This blog entry (journal entry, whatever) is the first in a long time, I know. I've been busy, and didn't want to devote the time to this blog/journal.
Having said that, there's something I need to say.
Back when I was working for a major wireless provider and even before that at a major computer manufacturer, we had to keep copious notes. Why? Good question, especially since a number of people these days don't bother to read the damn things.
The notes exist for a reason. They're there to make your job (the Customer Service Rep's) job easier. They're there to explain any oddities or special instructions about the account. In the case of payment information, they exist so that if there is a problem with a certain type of payment (cheque or credit card) you can ask for an alternate form of payment.
I actually had this happen: A Customer's debit card went to one account yet his cheque information (Same account mind you) went to another. It was what you could call a "Special Instruction," which is why I notated it as such. That's also another reason why the notes exist. Yet in more than one occassion at the wireless provider, I had my special instruction (ensuring that the Customer's debit card only was used for payment) removed and replaced with 'no obans.' (At the time I worked there, they kept track of accounts by BAN number. And a rep had to check for another ban 'oban (other BAN)' during each call. And they had to note such in the logs.) Now forgive me for being dense, but 'no obans' does not a special instruction make:
1) Each rep was required to check for another BAN (oban)
2) Each rep was required to note any other BANs in the account notes (Either "oban (account #)" or "no obans")
3) Under reasons 1 and 2 above, that was not a special instruction.
Yet I had to appear before an area manager and explain why I was 'causing trouble' in trying to get people to NOT notate special instructions as 'oban' or 'no oban.' Honestly. Talk about the epitome of idiocy.
In not reading the notes, you've managed to waste at least three people's time:
1) Yours
2) The person you're speaking with
3) The person that wrote the notes
4) The person who added to the notes (if anybody did)
This then would be the epitome of two things: Idiocy and inefficiency.
Yet these are the same people who bitch when in the checkout que at the store because the cashier is 'taking too long.' Or they're talking with the Customers and are 'wasting time' according to management and/or other Customers.
But these are the same 'Customer Service Reps' that can't bother to read the damn notes.
This is not rocket science, folks. It honestly isn't.
I promise that the next person that calls here that doesn't read the notes is gonna be pointed right back to this entry. And then they're gonna get ripped a new one.
The notes are there for a reason. If you can't be bothered to read them, you deserve what you get.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
No Chicago Olympics
As has already been reported far and wide across the Internet and in other media (radio, TV, etc) Chicago lost the Olympics.
As has been predicted, it's now time for the blame game to begin. According to critics of the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) the fault belongs firmly on their shoulders, according ot the New York Times. (*)
" Chicago’s last-place finish in the I.O.C. voting on Friday in Copenhagen was the latest blow in a year marked by the departure of major sponsors, layoffs at U.S.O.C. headquarters, controversy over the salary of the acting chief executive, and the failed plan for an Olympic television network. (Link is from the New York Times and is left intact.)
" “Before we think about putting forth another Olympic city for a Games possibility, we’ve got to deal with some outstanding issues that are not going to go away,” said Mike Plant, who serves on the U.S.O.C.’s 10-member board and traveled to Copenhagen as part of the Chicago delegation. “I think that certainly there will be some dialogue that’s going to take place in the next couple of weeks — or certainly in short order.” "
But there's also this link the "Chicago Sun-Times"(**) article where the blame is laid firmly at the feet of President Bush?!?
" Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentment likely played a role in Chicago's Olympic bid dying in the first round Friday.
" President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years, they said. "
Say it isn't so, O! But it goes further:
" State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw firsthand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro. "I feel in my gut that this vote today was political and mean-spirited," she said. "
"...political and mean-spirited..." Um, yeah. Whatever.
I REALLY wish I had permission to post one of comments on their site, but it was written by Geoff King and was written on 3-OCT-2009 (today) at 6:17pm CDT.
The gist of the comment was that the Obamas gave emotional appeals which work well on Oprah but fall short on the International stage. Mr King also said they were good for "ego gratification."
Just remember, according to Chicago's 'leaders' this is President Bush's fault.
(*) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/sports/04usoc.html
(**) - http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1804170,CST-NWS-olyresent03.article#
As has been predicted, it's now time for the blame game to begin. According to critics of the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) the fault belongs firmly on their shoulders, according ot the New York Times. (*)
" Chicago’s last-place finish in the I.O.C. voting on Friday in Copenhagen was the latest blow in a year marked by the departure of major sponsors, layoffs at U.S.O.C. headquarters, controversy over the salary of the acting chief executive, and the failed plan for an Olympic television network. (Link is from the New York Times and is left intact.)
