A 3rd Pro-CT Mod For CT Forum

Sofa_King Good

Hi. I appreciate I am now probably putting a target in my own back here but here goes...

Sure it won't be taken serious, such as when the users were taken the piss out of on the move to Soc when the Economist was loudly proclaimed as the new Mod in town and all the drastic changes he was taking with him.

The recent banning of Mysterious highlighted a few fundamental issues with the CT forum at the moment.

For me he was at least he was partly the victim of the everpresent under-current of hostility and antagonism directed constantly towards the pro-CT members and their views. He reacted, predictably probably, but as far as I can make out he does not logon to argue but to express his views. For example, the comment that actually got him banned was in response to an admitted skeptic posting a video that he mocked.

This is not about Mysterious though.

I am sure many of you do not frequent the CT forum so this is the best way it can be described in my view.

A gay guy goes to a visit a gay club. He wants to meet & talk with likeminded people free from discrimination and ridicule he faces daily due to his situation.

Once he gets in its not what he expected at all. Rather that just fellow homo-sexuals what he encounters is a majority of straight men. Strangely some of these straight men are regulars, despite there being a straight (skeptic) club across the road. Whats worse is that these straight men are actually virulent homophobes and view any gay visitors with contempt and make no secret about it.

Some of these gay men can handle the sometimes concealed sometimes not but always constant taunts and jibes and the eternal condescending attitude. Unfortunately others (e.g. Mysterious) respond.

So this attacked minority of gay men look to the bouncers for some help and support.

Unfortunately, the 2 bouncers are straight men too. In fact one has no interest in the subject at all according to himself, so the pattern continues.

Any passing gay trade is immediately put off entering/staying due to the hostile environment against their kind. So numbers dwindle, eventually the club has to close, even the straight men no longer frequent as they have no interest in each other it is far more entertaining shooting fish in a barrel.

So. I'd reccomend a third pro-CT mod to add some balance.

As you are you have 1. Bonkey - A sceptic, but is the epitomy of moderation IMO.

and 2. 6th - Who finds CT posters more interesting the CT's themselves.

And due to the current nature of the forum unfortunately there are 2 distinct sides. So I feel some balance would be beneficial.

I cannot imagine it would be accepted in any other forum. To have 100% of the mod's who would actually argue against the subject matter of the topics or have apparently no interest, and I would say therefore little understanding of the topics.

It is worth pointing out that without posters like Mysterious there would be no Forum. It would be as active as the skeptics forum.

Sofa_King Good

Just to add -

I have no problems to people being punished for breaking the rules. But I would prefer some consistency.

Water off a ducks back but I personally have been on the recieving end of far worse abuse than Mysterious has ever given out.

Sometimes checked others not.

orestes

So, people who believe in conspiracy theories are gay?

Overheal

Why of course. Everyone knows that NASA disperses vials of the gay virus anytime it does a launch.

/Sofa King can you discuss the problem Plainly?

If we're talking Pro Conspiracy theorists I can't think of anyone with a shinier tin hat than Run To Da Hills.

RoundyMooney

To avoid the inevitable harping (which has started already), it might be an idea OP, to provide a few examples of where you feel that the moderation there is unfair, or where you feel there has been a bias in favour of skeptics (of which I am one, unashamedly).

Nerin

RoundyMooney wrote: »

To avoid the inevitable harping (which has started already), it might be an idea OP, to provide a few examples of where you feel that the moderation there is unfair, or where you feel there has been a bias in favour of skeptics (of which I am one, unashamedly).

if theres going to be linking and discussion/complaints on modding it should happen in the helpdesk, (located here)

humanji

Is there really a need? A mod is there to keep the peace. What they believe should have nothing to do with how they do this job. If you feel they're not doing a good job, or that their beliefs are interfering with their decisions, then make a complaint on the Helpdesk.

A pro-CT mod isn't going to get rid of the hostility on the forum. In fact, a pro-CT mod should have no effect at all. As I said above, what they believe should have no effect on their job.

