tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post6262767829229865728..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: A Scottish Sunday afternoonRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger232125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-57258759612037974572010-09-15T08:00:15.864+01:002010-09-15T08:00:15.864+01:00Please, please, everyone! Criticise a person'...Please, please, everyone! Criticise a person's expressed views as robustly as you like, but do not make personal comments. Apart from being distasteful and embarrassing, this weakens the force of any argument that you are trying to make (or may, of course, be a stratagem to disguise that you don't have a argument at all).Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53309674758344576232010-09-15T04:04:31.134+01:002010-09-15T04:04:31.134+01:00Rolfe, I quite respect the posts that you make her...Rolfe, I quite respect the posts that you make here.<br />Jo has at one time or another made rude comments about most everyone else that comments here, and completely violates Pr. Black's "standards of courtesy". I'm quite surprised that he has not yet scorned her as he has others. <br />She seem to take everything posted here as a personal offense, or lacking in a stroke to her posts / ego. Maybe she should consider some "hormone therapy" for herself prior to continuing to posting here. <br />Oh, I am just all a quiver with excitement at the reply this will generate. LOL!Bunntamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01059832398419964501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4653409195185162142010-09-14T23:35:21.562+01:002010-09-14T23:35:21.562+01:00Rolfe.
Others won't know the "reality&...Rolfe. <br /><br />Others won't know the "reality" when it comes to the damage your post did to me when I read it. Only I know that. It was directed at me, not them. <br /><br />I'm happy to stand by what I've posted. <br /><br />As for the rest of the baiting-material above, I'm not biting Rolfe. I've said all I'm going to say on this issue.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4008814134969328142010-09-14T18:31:48.488+01:002010-09-14T18:31:48.488+01:00LOL!!!!LOL!!!!Bunntamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01059832398419964501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4068399230957041222010-09-14T00:54:25.201+01:002010-09-14T00:54:25.201+01:00[Second time of trying....]
Rolfe I'm sorry y...[Second time of trying....]<br /><br /><i>Rolfe I'm sorry your mail didn't get through. I did however ask you not to respond as I saw no point. There isn't. I also tried to explain the awful damage done through your treatment of me.</i><br /><br />Yes, I saw your request not to reply. That's always a good way to get the last word, of course. Well, you had 2,500 of them. I know it's easy to say things one doesn't mean in the heat of the moment, so I tried to send a short, conciliatory message back to you.<br /><br />Did I mistake an ordinary bounce for you having set your email client to reject my messages? I've never seen a bounce notification with that wording before, I have to say. But if you did that, why are you sorry my mail didn't get through? I don't understand.<br /><br />I'll leave it to others to decide whether your claim that I have done "awful damage" through my treatment of you is in any way a description of reality. I can see you chose your own words to me with care, that's for sure. I've never seen anything like it, quite honestly. If there was a nasty name or hurtful accusation you omitted, I didn't notice.<br /><br />I'm sorry this happened, and I assure you it wasn't of my seeking. I had thought we might be friends, but obviously it wasn't to be. However, I have no intention of running every post I make through a "will Jo approve of this in every possible respect" filter, so we'll just have to rub along somehow.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-1433562743520616882010-09-13T12:38:07.191+01:002010-09-13T12:38:07.191+01:00(contd)
"I got the distinct impression by th...(contd)<br /><br />"I got the distinct impression by that very act, that you got the distinct impression, I was neglecting or not acknowledging your output (although you did say, others too, however you were primarily referring to yourself)"<br /><br />So no, I WASN'T primarily referring to myself. That is quite wrong and I hope I've made that point quite clear. <br /><br />In the original post I also highlighted those who had been in the Lockerbie issue from day one. I was thinking of people like Swire and Matt who, along with the desire for justice, were carrying heavier things with them like their grief at their loss. I mentioned Robert too. I named them as people who possibly couldn't see Lockerbie as something to solve, like a sort of puzzle, and move on when the desperate need for justice rather than the solution to the puzzle, would be enough. I felt seeing it as a puzzle, sort of, might offend those who lost far more than any of us did at Lockerbie. <br /><br />Anyway, I hope that clarifies. I have no wish to return to hostilities. Nothing is more exhausting than the consequences of being utterly misunderstood.