" “Before we think about putting forth another Olympic city for a Games possibility, we’ve got to deal with some outstanding issues that are not going to go away,” said Mike Plant, who serves on the U.S.O.C.’s 10-member board and traveled to Copenhagen as part of the Chicago delegation. “I think that certainly there will be some dialogue that’s going to take place in the next couple of weeks — or certainly in short order.” "
But there's also this link the "Chicago Sun-Times"(**) article where the blame is laid firmly at the feet of President Bush?!?
" Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentment likely played a role in Chicago's Olympic bid dying in the first round Friday.
" President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years, they said. "
Say it isn't so, O! But it goes further:
" State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw firsthand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro. "I feel in my gut that this vote today was political and mean-spirited," she said. "
"...political and mean-spirited..." Um, yeah. Whatever.
I REALLY wish I had permission to post one of comments on their site, but it was written by Geoff King and was written on 3-OCT-2009 (today) at 6:17pm CDT.
The gist of the comment was that the Obamas gave emotional appeals which work well on Oprah but fall short on the International stage. Mr King also said they were good for "ego gratification."
Just remember, according to Chicago's 'leaders' this is President Bush's fault.
(*) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/sports/04usoc.html
(**) - http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1804170,CST-NWS-olyresent03.article#
ObamaCare or Jail?!? - UPDATE 3-OCT-2009
Yes, you read that right. ::sigh:: Here's a link to the article: http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/62185347.html
And here's a link to the story that started it all: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall#
" Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold." "
The "violators" are the people who don't sign up for ObamaCare.
UPDATE:
According to this New York Times blog http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/debating-done-now-comes-a-budget-work-up-before-voting-on-the-baucus-bill/
there has been a relaxing of the penalties for failing to buy ObamaCare:
" My colleagues, Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes, who followed the committee proceedings through the wee hours of the morning, report some of the crucial changes that were made to the bill in the final session, including an easing of penalties the new law would require for people who fail to obtain health insurance. " (Link is theirs and is left intact.)
By following that link (above) we end up here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/health/policy/03health.html?_r=1&hp
which states: " Before it finished work at 2:15 a.m. Friday, the committee voted to reduce penalties on people who go without insurance. The maximum penalty for a family was cut to $800, from $1,900, and it would be phased in gradually from 2014 to 2017. "
OK...so, it reduces the penalty from $1,900 for a family down to $800. But it still says nothing about prison time, so it's a guess if you still go to jail for failing to buy ObamaCare.
The MSM, oddly enough, didn't really report on the JAIL provision, except for Fox News. The WTMJ story started with this line: " Undoubtedly, this would be dismissed as more right-wing fear-mongering, except that it has been confirmed in writing. " (This was a link that led back to the Politico article. The link was removed.)
But that's what the Dems wanted. Don't buy ObamaCare, go to jail. No update on the jail provision, however.
Is this the 'change' you wanted?
And here's a link to the story that started it all: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall#
" Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold." "
The "violators" are the people who don't sign up for ObamaCare.
UPDATE:
According to this New York Times blog http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/debating-done-now-comes-a-budget-work-up-before-voting-on-the-baucus-bill/
there has been a relaxing of the penalties for failing to buy ObamaCare:
" My colleagues, Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes, who followed the committee proceedings through the wee hours of the morning, report some of the crucial changes that were made to the bill in the final session, including an easing of penalties the new law would require for people who fail to obtain health insurance. " (Link is theirs and is left intact.)
By following that link (above) we end up here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/health/policy/03health.html?_r=1&hp
which states: " Before it finished work at 2:15 a.m. Friday, the committee voted to reduce penalties on people who go without insurance. The maximum penalty for a family was cut to $800, from $1,900, and it would be phased in gradually from 2014 to 2017. "
OK...so, it reduces the penalty from $1,900 for a family down to $800. But it still says nothing about prison time, so it's a guess if you still go to jail for failing to buy ObamaCare.
The MSM, oddly enough, didn't really report on the JAIL provision, except for Fox News. The WTMJ story started with this line: " Undoubtedly, this would be dismissed as more right-wing fear-mongering, except that it has been confirmed in writing. " (This was a link that led back to the Politico article. The link was removed.)
But that's what the Dems wanted. Don't buy ObamaCare, go to jail. No update on the jail provision, however.