Sofa_King Good

okay then. how many anti-gambling mods on Poker.?

How many straight mods on the lesbian/gay forum?

How many alco's on the non drinkers group?

and the list goes on and on

orestes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

okay then. how many anti-gambling mods on Poker.?

How many straight mods on the lesbian/gay forum?

How many alco's on the non drinkers group?

and the list goes on and on

There is a male mod in the Ladies Lounge (the second one there has been there now I believe), a female mod in Beer Guts & Receding Hair, and I personally mod the MMA forum despite it being well known that I have a very limited knowledge of the subject.

That list goes on and on too.

Sofa_King Good

orestes wrote: »

There is a male mod in the Ladies Lounge (the second one there has been there now I believe), a female mod in Beer Guts & Receding Hair, and I personally mod the MMA forum despite it being well known that I have a very limited knowledge of the subject.

That list goes on and on too.

I wasn't aware, thanks. However I'd have to assume that you have some interest in MMA and that any points you make aren't counter-points to the subject matter of the forum's title.

javaboy

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I wasn't aware, thanks. However I'd have to assume that you have some interest in MMA and that any points you make aren't counter-points to the subject matter of the forum's title.

I mod Giving Up Smoking and have pretty much no interest in the subject. Nobody close to me smokes any more and I never have. Mods don't have to have an interest in their area or be active in it to do the job. In fact it often helps the mod be impartial when moderating.

Penn

I have to say, I feel 6th has been doing an excellent job. I don't see why people cannot realise that mysterious, who was just back from a month long ban, then broke the charter several times, argued with mods in-thread, was not respecting other posters, making the natives restless..... personally I would have banned him sooner than they did.

As a user of boards, 6th might side with the skeptics moreso than the CT'ers. I don't know. But as a mod, I have never found him to be anything other than fair.

Question is this, if there was to be a CT'er as a mod, how can you be sure that they would be fair?

Sofa_King Good

humanji wrote: »

Is there really a need? A mod is there to keep the peace. What they believe should have nothing to do with how they do this job. If you feel they're not doing a good job, or that their beliefs are interfering with their decisions, then make a complaint on the Helpdesk.

A pro-CT mod isn't going to get rid of the hostility on the forum. In fact, a pro-CT mod should have no effect at all. As I said above, what they believe should have no effect on their job.

Is total objectivity possible? I don't think so. The problem is not neccessarily always on a case-by-case basis.

It shouldn't even be called a CT forum IMO.

There are more skeptics than CT'ers. Who have no interest in discussing CT's or anything with each other for that matter. Except for the occassional backslap.

I'm guessing here but I assume this is not the case in other forums on boards.ie. Especially the ones that would tend to get a little more heated.

orestes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I wasn't aware, thanks. However I'd have to assume that you have some interest in MMA and that any points you make aren't counter-points to the subject matter of the forum's title.

I watch the occasional UFC event, that's about the extent of my interest on the subject, and I very rarely post in the forum except when I am performing my duties as moderator there.

Sofa_King Good

javaboy wrote: »

I mod Giving Up Smoking and have pretty much no interest in the subject. Nobody close to me smokes any more and I never have. Mods don't have to have an interest in their area or be active in it to do the job. In fact it often helps the mod be impartial when moderating.

I'd agree with this and Bonkey to be fair lets the game flow so to speak.

However, surely it is preferential to hold an interest in the subject and in a give up smoking forum all are on the same side ultimately.

There are not posters there diametrically opposed to the subject matter ready willing and able to drag any thread down into tit-for-tat nonsense trying to get a response.

Sofa_King Good

orestes wrote: »

I watch the occasional UFC event, that's about the extent of my interest on the subject, and I very rarely post in the forum except when I am performing my duties as moderator there.

Fair enough and I am sure you do a good job. However, I am sure that all posters there are actually there to discuss or simply observe the discussion on MMA topics.

Again I am assuming but chances are that people there saying in as many words MMA is sh!t, can you prove it's not? Your a fool if you don't think so etc.. and if there were I can't see them lasting too long.

