News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2005, 11:32:35 PM »
"TE
You've got a vivid imagination."

What I have Tom, is the facts. Just read what Paul and I have written today and you'll have a pretty good foundation to start writing your article on Crump and Pine Valley!  ;)
If there's something you can't figure out just call Paul and if he doesn't know it he can always check with me and pass it on back to you!

guesst

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #76 on: February 16, 2005, 02:05:43 AM »
George,
If you didn't take potshots at each other, how would I be able to tell how much you loved each other . . . ?   ;)

And this thread demonstrates exactly what I love about y'all. It started out with a mild reprimand on being kinder and gentler, and ended up with several of you taking potshots at each other.  Watch out!  Your remarkably strong feelings are showing.  

Which, of course, is why I'm always lurking about.  Not only is the content illuminating and thought provoking, but you manage to educate in the most entertaining way imaginable.  I'm taking lessons for my Music History course.    :-*

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #77 on: February 16, 2005, 06:38:05 AM »
Darva D:

Don't be such a stranger!

T_MacWood

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #78 on: February 16, 2005, 06:52:42 AM »
"What do you know about Crump and Baker?"

I really don't know that much about their relationship. Baker was born in SC, but lived most of his life Penn. He was one seven children, his mother died when he was a boy. His father was an Inspector.

He was a merchant, and a bachelor. He was not one of the better golfers in Philly, but obviously was an avid golfer. He and Crump toured Europe together in 1910. I believe he built the first house at PV after Colt and Govan. I've seen him referred to as Colonel Baker on occasion, but it doesn't appear that he was ever in the military. He was 86 when he wrote down his recollections.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 06:53:46 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #79 on: February 16, 2005, 07:07:40 AM »
"If I am being criticized for claiming Crump killed himself on this website, someone has got their facts wrong. I mentioned it to TE in a private e-mail, he was the one that brought it into a public forum, not me. I have told him and everyone on this site I will discuss it in detail in the near future, but I want to do the right way, and right now I'm not ready. By the way I am not a liar and I don't invent information...fraud, now thats another story.  

Their reaction has been the strongest case I could have ever made for existance of a Philadelphia syndrom."

Tom MacWood:

Sorry you take all this so personally, particularly the Crump suicide thing. You got your chronicle wrong though. I didn't put your IM message on here about Crump's suicide first, you wrote on this website that Crump's suicide was a fact. I asked you on here if you could prove that, you refused to do that and so we basically just called information for Merchantville NJ, got the same guy you spoke to (who is the one they give you to ask about Crump's death) and for some reason (you obviously think he's part of the Crump, "Philadelphia Syndrome", too) he denied telling you what you told me he said to you about Crump's death.

You can float this big conspiracy theory about PV glorifying Crump and dissing Colt but in my opinion, Tom, you're just making yourself look more foolish everyday! But at this point that's now your problem, not mine.

You've called Merchantville again and talked to a councilman, but I'm not going to even bother to call him and check anything---just write your article on Crump's suicide, PV or even a day in the life of an expert researcher/writer trying to do his thing under duress from a bunch of maniacs in Philadelphia---I encourage it.

But, as always, you're going to have to defend the things you say. There will be questions and I hope you can learn how to answer them maturely instead of trying to divert our queries behind one of your lines of "ducks"!

Obviously you must know by now that on here you can't exactly just make statements and think they'll be taken as gospel because you think you're a great researcher/writer. You'd got to take responsiblity for what you say on here---you can't just say things and hide or respond to our queries to prove what you say by asking us one question after another. Questions to you will be simple and to the point. You should learn how to answer them!

And that IS the way Ran Morrissett wants it. He told me that again yesterday.

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #80 on: February 16, 2005, 07:15:40 AM »
Tom MacW:

That's interesting stuff about Col Baker but I don't know who on here is interested in his family tree or what his mother's maiden name was. But we are interested in knowing his relationship to George Crump particularly as it relates to the creation of PVGC.