Is this the 'change' you wanted?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Article: "IOC ... humiliates Obama..."
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1217595/President-Obama-touches-Copenhagen-make-personal-pitch-Chicago-Olympic-bid.html
You'll notice, I hope, the ellipses (the three periods "...") in the title. Those are, I believe, the most important words. The IOC didn't mean to do this, but to many Democrats, that's what it's going to be. The IOC, in the Democrat's mind, meant to humiliate Obama. Butlet's read a bit from this article:
" Rio de Janeiro is to host the first Olympic Games in South America." And warm congratulations should go to the "City of God."
" International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge made the announcement in Copenhagen today, to the bitter humiliation of Barack Obama.
" The U.S. president was embarrassed on the world stage after the IOC rejected his very personal bid for the 2016 Olympic Games to be hosted in his home town of Chicago. "
Ok...that should sum up the article right there. But already on CNN, one of their 'unbiased' 'reporters' was very nearly in tears. Tears. That's unbiased reporting? Shocked disbelief I'll give you, but tears?? Come on.
One of the Chicago papers' on-line edition had "O No!" And Rush was ... well. Rush was Rush. I think he didn't think the "mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama" rap of indoctrination (Google this, you'll find it) in a public school really helped. (As an aside, if you really needed any more reasons to homeschool, there you go. It's about indoctrination these days. It's the Chicagoland way.)
I would've liked the United States to have been the host for the 2016 Games. But go to Michelle Malkin's site (http://michellemalkin.com) and read about the corruption in Chi-town to try to get the Games. It'll leave you wondering where the MSM is. Out to lunch perhaps, since they couldn't be bothered to report any of it.
You'll notice, I hope, the ellipses (the three periods "...") in the title. Those are, I believe, the most important words. The IOC didn't mean to do this, but to many Democrats, that's what it's going to be. The IOC, in the Democrat's mind, meant to humiliate Obama. Butlet's read a bit from this article:
" Rio de Janeiro is to host the first Olympic Games in South America." And warm congratulations should go to the "City of God."
" International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge made the announcement in Copenhagen today, to the bitter humiliation of Barack Obama.
" The U.S. president was embarrassed on the world stage after the IOC rejected his very personal bid for the 2016 Olympic Games to be hosted in his home town of Chicago. "
Ok...that should sum up the article right there. But already on CNN, one of their 'unbiased' 'reporters' was very nearly in tears. Tears. That's unbiased reporting? Shocked disbelief I'll give you, but tears?? Come on.
One of the Chicago papers' on-line edition had "O No!" And Rush was ... well. Rush was Rush. I think he didn't think the "mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama" rap of indoctrination (Google this, you'll find it) in a public school really helped. (As an aside, if you really needed any more reasons to homeschool, there you go. It's about indoctrination these days. It's the Chicagoland way.)
I would've liked the United States to have been the host for the 2016 Games. But go to Michelle Malkin's site (http://michellemalkin.com) and read about the corruption in Chi-town to try to get the Games. It'll leave you wondering where the MSM is. Out to lunch perhaps, since they couldn't be bothered to report any of it.
"HAMMER (and Sickle) TIME!"
The link: http://www.kctv5.com/news/21176602/detail.html
" The billboard reads, "How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die." There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign." (Link is KCTV5's and is left intact)
Waiting for the screams of "RAAACIST!!!"
3..2...1...
" The billboard reads, "How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die." There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign." (Link is KCTV5's and is left intact)
Waiting for the screams of "RAAACIST!!!"
3..2...1...
"The Ego Has Landed" - Drudge Report
And currently on Drudge Report - Madrid has won.I've never been an Obama fan. I'll admit that. I've spoken out against him from day one and I'll admit that too. I'll also admit that our Friday group got a bit "giddy" when we learned that Obama's Chicago had lost the Olympics.
But I'm of two minds to this. First, the US could've used the Olympics. But you know that in the corruption culture that's in DC now, the Democrats would've used this as a victory to push through even more liberalism.
This next is from Michelle Malkin's site and, I think, sums it up quite well:
" Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.
" This is a big win and a massive relief for taxpayers. But Chicago cronies are not going to take this well. Gird your loins.