I'd have more respect for people and their preferences but I could go into the WWF forum and start with its all fake blah blah blah and see how long I last.

It's allowed in CT for reasons never explained.

orestes

Ok, only one way to solve this.

Gender reassignment treatment for Wibbs and Thaedydal, and I'm gonnna go get my ass whooped in a bjj gym.

Oh, and someone is gonna have to teach Beruthial how to surf

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Is total objectivity possible? I don't think so. The problem is not neccessarily always on a case-by-case basis.

It shouldn't even be called a CT forum IMO.

There are more skeptics than CT'ers. Who have no interest in discussing CT's or anything with each other for that matter. Except for the occassional backslap.

I'm guessing here but I assume this is not the case in other forums on boards.ie. Especially the ones that would tend to get a little more heated.

Well, point out where the mods have let their opinions on the matter dictate their mod actions.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I have to say, I feel 6th has been doing an excellent job. I don't see why people cannot realise that mysterious, who was just back from a month long ban, then broke the charter several times, argued with mods in-thread, was not respecting other posters, making the natives restless..... personally I would have banned him sooner than they did.

As a user of boards, 6th might side with the skeptics moreso than the CT'ers. I don't know. But as a mod, I have never found him to be anything other than fair.

Question is this, if there was to be a CT'er as a mod, how can you be sure that they would be fair?

Its not about 6th or Mysterious. They have their own thing together. Maybe you could reread the charter and tell me where 6th has broken his own charter?

This is about looking into the possibility of adding a third mod to the team. I think in the interests of fairness.

And why wouldn't they (edit: pro CT Mod) be fair may I ask.

This is from a recent thread

Seriously, this guy is your champion? Is this the best you have?

The man sounds like a raving loony...

This was the only text of a recent OP in a thread that still is open.

Clearly the OP see's himself as different from the would-be posters on a CT forum, yet it remained open. Swiftly followed by the expected smart-arse comments.

A pro-CT Mod would see the intended offence in the post. Close the thread as a troll thread no opprtunity for anyone to get offended, less hostility.

What is the problem with that?

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Fair enough and I am sure you do a good job. However, I am sure that all posters there are actually there to discuss or simply observe the discussion on MMA topics.

Again I am assuming but chances are that people there saying in as many words MMA is sh!t, can you prove it's not? Your a fool if you don't think so etc.. and if there were I can't see them lasting too long.

I'd have more respect for people and their preferences but I could go into the WWF forum and start with its all fake blah blah blah and see how long I last.

It's allowed in CT for reasons never explained.

But we are there to discuss the possibility of CTs. If a CT'er presents a piece of evidence, and a skeptic has another piece of evidence which contradicts the CT'ers, would you rather we kept it to ourselves? There have been a few CTs posted which I have enjoyed reading and thinking about, but didn't post in because I don't know enough about the subject material. But some other threads, particularly about 9/11, I do post in because I used to believe there was a conspiracy. But after looking at more and more evidence, I now don't. So I choose to post that evidence in order to perhaps give the CT'er information they didn't know about, in order to discuss it.

Would you really rather a CT forum where only CT'ers posted? What would be the point?

You mention the WWE forum, and how if you posted saying wrestling is fake you'd be kicked out. That would be because you are deliberately antagonising the users of that forum. We are not trying to antagonise CT'ers, we are trying to have a discussion.

orestes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Its not about 6th or Mysterious. They have their own thing together. Maybe you could reread the charter and tell me where 6th has broken his own charter?

This is about looking into the possibility of adding a third mod to the team. I think in the interests of fairness.

And why wouldn't they (edit: pro CT Mod) be fair may I ask.

This is from a recent thread



This was the only text of a recent OP in a thread that still is open.

Clearly the OP see's himself as different from the would-be posters on a CT forum, yet it remained open. Swiftly followed by the expected smart-arse comments.

A pro-CT Mod would see the intended offence in the post. Close the thread as a troll thread no opprtunity for anyone to get offended, less hostility.

