Tag Archives: Thordaddy

Meta Comments

pic 8.20.16

 

I am not sure who else is reading these posts except myself and the white supremacist who has been obsessively commenting on my blog. I have now found myself in the situation where the subject of my blog posts concerns the comment section of the last blog post (which in turn concerned itself with the comment section of the post before that). The statistics WordPress provides me indicate that people from countries other than the United States are viewing my blog and I do get likes from people who are not the white supremacist so there are definitely other people reading. I cannot imagine why this is but if you (gentle reader) fall into this category please make a comment so I do not have to only read the comments made by the white supremacist which will make it easier to steer this blog in a much needed different direction.

The white supremacist has several clichéd catch phrases that he repeats over and over. Interestingly, this is a trait common to almost every conservative I have observed. I suspect this is a way of simplifying the world by labeling things and placing them into categories. Rush Limbaugh does this a lot for example. Among the white supremacist’s favorite catch phrases are “Radical Autonomy”, “Self-Annihilation” and “Objective Supremacy”. He has steadfastly refused to define either of these catch phrases in a satisfying manner. For example, he has accused me on many occasions of having committed the sins of Radical Autonomy and Self-Annihilation. As best I can tell one annihilates himself by being radically autonomous. I am not sure exactly what this means but I know that he connects these two terms with being a “liberal” (another one of these categories conservatives love to throw around). He has also accused me of “not believing in Objective Supremacy”. I have explained to him that I do not know the definition of “Objective Supremacy” and as such, I do not know whether I believe in it or not. He seems to take this response as a confirmation of his belief that I do not believe in Objective Supremacy.

The essential nature of these words is how they are employed in a circular manner to define each other. A liberal is radically autonomous and therefore a self-annihilator who does not believe in objective supremacy. He has made the argument that all definitions are circular within a “closed system” of thought. I agree that he is closed minded but I do not think that is what he means. I think what he means is that all definitions are ultimately circular because nothing can be defined without reference to something else. This is true, however he has not defined these terms in reference to other concepts except in one illogical instance.

When I pressed him for a definition of “Objective Supremacy” he provided a list of terms one of which included “God of the Bible.” I then asked him if Objective Supremacy means God why not just say God? He avoided answering this question which I found interesting. I have stated several times that I believe in God. So, if God means Objective Supremacy then by the transitive property I must also believe in Objective Supremacy. Accordingly, he either does not think that I believe in God (which he has not stated) or Objective Supremacy means something other than God. If so, he is logically contradicting himself. I have no doubt that he will deny this (see the inevitable comments below). I also have no doubt that the explanation he provides for his denial will raise more questions than it answers.

He has not made any comments in the past few days although I am pretty sure he has been regularly checking my blog because for a few days I have seen 1 U.S. visitor with a number of views. In a very real way it is a relief that he has not been commenting. The constant back and forth although on some level amusing is also draining and negative. I am confident neither one of us will ever appreciate the other’s viewpoint. But the exchange is ultimately not about proving the other wrong. As with all trolling it is about getting a reaction out of the other person and getting the last word in on the argument. If he does comment on this blog post I intend to press him to make clear the contradiction regarding his “definition” of Objective Supremacy. But if he does not comment on this blog so much the better.

 

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Comment Section Dialog

One of the things I find challenging about exchanges between debating parties on the internet whether it be on message boards or in the comment sections of blogs is that the parties tend to make too many points in one post. When this happens it becomes impossible for an opposing side to argue every point effectively because the chain of ideas becomes too fractured. That is why I tend to respond to only one point in any comment I make. That way the conversation stays clear and coherent (or at least that is the intent).

Over the past year a very judgmental and obsessive person has been commenting in bulk on my blog. This individual named Thordaddy identifies as a white supremacist who is not a Christian but worships Christ as a perfect man nonetheless. There is something about my writing that apparently gets his goat which makes our exchanges entertaining for me. (I am not proud of the fact that I do enjoy getting a rise out of him by the way). The comment section of my last blog post is no exception to this dynamic. In that comment section it would have been too cumbersome and ineffective to respond to every point he attempted to make. As such, I thought it would be interesting to break apart the first section of his comments by individual point and address them individually in this blog post in the form of a dialog.

The passages marked TD are his own words taken directly from the comment section of the previous post. The passages marked WS are my responses that I did not make in that comment section but attempt to address them now. Feel free to refer to that comment section for the original text of the exchange.