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-36576629451932637852010-09-13T12:26:01.692+01:002010-09-13T12:26:01.692+01:00I said earlier I would not reply to Blogiston. I ...I said earlier I would not reply to Blogiston. I have now however read his assessment, if you like, of my contribution and I have read things there which simply aren't true. I feel I should clarify. <br /><br />It has now been suggested that I was peeved that Blogiston had not mentioned my personal contribution to the Lockerbie issue. <br /><br />I said:<br /><br />"Rolfe's writings on the issue are certainly impressive but there are others here in the same category not least the man whose blog space we occupy. Give them all credit equally. Many here have a more detailed knowledge than I of the intracacies of this matter and I have read all contributions with great interest. They do not always agree but I enjoy their debates and have learned plenty. I don't believe any one person can be singled out."<br /><br />The group I refer to in that paragraph does not include me. I refer to them as "they" and acknowledge the expertise of each. I am nowhere on that list because I don't belong there. That is because their knowledge on Lockerbie is huge and mine, I believe, is limited in comparison. I have even stated there how much I enjoy reading their debates here. Like I said, I am nowhere on the list and would not dare claim a place on it. <br /><br />So I hope that makes crystal clear the fact that I was not jealous that I was not acknowledged by Blogiston for anything I have done. <br /><br />Also it isn't that I'm "not interested" in the technical stuff. Frankly I just don't follow it to be honest. I'm not an engineer. I read it all and am fascinated by it but a lot of the time the detail defeats me. If the detail is too much my eyes glaze over and my brain shuts down. I'm the same with computers....Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-52902057931958033682010-09-13T12:13:52.336+01:002010-09-13T12:13:52.336+01:00Rolfe I'm sorry your mail didn't get throu...Rolfe I'm sorry your mail didn't get through. I did however ask you not to respond as I saw no point. There isn't. I also tried to explain the awful damage done through your treatment of me. <br /><br />Witnessing your treatment of Charles also left me deeply shocked and wondering why you said such awful things to him and used this site to do it when so many of your issues with him are about events on a different site. I believe you more than breached conduct expectations during your exchanges with Charles which were deeply personal and I wish none of it had happened. <br /><br />I will continue to drop in and keep up with events but right now I feel uncomfortable having just seen fresh theories about my motives aired within Blogiston's posts above. That can only continue so as I said, what is the point? I will deal with them below and then leave it. I never planned to come here to be baited. It takes so much away from the whole thing when its like that.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-75485257944771169932010-09-12T20:14:56.957+01:002010-09-12T20:14:56.957+01:00"Give thy thoughts no tongue."
William...<b>"Give thy thoughts no tongue." <br /> William Shakespeare</b>Ebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17061115232926805501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62527213791159218192010-09-12T19:33:45.492+01:002010-09-12T19:33:45.492+01:00Jo, I attempted to reply to the long email you jus...Jo, I attempted to reply to the long email you just sent me, in as mild and conciliatory manner as I could. My mail system has just informed me that your email address "IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER".<br /><br />I just wanted to let you know that I tried.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53153753976791602922010-09-12T19:13:52.163+01:002010-09-12T19:13:52.163+01:00Prof, Rolfe's conduct on this thread was deplo...Prof, Rolfe's conduct on this thread was deplorable. She utterly trashed a fellow commentator. Why no warning to her? Her treatment of Charles was disgusting as were her lies about me "attacking" anyone. I did not. I pointed out that treating Lockerbie like a mere project could deeply upset others whose commitment to that issue is total. <br /><br />Anyway, I will leave you to it.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-52603229254622730872010-09-12T19:06:26.196+01:002010-09-12T19:06:26.196+01:00Blogiston, I am NOT interested in your personal re...Blogiston, I am NOT interested in your personal reaction to anything I have said in my earlier posts to Rolfe. I have nothing to say to you.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-61547988063232137132010-09-12T19:05:28.534+01:002010-09-12T19:05:28.534+01:00Blogiston and Rolfe are right. I am not going to ...Blogiston and Rolfe are right. I am not going to become involved in comment moderation because (a) I have other things to do with my time and (b) ill-disposed persons would interpret a comment's survival of the moderation process as indicating my agreement with it. <br /><br />I shall continue with the present policy of deleting comments and red-carding contributors only where, in my totally unappealable view, they grossly abuse my blog's hospitality. A prior warning is usually delivered, as it was -- on this very thread -- in the case of the contributor whom I recently excluded. <br /><br />If the problem becomes too prevalent, I shall remove the comment facility. This would be a great loss to me. From my perspective, it is quality of the comments (even those that I disagree with) that make my work on this blog worthwhile.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-34741764204273962672010-09-12T17:40:32.571+01:002010-09-12T17:40:32.571+01:00Part 3