" Who will be first to cry RAAAAAACIST? Well, it will be a little awkward to play the race card after liberal critics of the Games filed a civil rights complaint against the Chicago 2016 committee for racial discrimination yesterday. But count on the Team Obama grievance-mongers to play it anyway." (*)
There is a lot there, so let's examine this. "...Obama's giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings." Well, yes. Remember the Drudge Report's banner: "THE EGO HAS LANDED"
And, Ms Malkin's right that somebody, Janeane Garofalo perhaps, is going to play the "RAAACIST!" card. As in "Well, the IOC simply couldn't bear to have Chicago win because Barack Obama's black. That's all this is." This is following Ms Garofalo's 'logic' that those of us who supported (and still do support) the Tea Parties are because Mr Obama's black.
Give me a flippin' break. And yes, Ms Obama did say it was a "sacrifice" to go there to pitch for Chicago. (**) Here's THAT headline: "Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids." Um...yeah. Some sacrifice.
(*) - http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/the-noble-%e2%80%9csacrifice%e2%80%9d-of-michelle-obama/
(**) - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michelle-Obama-Its-a-sacrifice-to-travel-to-Europe-to-pitch-for-the-Olympics--For-Oprah-and-the-president-too--But-were-doing-it-for-the-kids-62928957.html#
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Ohio Issue #3 - The Facts
Ohio Issue 3: What is it?
Sept 24, 2009: Issue #3 is a proposed Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will permit the construction of a total of four (4) casinos, one each in the cities of Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. These would be built at a pre-determined (already determined) location. (1)
There have been many claims on both sides of this issue, both in defense of and in opposition to this proposed amendment; and if you’ve been anywhere near a radio or TV lately, you’ve more than likely been exposed to these adverts. But as Detective Sgt. Joe Friday (as played by Jack Webb) once famously said:
“No, there’s one thing you left out.”
“What’s that?”
“The facts.”
So here are some facts.
First: The proposed amendment would create four first-class casinos in the State of Ohio. This is true, provided that the Gilbert Group (backing these proposed casinos) doesn’t back out of the project – as they did in a similar project in Kansas City.
Second: The casinos would create 34,000 Ohio jobs. This is misleading. First, it would create 34,000 jobs, but the source of this number makes no distinction between full-time jobs and part-time jobs. (2) What’s worse, that 34,000 jobs includes the 19,000 construction jobs which would be needed to build them. It only creates 15,000 permanent jobs. But let’s look at these jobs:
22% are food service or preparation. They pay $19,500.
20% are gaming dealers or slot key. They pay $21,700.
14% are machine servicers, cashiers or other gaming service. These pay $22,900
This accounts for a total of 56% of all jobs. Contrast this with the median household income in Columbus - $42,253.
Third: Under Issue #3 these casinos would be required to pay a 33% tax on all revenues generated. This is higher than most other businesses. (3) While factually accurate, this is also misleading. This amount, 33%, is below the average of casinos located outside of Atlantic City, Reno, or Las Vegas. And it is far below the average paid in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In fact, in Maryland, Penn National agreed to a 67% tax rate on its new casino. (4,5)
Fourth: Provide $200 million in state job training to put Ohioans back to work. But nowhere in the Amendment does it state that it would require the casino operators to hire Ohioans. In fact, there are already radio adverts in New Jersey and Las Vegas asking for licensed, qualified operators who would be willing to relocate to Ohio. And our cost-of-living is far less than Las Vegas, Reno … or Atlantic City. (6)
Fifth: It would require each initial licensed casino operator to pay a $50 million dollar fee to be used for training. In other words, $50 million per casino. Since there would be four casinos, this would generate $200 million total. (6) However, this $50 million fee is far less than a similar casino in Illinois, which is paying a $400 million fee per casino. In Massachusetts, state officials there may be asking a fee of $500 million for each of two casinos. Total - $1 billion. (4)
Lastly, the proponents (those in favour) of Issue #3 are stating that it will not affect “charity nights” at the casinos. This is just plain wrong. Gambling in the State of Ohio falls under the purview of and is governed by the Ohio Revised Code. Specifically, section 2915.02. More specifically, section 2915.02D(1)(b). (7)
Summary:
There can be no doubt that our great state, Ohio, is suffering along with the rest of our great Country in the midst of this economic downturn. Of that, there can be no doubt whatsoever. While technically any job is better than none, there are far too many things about Issue #3 that give me pause to allow me to vote for it.
However, this article is not about my personal opinion, it is about as Joe Friday said “The facts.” I believe in this instance that a clear open-minded evaluation of the facts will lead you to vote no on Issue #3.