What is the problem with that?

This is a discussion site, people are going to disagree with other peoples opinions. Mods are there to facilitate discussion by keeping forums running smoothly, our personal opinions and thoughts on the subject matter is irrelevant, and if a mod were to be brought on purely because of their personal biases I believe they would inherently, based on the very criteria of their selection, be an unfit choice to moderate a forum.

Nevyn

orestes wrote: »

There is a male mod in the Ladies Lounge (the second one there has been there now I believe), a female mod in Beer Guts & Receding Hair, and I personally mod the MMA forum despite it being well known that I have a very limited knowledge of the subject.

That list goes on and on too.

No more rasher sambos in the bar for you.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Its not about 6th or Mysterious. They have their own thing together. Maybe you could reread the charter and tell me where 6th has broken his own charter?

I'm not sure what you mean. I never said 6th broke the CT forum charter. Mysterious however, did.

This is about looking into the possibility of adding a third mod to the team. I think in the interests of fairness.

And why wouldn't they (edit: pro CT Mod) be fair may I ask.

But this is my point, you are saying we need a pro-CT mod. 6th wasn't chosen because he is anti-CT, he was chosen (presumably) because he is a good mod on the other forums he moderates. Choosing a mod because they are more likely to side with one group would be wrong. Choosing them because of their reputation as a good and fair moderator regardless of their personal beliefs is the only fair way.

This is from a recent thread



This was the only text of a recent OP in a thread that still is open.

Clearly the OP see's himself as different from the would-be posters on a CT forum, yet it remained open. Swiftly followed by the expected smart-arse comments.

A pro-CT Mod would see the intended offence in the post. Close the thread as a troll thread no opprtunity for anyone to get offended, less hostility.

What is the problem with that?

Was this on the CT forum? Could you provide a link?

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

No more rasher sambos in the bar for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjIjypHcTA

Sofa_King Good

orestes wrote: »

This is a discussion site, people are going to disagree with other peoples opinions. Mods are there to facilitate discussion by keeping forums running smoothly, our personal opinions and thoughts on the subject matter is irrelevant, and if a mod were to be brought on purely because of their personal biases I believe they would inherently, based on the very criteria of their selection, be an unfit choice to moderate a forum.

I am not advocating a mod being brought on because of their personal biases.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or anyone else. It is the disrespectful manner which is all too common on the CT forum.
What I am suggesting is that a mod who would tend see these veiled insults for what they are - people stretching the charter to its limits to put people down in their own back yard.

Nevyn

And have you reported such posts?

Sofa_King Good

humanji wrote: »

Well, point out where the mods have let their opinions on the matter dictate their mod actions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520293

Okay note here that in post 5 the OP is referred to as "stupid".

No action taken.

No idea what that other chap got banned for

Edit: I can only assume that the "stupid" remark slipped by unconsciously due the the moderators agreement with the suggestion.

paddyirishman85

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Was this on the CT forum? Could you provide a link?

I think he means the Alex Jones thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055552054

In which 6th posted this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60043582&postcount=5

Seems fair to me.

Sofa_King Good

Thaedydal wrote: »

And have you reported such posts?

I'd be reprorting every 2nd post in that case unfortunately.

Nevyn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I'd be reprorting every 2nd post in that case unfortunately.

And?

If it takes such a thing to highlight issue why aren't you?

orestes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I'd be reprorting every 2nd post in that case unfortunately.

Yet you can only provide a link to one? Not trying to sound like a smart-arse or anything, but you're gonna have to back up your claims with a little bit more substantial evidence if your suggestion is gonna be taken seriously imo

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520293

Okay note here that in post 5 the OP is referred to as "stupid".

No action taken.

No idea what that other chap got banned for

Edit: I can only assume that the "stupid" remark slipped by unconsciously due the the moderators agreement with the suggestion.

Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"

Sofa_King Good

humanji wrote: »

Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"

my mistake - post 6

Penn

humanji wrote: »

Did you link to the wrong thread? Post 5 just says "A what?!?!"

