought incest was the only possible explanation for a father's love.
Due to her mother implementing parental alienation, I've not see or spoken to my now 13-year-old daughter in almost two years now. On Father's Day, she sent me an email. (Excerpt:"My braces r off and my hairs long. I'm also 5'8 now!!!")
All things considered, she sounded really good. I continue to hand write Hayley once a week, and send her money when I can. Rarely does she write back, but I still continue to write her.
The email absolutely made my day, and decreased my sadness about the absence of my daughter, greatly. I suffer from chronic depression due to my daughter being gone from my life right now
This is a submission I put together to give a different perspective on the issue.
Unfortunately I didn't get anyone to proofread it (ran out of time). (Submissions had to be in by the end of August, 2012)
Also with more time, I would have put more thought into structuring what I was going to say and how I was going to say it.
Prostitution is not something I think about much. However, I dislike the Swedish Model which motivated me to put this together.
ANONPROST01 Background information:
I have never used a sex worker. I do not have any financial or other connections with the industry.
I have observed and taken part in various discussions and debates on internet forums and believe different voices are required in this debate to give more balance to discussions. Our court system involves equal representation but I can foresee that mainly "politically correct" views will be given in oral testimony and possibly also written testimony. I only realised quite late one could make anonymous submissions so I imagine lots of people who might have given comments (the many people who comment in internet discussions) haven’t because they didn’t know they could be anonymous.
I have lived all my life in Ireland (i.e. am eligible to vote, etc.) Factual information:
(i) In the UK, "ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry" (ESRC=Economic and Social Research Council) by Dr. Nick Mai (ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry) found that: "the large majority of interviewed migrant workers in the UK sex industry are not forced nor trafficked"
(ii) The same report ["ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry" (ESRC=Economic and Social Research Council) by Dr. Nick Mai (ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry)] found that: “Working in the sex industry is often a way for migrants to avoid the unrewarding and sometimes exploitative conditions they meet in non-sexual jobs”
(iii) The same report ["ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry" (ESRC=Economic and Social Research Council) by Dr. Nick Mai (ESRC Project: Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry)] found that: “By working in the sex industry, many interviewees are able to maintain dignified living standards in the UK while dramatically improving the living conditions of their families in the country of origin.”
(iv) This piece in the Guardian, "Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic" by Nick Davies Prostitution and trafficking (Tuesday 20 October 2009), explains how unreliable the statistics are that are used in debates about trafficking in the UK.
(v) Many jobs carry a risk of injury or harm to mental or physical health (now or in the future), with severe injury or death not being uncommon in some occapations.
Detailed figures for fatalities in the US broken down by occupation category are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics e.g. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2010hb.pdf and http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0009.pdf .
Just to give people an idea of what is being talked about, here are some figures for occupations with higher risk: Fatal occupational injuries, total hours worked, and rates of fatal occupational injuries by selected worker characteristics, occupations, and industries, civilian workers, 2010 Fatal Injury Rate2 Fishers and related fishing workers 152 Logging workers 93.5 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 70.6 Miscellaneous extraction workers 64.2 Farmers and ranchers 42.5 Mining machine operators 37 Roofers 32.4 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 29.8 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 23 Industrial machinery installation, repair, and maintenance workers 20.7 2 The rate represents the number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000