This is NOT a censure of you (and certainly...<b>Part 3</b><br />This is NOT a censure of you (and certainly no lecture) – it’s not my place to do that – but if I have to continually <b><i>be aware</i></b> of being artificially inclusive to the detriment of the intended subject matter of my comments just because I may offend the sensitivities of a fellow commentator, then this will become a tiresome exercise. At this point I will do more than a temporary, ‘cease and desist’ – <b><i>then ‘Bloggy’ will disappear into the ether from whence he came.</i></b>blogistonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018834341706249710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-27425751495546837522010-09-12T17:36:28.553+01:002010-09-12T17:36:28.553+01:00Part 2
Jo G: You are not so interested in the tech...<b>Part 2</b><br />Jo G: You are not so interested in the technical details of the wider investigation so naturally, question the necessity or motivation of others who see that as an intellectual challenge equal to other aspects of the case. [There are many ways to skin a cat]<br />Lastly, from reading all your comments, you have obviously expended a tremendous amount of time and emotional energy into the Megrahi affair – not just on this blog, but by way of letters and probably other numerous channels of which I am not fully aware. Hence recently, when I paid a compliment, as regards the prolific nature of their output, to Rolfe (but it could have been to anyone else), I got the distinct impression by that very act, that you got the distinct impression, I was neglecting or not acknowledging your output (although you did say, others too, however you were primarily referring to yourself). Your output too is remarkable.<br />I also perceive (in my opinion) when you read comments by fellow commentators which don’t follow your ideal, i.e. break your interpretation of provisos (a) AND (b), there is a certain frustration on your part, and this frustration leads you to <i>not mince your words.</i> I think at this point you go close to breaking proviso (b), or at least, <i>rub the target of your disapproval the wrong way.</i> You can be abrupt, in your replies which are actually more retorts. So all the more surprising when you are surprised at feedback concerning this conduct, which you always challenge indignantly.blogistonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018834341706249710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-79324653737191316212010-09-12T17:19:12.729+01:002010-09-12T17:19:12.729+01:00Part 1
Jo G: This is my personal reaction to addre...<b>Part 1</b><br />Jo G: This is my personal reaction to address your comments on <i>“A Scottish Sunday afternoon”.</i> Firstly, RB has a two point proviso at the side of his blog;<b> (a) Keep to the subject, and, (b) be courteous.</b> I break proviso (a) all the time (and I am sure RB ‘clocks’ this - btw). Why? Partly, my nature, and partly because I try not to be like Churchill’s definition of a fanatic, <i>”one who can't change his mind and who won't change the subject.”</i> (Now in this comment I am ONLY referring to MYSELF – nobody else.) <br />I try not to break proviso (b), but if I feel I am being incorrectly criticised then I skirt dangerously close to breaking it. Recently, when you criticised me for not posting an <i>inclusive</i> comment, then that was one of those times. I rejected your comments strongly which upset you. At that point, I reviewed every single comment that both you and I have made on this blog (which in your case, by virtue of the length of time you have been an active participant, took a considerable amount of time to read – however, since I am a software engineer (too), I was able to sift and sort your comments efficiently).<br />I notice you <b>never</b> break proviso (a) – but you skirt dangerously close to breaking proviso (b) on <b>many</b> occasions (in my opinion). So as far as proviso (a) goes, I would say you are probably the closest of all the commentators to RB’s <i>ideal</i>: focus on and be passionate about the miscarriage of justice (less on conspiracies), and be equally vociferous about righting this miscarriage of justice. I would also say, and this is more contentious, that your emotions are more stirred for the man and his plight, i.e. Megrahi’s (and what Scotland dealt him). Whereas, I think RB is more moved by the process which let Megrahi down because he feels partially culpable, since he was catalytic in devising the process.blogistonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018834341706249710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-57966180731895306142010-09-12T17:09:30.252+01:002010-09-12T17:09:30.252+01:00I'm sorry your harmonious post got lost, Blogi...I'm sorry your harmonious post got lost, Blogiston!<br /><br />I recall the same problem happening once before, I think in June, when a thread was approaching 200 posts. The software doesn't seem very stable at that stage. The best plan seems to be to retain the post in the clipboard (or another programme) until it appears and indeed has stayed visible for some time, as some posts actually vanish after they have been visible.