For your information he was one who hunted with Crump and very likely in and around what became PV. More importantly he was the man who went to Europe with Crump when he studed architecture before buying and building PV. And he did build that cottage at Crump's insistence that sits off to the left of #9 fairway---the one my old buddy Mayor Ott has lived in for the last three decades! Have you seen it? The mayor has a great collection of all the old Dallin aerials of PV in that Baker cottage and he really knows that golf course, having lived there for three decades. When I see him in few days I'll ask him what his part has been in this "Philadedphia conspiracy syndrome" of yours! The Mayor is probably sitting in that house right now reading this stuff of yours with amusement!  ;)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 07:21:14 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #81 on: February 16, 2005, 08:41:05 AM »
TE
You are mistaken. My IM to you (which I quoted on page 1 or 2 of this thread) was December 16 at 11:51. Followed by two short responses to you at 12:17 and 12:40. By 1:00 I was on my way to Detroit and didn't return until late on the 17th.

On the 17th you posted our conversation on the Internet  demanding answers, perhaps because i  wasn't responding to your numerous IMs demanding that I reveal my information...I  couldn't respond, I was out of town.

That evening you called me at my home demanding I reveal my information, which I did generally, which was followed by you screaming that I was a liar, a fraud and a fabricator...and that you would reveal me as such on GCA.  :)

Here is the thread which ignited the controversy and your post revealing my private message on the 17th:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6839;start=175
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 08:55:36 AM by Tom MacWood »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2005, 08:55:19 AM »
I started out trying to read this thread seriously but, as with too many others on this Web site, quickly got lost in all sorts of personal accusations, agendas, and territorial boundary wars. Soon my eyes glazed over and I found myself thinking what a waste of good brain power on such a tiny topic.

With a little bit of class and manners, the same kind that are supposed to rule in golf, this issue could have been nicely put to bed in about 12 posts. But instead, it has run on too long and too intensely over too little, a reminder of one of those pathetic golf committee meetings where a discussion about which benches to buy ends up taking four hours and everyone makes do with liquids rather than solids for dinner.


Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2005, 08:57:49 AM »
Aah give the man a cigar!
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

T_MacWood

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2005, 08:59:00 AM »
Brad
I agree with you. I should have never weighed in...no doubt this thread would have just faded away like all the other attacks on my reputation.

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2005, 09:08:41 AM »
Brad:

I agree with you too---I should never have weighed in either. I'll just wait and let the man produce his article and if it's full of odd or wrong conclusions then I'll go after it---and then maybe we will get the record straight!

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2005, 09:26:43 AM »
Tom:

You know I'd never write a IM to you unless it was responding off the DG to something you wrote on it. In this case it was your statement on the DG that Crump committed suicide. It's been a rumor for years, but you didn't say that--you said he committed suicide, I asked you on the DG if you could prove it, you said you could.  

At that point I got on the IM and asked how you could prove it, you said because it was the truth, I asked you how you could prove it was the truth, you said because it was fact. I asked you how you could prove it was a fact, and you said because it was the truth.

At that point I called you on the phone, we had that heated discussion and you told me you'd called Merchantville NJ, The man you'd talked to was the very same man I'd called and left a message with before either of us began disussing this on the IM but after you said on the DG you could prove Crump blew his brains out.

But as Brad said, the manner of his death is a small issue. We think so too but if you feel like making it into an article that has interesting ramifications about the club's attitude towards Crump or Colt then I encourage that. I'll be most interested to read it and of course remark on it or refute it. And I hope you don't it personally.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #87 on: February 16, 2005, 09:30:11 AM »
The manner of Crump's death is not a small issue.

It's a huge scoop/story.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #88 on: February 16, 2005, 09:52:47 AM »
Someone needs to explain to me why the manner of Crump's death matters.

If he did commit suicide, do people on here think it is some sort of stain on his character? That it reflects badly on him? That it ex-communicates him from some higher ring in the architectural firmament?

I view it as an interesting, but minor historical footnote.  All this fuss mystifies me.

Bob  
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 09:56:28 AM by BCrosby »

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #89 on: February 16, 2005, 10:41:36 AM »
Bob:

You've got some fine questions there, and they need to be asked at this point by someone like you. Wayne and I sure aren't getting any answers! I've asked them of Tom MacWood about a hundred times and so has Wayne but as you well know he won't answer us. Now it's about his "ducks" being slightly out of line or some other horse-sh..., or the latest is he just wants more time to write this article properly---and that's definitely understandable! ;)  The truth about this issue now, in my opinion, is Tom MacWood has obviously completetly committed himself to this story about being able to PROVE that Crump committed suicide.