DIALOG

TD : Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.”

WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

TD : Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE.

WS : I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

TD : If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can.

WS : I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

TD : Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

WS : When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

TD : And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

WS : That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

TD : What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

WS : But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do reject it.

TD : And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

WS : I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.

 

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity Part II

treeThordaddy gave me a lot of material to work with in the comment section of my last blog post “Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity.” A great deal of what he pontificates about there has to do with abortion and contraception and the impact he believes they are having on his “race.” The perpetuation of his race seems to be equated with Christianity in his mind even though there is no scriptural or any other basis to support this. Quite simply, no where in the New Testament does Christ, St. Paul or any other writer talk about the preservation of one’s race as a priority spiritual or otherwise. If fact, the great commandment to love one’s neighbor directly transcends the very idea of racial priorities.

One claim he has been harping on lately is his feeling that liberals claim or believe “abortion [to be] a reproductive right” and by making this claim they equate abortion with reproduction. I have tried to explain to him that if some liberals do say “abortion is a reproductive right” what they probably mean is that the legal right to have an abortion is related to the right to reproduce and not that they are equal. He, however, proceeds with his rants as if this most obvious point was never made. This ability of his to wear intellectual horse blinders is exactly what I am talking about when I say that he exists in his own box of subjectivity. Within this box he his free to believe what he wants and to ignore the most obvious facts or logic if they conflict with his subjective viewpoint.

Another claim of his is, “THE ISSUE at hand is the white race’s existential crisis (and with him a dying Christianity) and the SELF-ANNIHILATING ETHOS of the liberals AND mainstream liberal ‘Christians.’” What I find interesting here is that he equates the ultimate survival of one’s “race” with one’s self. Moreover he sees the survival of the “white race” as the primary goal of Christianity. He often accuses “liberals” of believing in “self-annihilation for salvation” to which I think he is saying that liberals believe they achieve spiritual salvation through the annihilation of their race. Given that he is so obsessed will race, I suppose it makes some sense that he would feel this way. However, I am pretty sure no one he labels as a liberal Christian thinks race and spiritual salvation have any real connection at all. They are apples and oranges. As such, his accusation although it probably makes sense inside his box of subjectivity makes no sense outside of it in objective reality.

When asked what his basis within Christian dogma is for his beliefs his response is that Christ was a perfect man. Based on this premise he feels that man can strive to imitate this perfection which he also refers to as supremacy. This seems to be his rational for his doctrine of racist white supremacy although the logical connection between Christ’s perfection and the white race he feels to exist is unclear to me. This is especially true when considering the fact that Jesus himself was not a white man. Either Jesus was perfect in all things but race (which would make him imperfect) or his Semitic race is the perfect race (which would make the white race incapable of becoming perfect). Obviously, his logic seems to break down when subjected to scrutiny but I suppose inside his box of subjectivity (where rational scrutiny does not exist) it makes perfect sense.

He does make a point that the use of contraception demonstrates a desire not to reproduce specifically as to the sex act during which the contraception is used. However, he mistakenly expands this concept universally, claiming that the use of contraception demonstrates a desire never to reproduce at all (and by extension to annihilate one’s race). Obviously his expansion ignores the fact that a couple who uses contraception in one instance can and do choose not to use it in order to procreate in another. (Again, his box of subjectivity allows for this). He then argues that this desire not to procreate is an act of “self-annihilation.” Now obviously I still exist after I have had sex using contraception. So I must assume he equates the passing of my genetic material on to the next generation keeps me existing in some way. The fact that he places such importance upon the perpetuation of a blood line is interesting in and of itself. However, the fact that he wants to attribute this perpetuation of a blood line as a Christian spiritual priority is a bit bizarre. It is more than obvious to probably every other self-identified Christian that the physical blood line and race are of zero importance to spiritual salvation. There is no scriptural basis to his argument. Nor does his strange argument carry water that Christ’s spiritual perfection advocates for a doctrine of white racism.

I did bring up the example of a celibate religious and asked if this was not an example of self-annihilation according to his unique viewpoint. He responded, “No… Because the truly celibate stands as empirical exemplar of immaculate spiritual, intellectual and physical discipline. His incredible discipline is neither the thought of nor an act of self-annihilation.” This seems to be a weakness in his argument that the primary goal of Christianity is the perpetuation of the “white” race. By leaving room for spiritual (i.e., non physical or racial) salvation and ignoring the fact that the consequences of a lifetime of celibacy are far more devastating than the occasional use of contraception in terms of perpetuating the white race seems inconsistent at best.