<br /><br />I think it would be a pity to put comments on moderation, and I suspect Prof. Black isn't up for the amount of work it would entail. It's always a problem when people start using blog comments as a discussion forum - at what point does legitimate comment on the blog post become off-topic conversation? This is why I prefer a forum format, but if Prof. Black doesn't mind most of what goes on here, then I suppose we should just be grateful to him for his tolerance!Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-55919948048853769562010-09-12T16:32:38.978+01:002010-09-12T16:32:38.978+01:00....you clearly expected me to take the lecture yo...<i>....you clearly expected me to take the lecture you subjected me to without a whimper.</i><br /><br />Not at all. I said what I thought, and you were absolutely entitled to reply, which you have done.<br /><br />I agree the recent exchange between Charles and myself was not especially edifying. However, that was between me and him.<br /><br />I find the blog format difficult to manage for the sort of detailed discussion we tend to have here. I also feel that sometimes we're taking advantage of Prof. Black's blog and using it as our personal playground, rather than actually commenting on his blog posts. Which was why I suggested we take some of it to an actual forum. But if nobody wants to do that, and Prof. Black doesn't mind these discussions going way off topic, then it's not important.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-6215754645517301442010-09-12T13:05:35.207+01:002010-09-12T13:05:35.207+01:00I posted one too (which got lost) which would have...I posted one too (which got lost) which would have brought harmony to the whole thread in the spirit of reconciliation - but I've now forgotten what I said...I hate when that happens.<br /><br />Jo G: Maybe RB should have delivered a 'cease and desist' warning to Charles like what he done to Patrick Oveltine when he got a bit frisky. To be consistent, that is - since I always believe that people are capable of reform, and I think underneath Charles's 'tough' obstinate persona is actually someone hurting from his loss.<br /><br />That said, on a technical point in regard to, <i>RB said, ...And you are right that I can't stop you from commenting without disabling entirely the comment facility, which I have no intention of doing.</i><br />I posted earlier that there is a middle way here too. <b> You can turn on Moderation via the Settings, Comments section so that you have to Approve/Reject all comments before they appear on your blog.</b><br />However, this would stop the interactive nature of the commenting mechanism, and kind of penalises good citizens too. But it can be used to correct persistent <i>unwanted behaviour</i> until such time that it improves.blogistonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018834341706249710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-87416003276492807112010-09-12T12:23:47.031+01:002010-09-12T12:23:47.031+01:00A rogue thread indeed. I've lost countless po...A rogue thread indeed. I've lost countless posts here in recent days. They were there and then they weren't. All very mysterious.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-5024056193673162082010-09-12T12:17:48.362+01:002010-09-12T12:17:48.362+01:00(contd)
I am deeply disappointed that final...(contd) <br /> <br />I am deeply disappointed that finally you turned your fire on me also and got it very wrong in the process. Because I will repeat I did NOT attack Blogiston. But then I had stated that Lockerbie wasn't all about you so perhaps that was the real offence. What you came back with however was a lie which renders the rest of your lecture meaningless. But I hope you enjoyed delivering it at the time.<br /> <br />This thread is a mess and I am sorry I have seen such viciousness here. It is fine that you disagree with Charles and vice versa but the truly vicious stuff has come from you towards him and I wish you hadn't felt it necessary to ridicule him in the way you have. It has made grim reading. You were once given a bad time here by another person who was saying horrible things to you, taunting you, ridiculing you and others defended you. You have done all of these things, and worse, to Charles. <br /> <br />I do not intend to say any more about this. If you wish to, be my guest, but I will not come back at you nor will I come back at anyone else who attempts to kick everything off again. I'm done with it. This thread should never have gone the route it took. I have done this because you clearly expected me to take the lecture you subjected me to without a whimper. That could not be. Enough is enough. Robust debate is excellent but the vicious stuff should be left behind.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-58942549099541490412010-09-12T12:15:31.025+01:002010-09-12T12:15:31.025+01:00(contd)