I think he meant Reply 5, ie. Post 6.

The OP wasn't referred to as stupid, his claim that the internet is not a dangerous place was. From what I understand, John Rockerfeller (or whatever his name is) said that the internet is a dangerous place because it can pose a threat to national security. The OP claimed Rockerfeller was saying this for his own selfish reasons. Then someone said that the internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

As for the other chap, he was clearly trying to annoy everyone by making extremely strange comments and not explaining them when asked, which was proved when the next two posters both said "What?"

Seems pretty clear cut to me

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

Or more put simply post 6: what you just said was stupid

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

As for the other chap, he was clearly trying to annoy everyone by making extremely strange comments and not explaining them when asked, which was proved when the next two posters both said "What?"

Seems pretty clear cut to me

ffs, he passed a comment that went over peoples heads, including mine. yeah..Off with his head!

6th then in mode mode asked him to explain himself. Which for me is out of order all by itself.

He did so. And included a CT in joke, which presumably went over peoples heads - another valid reason for having a mod who understands the subject matter.

= Banning.

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

internet is a dangerous place and that claiming otherwise is stupid.

Or more put simply post 6: what you just said was stupid



ffs, he passed a comment that went over peoples heads, including mine. yeah..Off with his head!

6th then in mode mode asked him to explain himself. Which for me is out of order all by itself.

He did so. And included a CT in joke, which presumably went over peoples heads - another valid reason for having a mod who understands the subject matter.

= Banning.

Well he looked to be trolling. 6th asked him to explain his post to see if he was, and his replay made it seem like he was. So he was banned. There's enough people taking the piss on that forum so you can't blame the mods for cutting it short.

Gordon

Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?

Nerin

Gordon wrote: »

Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?

i'll do it...

Muhahahaha

Sofa_King Good

Gordon wrote: »

Who is the suggested third mod, for the grassy knoll?

Mysterious....Only joking, but there is a user by the name of Kernel who personally I think would be up to the job.

Like I think someone said you'd need to be able to leave your biases at the door, and some I feel would be too emotially wrapped up in their beliefs.

Sofa_King Good

humanji wrote: »

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Well he looked to be trolling. 6th asked him to explain his post to see if he was, and his replay made it seem like he was. So he was banned. There's enough people taking the piss on that forum so you can't blame the mods for cutting it short.

You seem like an intelligent person. In all honesty do you think he was trolling?

I really don't. I think he communicated rather badly what he was trying to say, twice.

But that is not in breach of the charter.

humanji

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Mysterious....Only joking, but there is a user by the name of Kernel who personally I think would be up to the job.

Like I think someone said you'd need to be able to leave your biases at the door, and some I feel would be too emotially wrapped up in their beliefs.

I don't really think there's a need for another mod, but if the powers that be decide there is, then I agree that Kernel would be a great choice (although somebody might want to tell them before they get lumped with the job! ).

Sofa_King Good

orestes wrote: »

Yet you can only provide a link to one? Not trying to sound like a smart-arse or anything, but you're gonna have to back up your claims with a little bit more substantial evidence if your suggestion is gonna be taken seriously imo

I'm not just talking about specific instances. Its the overall antagonistic and spiteful thats present in every thread.

A look through any of the decent sized threads should show this.

Here as an example is the most recent posted in thread on the forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559178

8 of the first 10 posts here were mocking the ideas of the OP.

How can this be positive to discussion?

humanji

Did you report them?

Sofa_King Good

humanji wrote: »

Did you report them?

There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.

On the subject of this:

"On medical questions MY OWN opinion is
I WILL NEVER EVER TAKE A VACCINE "

Some of the replies were

-

phantom_lord wrote: »

good stuff. hopefully we wont have to suffer you much longer so.

-

strewelpeter wrote: »

OK so you are entitled to your deranged ravings but will you please please do the human race a favour and have yourself sterilised before you breed.

Two of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen posted on a message board. And for what? For a guy posting a CT in a CT forum.

Admittedly they were "infracted".