SOURCES:
NOTE: Some of these links are direct links to .PDF files. I have nothing against .PDF files, but you will need a reader that can handle these files. The most popular is Adobe Acrobat, and can be downloaded or updated here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/ Where the link is to an actual .PDF file, there will be a red, bold asterisk (*) following the link.
1) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-text.pdf (*)
2) http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/Fact-Checking_the_Issue_3_Casino_TV_Ads_Will_Issue_3_Create_34000_Jobs/23637/
3) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-official_argument_for.pdf (*)
4) http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/?p=9058
5) http://www.truthpac.org/
6) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-final_language.pdf (*)
7) http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2915.02
Sept 24, 2009: Issue #3 is a proposed Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will permit the construction of a total of four (4) casinos, one each in the cities of Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo. These would be built at a pre-determined (already determined) location. (1)
There have been many claims on both sides of this issue, both in defense of and in opposition to this proposed amendment; and if you’ve been anywhere near a radio or TV lately, you’ve more than likely been exposed to these adverts. But as Detective Sgt. Joe Friday (as played by Jack Webb) once famously said:
“No, there’s one thing you left out.”
“What’s that?”
“The facts.”
So here are some facts.
First: The proposed amendment would create four first-class casinos in the State of Ohio. This is true, provided that the Gilbert Group (backing these proposed casinos) doesn’t back out of the project – as they did in a similar project in Kansas City.
Second: The casinos would create 34,000 Ohio jobs. This is misleading. First, it would create 34,000 jobs, but the source of this number makes no distinction between full-time jobs and part-time jobs. (2) What’s worse, that 34,000 jobs includes the 19,000 construction jobs which would be needed to build them. It only creates 15,000 permanent jobs. But let’s look at these jobs:
22% are food service or preparation. They pay $19,500.
20% are gaming dealers or slot key. They pay $21,700.
14% are machine servicers, cashiers or other gaming service. These pay $22,900
This accounts for a total of 56% of all jobs. Contrast this with the median household income in Columbus - $42,253.
Third: Under Issue #3 these casinos would be required to pay a 33% tax on all revenues generated. This is higher than most other businesses. (3) While factually accurate, this is also misleading. This amount, 33%, is below the average of casinos located outside of Atlantic City, Reno, or Las Vegas. And it is far below the average paid in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In fact, in Maryland, Penn National agreed to a 67% tax rate on its new casino. (4,5)
Fourth: Provide $200 million in state job training to put Ohioans back to work. But nowhere in the Amendment does it state that it would require the casino operators to hire Ohioans. In fact, there are already radio adverts in New Jersey and Las Vegas asking for licensed, qualified operators who would be willing to relocate to Ohio. And our cost-of-living is far less than Las Vegas, Reno … or Atlantic City. (6)
Fifth: It would require each initial licensed casino operator to pay a $50 million dollar fee to be used for training. In other words, $50 million per casino. Since there would be four casinos, this would generate $200 million total. (6) However, this $50 million fee is far less than a similar casino in Illinois, which is paying a $400 million fee per casino. In Massachusetts, state officials there may be asking a fee of $500 million for each of two casinos. Total - $1 billion. (4)
Lastly, the proponents (those in favour) of Issue #3 are stating that it will not affect “charity nights” at the casinos. This is just plain wrong. Gambling in the State of Ohio falls under the purview of and is governed by the Ohio Revised Code. Specifically, section 2915.02. More specifically, section 2915.02D(1)(b). (7)
Summary:
There can be no doubt that our great state, Ohio, is suffering along with the rest of our great Country in the midst of this economic downturn. Of that, there can be no doubt whatsoever. While technically any job is better than none, there are far too many things about Issue #3 that give me pause to allow me to vote for it.
However, this article is not about my personal opinion, it is about as Joe Friday said “The facts.” I believe in this instance that a clear open-minded evaluation of the facts will lead you to vote no on Issue #3.
SOURCES:
NOTE: Some of these links are direct links to .PDF files. I have nothing against .PDF files, but you will need a reader that can handle these files. The most popular is Adobe Acrobat, and can be downloaded or updated here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/ Where the link is to an actual .PDF file, there will be a red, bold asterisk (*) following the link.
1) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-text.pdf (*)
2) http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/Fact-Checking_the_Issue_3_Casino_TV_Ads_Will_Issue_3_Create_34000_Jobs/23637/
3) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-official_argument_for.pdf (*)
4) http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/?p=9058
5) http://www.truthpac.org/
6) http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-final_language.pdf (*)
7) http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2915.02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