I've learned loads from you Rolfe...(contd) <br /> <br />I've learned loads from you Rolfe but I've found reading Charles, Matt, Blogiston, Adam, Rice, Bensix and, at times, Suliman, interesting too. You seem to need to set yourself apart as the authority on Lockerbie and, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't do that. I mean good God, you even had to list what Benson got wrong in the Lockerbie play! Benson's play was based on the book by Jim Swire. I take it you don't "rate" Swire either? Yet that play connected with people out there Rolfe. That is really important. People from all over the globe saw it. It was reviewed globally too. Every review I read of it was excellent, reviews carried by the mainstream media. People were raving about it. You are the only person I've read being negative about it. Jim Swire connects with a lot of people too, the world over, just by using his quiet dignity. Yet, no one, it seems is on a par with you. A strong group of people will maybe finally get justice over Lockerbie Rolfe, but only by working together. Those within the group will all have different strengths but they are all important. They should respect each other. <br /> <br />If you keep on as you have on this thread people will stop seeing your knowledge and respecting the work you have done in building up that knowledge: instead they will only see the conceit and the arrogance and the need to slate others in the same debate as inferior somehow to you. They will then simply ignore you and I think they will miss out on a great deal by doing so but you risk bringing that on yourself. You have certainly shocked me, that's for sure, and I had a great deal of respect for you. I do not know how you can brag here that you can "present the case in my sleep" and that maybe "I should park this (Lockerbie) and move on". How can you speak of Lockerbie like that, like some sort of school project when the price paid by many, through what happened there and the monumental deception associated with the atrocity, was the highest price imaginable? How arrogant do you think it reads to people who lost loved ones at Lockerbie when you callously post in that way about it?Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4638877266578545642010-09-12T12:13:18.601+01:002010-09-12T12:13:18.601+01:00(contd)
I don't know what has come over...(contd) <br /> <br />I don't know what has come over you lately but your character, if you like, here has altered dramatically. You have ranted at Charles of his arrogance, of his "gratuitious" rudeness: if you want to see the definition of both just read back over your posts on this thread alone because they are oozing with these things and more. If your attacks on Charles are examples of "positive" posting Rolfe, you can keep it. For they are vicious, conceited and, yes, arrogant in the extreme. <br /> <br />The endless talk of the JREF site is unnecessary and irrelevant here and I don't get your obsession with that site. Those who want to see it can go there. So, no, I haven't read Charles' contributions there and I don't want to. I don't want to read about them here either. This isn't the JREF and just reading about what goes on there is enough to convince me it is the last place I'd want to be. For it seems to consist of massive egos all clashing and striving to be better than everyone else, slagging each other off and generally behaving anything but "positively". <br /> <br />Your tone on this thread has shocked me and I do not know what right you feel you have to treat people in such a way. You blasted Freedomfiles on a separate thread just the other day for posting some links and were so rude that I cringed when I read it. Why was it necessary to belittle someone for simply posting some links? What on earth has got into you lately? So you'd read all the links, so what? I hadn't. I found them useful. Maybe others will too. Adam thanked Freedom for the links even tho, like you, he had read them, but he wasn't rude as you were. And Adam had actually ASKED for links and stuff for his own site. Freedom responded and then you blasted the post.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-75843019381601867752010-09-12T12:06:20.464+01:002010-09-12T12:06:20.464+01:00Rolfe
I read your lecture to me and your tips on ...Rolfe<br /><br />I read your lecture to me and your tips on positive posting with great interest. I assume you aren't using your conduct on this thread as a good example of positive posting? You said you don't want "to have a row over this" with me. Really? Perhaps, then, you should have thought more carefully before insulting me as you have in the earlier post. Or was your "I don't want to have a row about this." phrase actually meant to imply that you expected me to take your comments on board and not dare respond? Sorry to disappoint Rolfe but you have asked for it. <br /><br />The fact is your lecture to me was based on a lie in the first place: for I did NOT attack Blogiston. My original post is there, as are my subsequent posts. I'll stand by all of those posts of mine. I made no attack. And, incidentally, Blogiston and I had already called a halt to our exchanges before you decided to deliver your lecture to me and re-ignite the whole thing. I had thought of emailing this to you privately but decided I should do it publicly: after all you publicly addressed me like a first year secondary-pupil learning to write in good English! <br /><br />If Blogiston's post was to you alone he should have been more careful about what he included when on-lookers could perhaps take exception to some of his assertions. I responded from a different angle on Lockerbie, that is all. It was NOT an attack.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-8752875892833163872010-09-11T18:37:57.329+01:002010-09-11T18:37:57.329+01:00Oops, my apologies Prof Black, I was so intent on ...Oops, my apologies Prof Black, I was so intent on wrestling with the software bug (which is still rejecting longer posts) that I didn't see your intervention.<br /><br />Going away now....Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.com