But weigh up wishing death and sterilisation on someone and infracted vs calling someone "closed minded" and a 6 month ban. There is no consistency there.

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Two of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen posted on a message board. And for what? For a guy posting a CT in a CT forum.

Admittedly they were "infracted".

But weigh up wishing death and sterilisation on someone and infracted vs calling someone "closed minded" and a 6 month ban. There is no consistency there.

Did they just recently come back from a month long ban, be warned several times by both moderators and argue with them in the thread?

I don't think it's the same thing.

orestes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

There is no point in reporting anything that is plain to see.

Mods can't read every single post in the forums we mod, the time required to do so would be insane for some of the busier forums (I used to mod the nocturnal forum, reading every post in the Lair alone took one hour every single day at one point, I shit you not). We rely on reported posts to point us in the direction of stuff that needs our attention.

If you have issue with posts you should report them, otherwise you can't really complain that nothing was done about them to be honest, and calling the modding of a forum into question over someting like this seems unfair to me.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. I never said 6th broke the CT forum charter. Mysterious however, did.

No my point was that since you seem to have noticed all of Mysterious' indiscretions perhaps too you may have noticed where 6th broke his own charter.

Sofa_King Good

orestes wrote: »

Mods can't read every single post in the forums we mod, the time required to do so would be insane for some of the busier forums (I used to mod the nocturnal forum, reading every post in the Lair alone took one hour every single day at one point, I shit you not). We rely on reported posts to point us in the direction of stuff that needs our attention.

If you have issue with posts you should report them, otherwise you can't really complain that nothing was done about them to be honest, and calling the modding of a forum into question over someting like this seems unfair to me.

I agree. Personally I have no issues with the moderators, individually, collectively or otherwise from my own experiences.

Also, I appreciate it is a difficult and thankless tasks.

I don't want to keep banging on about this. But thanks to all who contributed feedback.

In a nutshell. I personally think a 3rd mod more sympathethic to conspiracy thinking would be benificial for the forum. It would add another dimension to the modding and I feel would make a better place to post.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

Did they just recently come back from a month long ban, be warned several times by both moderators and argue with them in the thread?

I don't think it's the same thing.

Yeah but banned for what and by whom?

RoundyMooney

SFK, you're contradicting yourself somewhat here.

You have previously alluded that mods let their personal bias(es) dictate their actions.

Actually you pretty much nailed 6th on that, as he is but one of two you mentioned. Unfair IMO. There are two other CT mods too, but I'm unsure as to why you have omitted them.

FTR, I feel there is far much emphasis put on moderators and moderation on this site, on both sides of the divide (but by no small margin propogated with gusto by mods themselves, as in banhammer, back on topic, hur de hur hur). Mods are mods in their own fora, but only up to a point etc.

That aside, I feel it's actually a healthy trend to have an outside pair of eyes tasked with keeping a forum in order, such as is required (the mod role is greatly over rated in many instances too). Many examples all valid, have been cited here where mods without an interest in the root topic have been brought in, with generally neutral or positive results.

You have yet to cite meaningful instances of where you feel this approach has failed on CT, a forum which has received long over due attention recently due to scurrilous behaviour on the part of someone tasked with applying impartiality therein.

Bear in mind too, that mods cannot dictate the flow of a forum, nor should they. If there is a bias among the userbase in favour of a sceptical standpoint, then what do you expect them to do?

My own, somewhat irrelevant opinion, is that 90% of what is posited on CT is so ridiculous as to call into question the mental state of those who post such allegations as Bush being a Lizard, Obama being the antichrist etc. etc. However, that's irrelevant inasmuch as people are free to post such notions, as indeed are others free to debate their integrity. It seems to me that the bolded part here is what you have the most problem with.

Believe me, if I thought you had a case, I'd be the first one to take your side, but I really don't see merit in this.

/ramble

Sofa_King Good

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Yeah but banned for what and by whom?

For going off topic despite warnings and by 6th. And the higher ups felt the ban was warranted: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055533304
What's your point?