He goes on to say, “The intent of the truly celibate IS NOT TO self-annihilate or refuse to bring more of one’s Self into this world, but rather, a calling to bring the most spiritually, intellectually and physically disciplined SELF that one can muster into REALITY.” By this he seems to argue that intent is the metric by which one can be labeled a “self-annihilator”. In other words, in order for one to be a self-annihilator he must intend to be one. I am pretty sure, however, that if I suggested it is not my intent to self-annihilate when I use contraception that he would not concede the point.

96 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity

SkylineOver the course of my last two blog posts, How to Get More Traffic to Your Blog and The Mentality Behind Baiting and Trolling, as well as their respective comment sections I have been having a dialog with an individual named Thordaddy. I assume from his perspective our discussion has been a debate about what he thinks “Liberals” believe about abortion and contraception. From my perspective the dialog has been more of an exploration of his belief structure. In particular I have observed that he maintains this belief structure through the use of a box of subjectivity. Within this box he is free to make up his own definitions and rules of logic. In a sense he is free to believe anything he wants because inside the box his subjective mindset becomes objectively true.

Most notably, Thordaddy argues that Liberals believe abortion is reproductive right. He also argues that Liberals believe contraception is reproductive right. He defines reproductive right as the right to reproduce. Abortion / Contraception and reproduction are antithetical. Therefore Thodaddy concludes that the Liberals’ belief structure is illogical and wrong.

There are many problems with Thordaddy’s argument however.

First of all not all Liberals are in favor of abortion. In fact, it has been my experience that most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. A good example of this are Libertarians who tend to be conservative on issues of economics, public policy and foreign policy but liberal on social issues. So the label of Liberal as a monolithic category in which to place people is highly suspect. I suspect people who are monolithic in their thought structure (like Thordaddy) will always see the world and other people in this way. This tendency to categorize and label (in effect to place people in boxes) is analogous to the box of subjectivity in which he has placed himself.

Second, Thordaddy argues that because Liberals believe abortion “is reproductive right” and Liberals also believe contraception “is reproductive right” then abortion and contraception are per se the same thing. This is the transitive property which holds that if A = B and B = C then A = C. The problem with this argument is, however, that no one but Thordaddy use either phrase “abortion is reproductive right” or “contraception is reproductive right.” It would be more accurate to say that the right to abortion and the right to contraception are legal rights related to a person’s reproductive right. As such you might be able to say that C = A + B + Other rights not discussed in this blog post. But, this in no way makes A and B equal. A reading of the comment section in the previous posts will show that I pointed this out to Thordaddy but he did not acknowledge it. This is a great illustration of how he is free to believe what he wants within his box of subjectivity.

Third, Thordaddy switches back and forth between saying Liberals believe Abortion IS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which no one does) and saying Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT whenever it suits his purposes to do so. These two phrases do not mean the same thing. The first phrase if true and if it is also true that Liberals believe “contraception is reproductive right” would support his transitive property argument. However, none of that is true. Thordaddy also says Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which is true to the extent that abortion is a legal right which is related to the reproductive process). However, the fact that he has argued using both phrases further diminishes the potency of his transitive property argument. Unfortunately, explaining these nuances is complicated. Accordingly, it is a simple task for him to persist in his illogical argument as if its logical flaws have not been demonstrated. This is a key strategy that allows him to remain inside his self constructed ideological box.

Fourth, Thordaddy self identifies as a Christian but does not seem to follow any of the tenants of Christianity. I do not say this to judge his religious beliefs, mind you. I am pointing it out because he has judged other people’s religious beliefs rather harshly. He seems to argue that because he self identifies as a Christian and he self identifies as a white supremacist that therefore Christianity is white supremacy. This is another obvious misuse of the transitive property objectively speaking. But it serves his subjective purposes well in that it provides moral cover for his racist beliefs even though there is no logic or reason supporting it. But logic and reason exist in the realm of the objective which he is not ultimately interested in. His ultimate interest is to remain encapsulated within his subjective box thinking that it is objective.