But that rumor of the suicide has been around for years--I heard about it 30 years ago.

Paul Turner just said it's a huge scoop/story! In my opinion, it would be but only if Tom MacWood or someone can actually prove that Crump did committ suicide. Nobody has bothered to try to do that all these years that I know of.

GeoffShac told me years ago that he thought Crump committed suicide. When I asked him recently why he felt that way he said because he thought he read the mention of it by Peter Dobereinner in an article he found some time ago in the Ralph Miller Library in LA. He said he felt Dobereinner was a very creditable source and so there must be something to it.

Having heard that Crump suicide rumor decades ago the obvious question was why. Most answered because they felt Crump may have become depressed or perhaps he drank and also became depressed. Some like TommyN said recently he felt or he's heard Crump was broke. I heard that too years ago but have never seen any indication of it. That probably wouldn't be very difficult to run down.

I talked to one of my friends at PV about that yesterday and he said he'd heard that rumor of depression or whatnot but just considered it a unproven story at this point. Crump was apparently a most beloved man with a huge personable but rather laid back personality. One can see from everything written about him before and after his death that appeared the case. One must assume that a man who was capable of collecting all those famous golfers and architects around him for basically no cost had to be pretty special somehow. Crump was apparently known to give people exceptional credit for things they recommended to him during PV's creation even things he never did in the end, although he clearly acted as if he considered them such as Travis's very public mention that Crump had agreed to let him create a reverse routing and sequence on the course. He appears to have been so accomodating that way.

I've often wondered if it is reasonable to assume that he used that tactic to some degree as a way of promoting interest in the course since being apparently not being egotistical and not a proprietary person about the course he may've understood that was a great way to promote it. And anyone who reads the records of others during his long-term creation of the course can see he was massively admired towards the end compared obviously to when he started. He knew he was a rank amateur in the beginning but it was clearly all his dream----the whole damn thing---the entire idea of it and clearly he wanted to do it his way. He owned the place too. And Crump obviously did have a nice jesting sense of humor.

And he did it his way in the end just as Carr and Smith and Tilly said. One needs to appreciate how much he was there between 1912 and 1918---first appaently in a tent and then his cottage by the 5th. It does seem sort of excessive, driven, maybe even weird and that may be why some wonder if he was mentally OK in the end. He didn't live there all the time, he did have a huge expensive house in Merchantville NJ. Just the other day I spoke with a member whose grandfather bought Crump's house after Crump died.

But nothing I've ever heard of points to depression or alchoholism or anything like that. He was an ebullient man---there's a cute story about him on the street in front of his house the day before he died. But suicides are odd--sometimes there's absolutely no indication of it happening and sometimes no know reason why afterwords.

Obviously Tom MacWood thinks it would be a big scoop or story if he could prove his suicide. Certainly Paul Turner does. If Tom MacWood can prove it then obvoiusly anyone  could have at any time all these years. All they'd have had to do is call Merchantville NJ. The particulars of his death are right there logged in an old log book!!! No one did that clearly because they didn't see the point of it! Tom MacWood actually told me that he's able to do this because he's such a good researcher. He actually told Wayne and me that if we wanted to look into this that Wayne should do it because I'm not capable of getting that information out of a person like that. Tom actually told us that!  ;)

What would the point of it be? Well, MacWood and Turner are on this agenda of Colt as we well know now. At first they said that Crump's suicide caused the club to go into a defensive mode of some kind and that effected the club's perception of what Colt did there. It minimized it, in fact, as Crump became glorified, presumably for what he did there. But why the club would glorify him because he blew his brains out rather than died suddenly of poison to the brain is beyond me---beyond us. I guess Tom will try to make the case that since he actually killed himself and sort of laid his body on a bier of PVGC they all felt guilty or sorry they didn't protect him or something like that.

Does that make any sense to you BoB? It sure doesn't to me or Wayne or anyone I know at PVGC.

Tom MacWood told me he told that man in Merchantville he was a expert researcher/writer and that's the reason the man told him he had proof about Crump's death although it was illegal to be telling him that. I guess Tom thinks he charmed that info out of him.

Now the man tells a different version of what he knows to us and he claims he has no idea why this man in Ohio is telling us he said such a thing. Of course Tom claims the man is obviously nervous that he said something illegal like that and is just covering his tracks with us or continuing to perpetuate this massive decades long glorification of Crump or something like that.

Tom MacWood was very upset with me for violating a confidence in his source and that I could injure the man. I told Tom that the man ran the township offices and part of his job was to answer a question like this. I merely dialed information and got him. It had nothing to do with finding out about him from Tom MacWood.

So, I don't know! Some think that Tom MacWood is basically just trying to make a name for himself as an expert researcher/writer. Just today I saw an email from him where he continues to get on us for personally attacking him. We just told him there's nothing personal here at all---we're just maintaining our right to say on here that he and his information is wrong if we think it is.

But let him write the article and we can see what he says. A few days ago he wrote that he might "angle" this article to have the theme of an expert researcher/writer doing his expert resarching and writing, how he does it and how in this case how he had to do it under duress! What was his duress? I guess he'll say it was me and Wayne personally attacking him while all we're trying to do is get him to answer our questions about the things he's said on here and to us.

I don't really know what the hell he thinks he's doing with an article but let's wait and see. Maybe he wants to write an article on the actual creation of PVGC and who did what.

If he wants to do that I practically gave him the entire blueprint of it yesterday but I took a lot of it off this morning. I hope he read it!  ;)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 11:56:44 AM by TEPaul »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #90 on: February 16, 2005, 10:51:40 AM »
That is it!  We need to call in a cold case file expert.  I assume you gents have reviewed the death certificates, since that is elementary, and of course I also assume that in those days the D.C. opr autopsy (if done) might be very inaccurate or incomplete.  I really don't know if he had a regular physician and if there would be medical records available, or by what means one could try to go after them.  

CSI Merchantville, thrilling episodes of forensic science mixed with golf course architecture and private club intrique, coming next season.  Starring Tom Selleck Paul, and Tom Columbo MacWood as two competing golf architecture forensic pathologists with guest appearances from Tommy LuLing Naccarato, old Chinese ME detective from L.A. who cracked the case on the bad Merlot that ruined the Good Dr.s liver, and Wayne Morrison, the meticulous Major Domo and executor of the sprawling mainline estate in Philly where the forensic architeture pathologists live and play.

Crump... was it suicide, a bad tooth ache in his heel, or murrrderrr?  Who will crack the case... of champaign when the truth is revealed.  

Have you guys contacted Geraldo?  What secrets and treasure lie in Crump's hidden NJ underground vault. Was he an agent of the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, and confederate of Billy Sundae.   Did he take so long to complete his golf project because he was opposed to the use of a hip pocket flask and never had enough inspirational design moments, because he was too sober?  

We love you all fellows, but this is becoming an epic series that can only wind up on reality TV.... ;D ::) 8)  
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #91 on: February 16, 2005, 11:07:15 AM »
"Obviously Tom MacWood thinks it would be a big scoop or story if he could prove his suicide. Certainly Paul Turner does. If Tom MacWood can prove it then obvoiusly any of us could have at any time all these years. No one did clearly because they didn't see the point of it!"

Yes Tom, maybe they didn't.  But you clearly do.  There's lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely.


"What would the point of it be? Well, MacWood and Turner are on this agenda of Colt as we well know now. At first they said that Crump's suicide caused the club to go into defensive mode of some kind and that effected the club's perception of what Colt did there."

I think you're getting a bit paranoid here!


PS
I have a pic of Crump in drag.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 11:09:42 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2005, 12:27:58 PM »
"Yes Tom, maybe they didn't.  But you clearly do."

You know Paul, I really don't, and I never have. I've known of that rumor for thirty years. If I was clearly interested then why do you suppose I never even thought of looking into the cause of Crump's death before? It's because I don't see the point of it!!! An as we've both told you a number of times neither of us see the point of it---not to PV, the way they look at Crump and Colt, none of it!!

So why are we doing it now?? Since you're asking, I'll tell you the whole truth, and I apologize to Tom MacWood but we checked on it because he did try to prove it--maybe the only one who ever has and we felt like checking ourselves to see if his claim that he HAD PROVED it (as he claimed) should be considered true! That's why we did it. And then this whole recent story of Tom's claim that the guy in Merchantville told him one thing and us another. So now it's an issue and I'm sure we'll all find out soon if Crump did or didn't commit suicide.

But that's just a part of it. The other part that might interest this website in some way is---who cares at this point? Or does it have some significance to the way the club and the world percieve Crump and Colt now due to this suicide? None of us brought any of this up! Tom MacWood did! As of now he seems to be tacking around like a small sailboat and obviously he's reading all this so who knows what he'll do next? I guess we'll just have to wait and see because he sure as shootin' ain't discussing with us what he should do about this article. Only four people knew about this article that Tom must view as a potential scoop/story and perhaps one that ties into this whole thing you guys claim about PV.

A little quirk of fate just happened to make who those four were who were sworn to secrecy about this article fall into my hands!! They were Ran, TommyN, and GeoffShac. I've had a series of rather unfortunate conversations with TommyN about this---I asked a few days ago that perhaps he and Tom MacWood might consider having a conference call with me. I talked to Ran about this at length yesterday, and we came to what I consider to be a great resolution which is let it happen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com if it's an interesting story. Despite the protestations of some on here over personal attacks it probably has become and interesting story---probably one akin to ten train wrecks! As for GeoffShac, I guess I've mentioned it to him briefly recently but I doubt he cares at all. He probably just thinks it's another one of the labrynthian discussions on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com

So why are we pursuing it? As I've said a number of times because I don't believe the way you two look at PVGC is remotely true or not for the reasons you propose and I'm only trying to point that out on here. The other reason, and I'm sure everyone knows it by now is we suspect a few of the things Tom MacWood said he proved but refuses to tell us how despite being asked---just may not be true. If they are true (Crump's suicide) then fine---big deal---and then let him go on and try to prove to our satisfaction and that of others what the hell the signifnicance of it is to what we talk about on here---golf architecture. We didn't look to prove Crump's suicide---Tom MacWood did that all by himself!


"There's lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely."

Oh yeah, then why don't you let us in on what you think all the big secrets are? I'm sure they feel like they're under a magnifying glass right now.

And who's trying to put them there Paul?

So go ahead Paul, tell us all---what is all this 'lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely'?

« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 12:34:57 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #93 on: February 16, 2005, 12:31:46 PM »
"I think you're getting a bit paranoid here!"

Ok, Paul, I recognize that's become you and Tom MacWood's standard line with me but why not just tell me and us all what it is exactly that you think I'm getting paranoid about?

Would it be the truth???

What truth would that be? Would it have something to do with English architect Harry Colt??

Please tell me!

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #94 on: February 16, 2005, 12:34:28 PM »
Tom

You can't agree that the story is a huge scoop and then state that there's no point to it.

And you know that the evolution of the course hasn't been looked at carefully.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 01:16:27 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #95 on: February 16, 2005, 12:36:12 PM »
George -
If you're still checking in on this thread, would you be so kind as to rename it "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death"

Thanks.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 12:36:47 PM by SPDB »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #96 on: February 16, 2005, 12:37:24 PM »
Speaking as a relatively disinterested party - never played there, not likely to be invited anytime soon :) - I can't see where it really matters. I also can't see how anything motivationally-speaking could be established unless he left a note. Even if he did, it could be any number of reasons. The other night I was so sleep deprived from dealing with my 11 month old son who refuses to sleep that I was thankful that I didn't have a gun - he never would have been in danger, but I might have.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #97 on: February 16, 2005, 12:39:35 PM »
George -
If you're still checking in on this thread, would you be so kind as to rename it "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death"

Thanks.

 :)

As I said earlier, I am glad to see this thread hijacked - it's now more interesting than the original premise, and everyone is playing relatively nice. Nothing wrong with heated discussion, as long as everyone maintains some level of respect for the others' efforts.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Golden

Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #98 on: February 16, 2005, 12:42:11 PM »
Actually, the thread should be renamed "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death by people having nothing better to do than repeat themselves ad infinitum and ad nauseum"

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...
« Reply #99 on: February 16, 2005, 12:44:50 PM »
George, have you tried Numzit?  Just a little pinch between the cheek and gums... ;) ;D

Believe it or not George, those long nights of holding a feverish teething child are the best of times.  Funny, how 20+ years from now you will remember those nights fondly and with pride, and your son won't have a clue... and wonder why you worry about him so much, even if he is all grown up. ::) 8)

PS: is it possible for the intial poster to re-hijack his own hijacked thread?  But, shirley I digress... ;D
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 12:48:09 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.