Fifth, Thordaddy argues that I am not Christian because I use contraception in the context of marriage after having had two children. Because he equates contraception and abortion he sees this (I presume) as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” (Ex 20:13). Let us put aside the argument that contraception is not killing a life but rather preventing a life from coming into existence in the first place. Let us also put aside the argument that abstinence and contraception produce the same result. Now, Jesus Christ (from whom Christianity gets its name and belief structure) stated that the “Great Commandment” is to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. (Matt 22:36-40). This in effect, elevates Love Thy Neighbor above Thou Shall Not Kill in importance. Why then would he believe that the use of contraception bars a person from being a Christian whereas hating one’s neighbor does not?

Clearly, both logic and Christian doctrine are not his strong suite. But none of this matters to him while he is encapsulated inside his radically autonomous box of subjectivity.

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Similarities between Trolls and Terrorists

OBLIt occurred to me recently that internet trolls and terrorists share certain distinct qualities. This idea came to me when I realized that the victims of trolls and terrorists always have the same response. This response is to question why trolls and terrorists do what they do. Specifically they ask themselves, “Why they do they hate us?” Often the victims explain the actions of the trolls and terrorists by labeling them as evil or simply jerks. I am certainly not here to argue that these labels are inappropriate. But I do think they demonstrate a lack of understanding on the victim’s part as to what is truly motivating the trolls and terrorists.

I think I have a good idea what motivates an internet troll because I have acted as one in the past. Although I have never committed an act of terrorism it seems reasonable to speculate that the terrorist’s motivations are the same as the troll’s motivation because the actions of both terrorists and trolls have the same effect on their victims. That is, their actions are designed to make their victims suffer in and of itself.

When I was a troll (or when I was accused of being a troll) I felt like I was being mistreated by the people who dominated the Star Trek message board on which I was an active member. (See my book “Shame and Internet Trolling” for more details). There was one politically conservative guy on the message board named Admiralbill who I felt was particularly nasty and condescending to people who had the audacity to question the George W. Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. I took it upon myself to passive-aggressively attack him with sarcastic remarks and by posting articles on topics I knew would make him angry. I was not particularly liberal at the time but I was willing to advocate the liberal argument to achieve my goals. The administration of the board sided with him and so I began arguing with them until they eventually banned me. When I look back upon my actions I can see that I was chiefly motivate to make both Admiralbill and the board administration suffer. In fact I took pleasure from doing so.

But there is another aspect to this behavior in that both trolling and terrorism are unconscious acts. They are unconscious in the sense that the perpetrators of both acts (I believe) are unconscious of their true motivations. It is my contention based upon my own experience that a person who derives pleasure from making other people suffer feels this way because someone else derived pleasure from making them suffer. In other the feel compelled to repeat this behavior because they are addicted to the feelings it evokes in them.

Because trolls and terrorists are unaware of (or unwilling to admit) their true motivations they tend to cloak their behavior in righteousness. When I trolled I argued that I was defending the liberals from Admiralbill’s abuse. Admiralbill argued that conservatism was rational and by contrast liberalism was irrational. (Although I admit my behavior was troll-like I suspect Admiralbill also share my motivations. This motivation to cloak this behavior in righteousness is probably why terrorism and religion attract each other in many cases. Other examples of this that come to mind are Michael Voris the snarky, condescending and judgmental producer of the Church Militant videos available on Youtube as well as the white supremacist Thordaddy who stalked my blog some months back. Both seem to take pleasure in judging and shaming others while at the same time cloaking their behavior in righteousness and religion. It is my contention that all these examples as well as the terrorists in Al Qaeda and ISIS are all similarly unaware of their true motivations. And they must remain unaware of their true motivations in order to continue with their behavior. I believe this to be true because in my own experience once I became aware that I was simply repeating the abuse I once suffered I realize that it is the cycle in which I was trapped that is evil and not the people upon which I sought to perpetuate the cycle. Once I realized this my motivation to continue with the behavior disappeared.

Leave a comment

Filed under Trolling

A Sample Size of One

BCAlthough he has never addressed the subject directly I suspect my self labeled “Genuine white Supremacist” neighbor is a sample size of one. He calls himself a white Supremacist but denies any connection with or allegiance to any of the typical white supremacist movements including Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan or Christian Identity. I have asked him if he belongs to a group or church and where he learned his philosophy from but he never seems to want to answer that question. At this point if I had to guess as to where his philosophy came from I would say he simply made it all up on his own. In this respect I cannot say with any certainty that his white Supremacy is indicative of white Supremacy at large.

He claims to be a Christian. Normally I would not question the veracity of a person’s claim to be Christian. However, he also claims that true Christianity requires a person be a racist and anyone who is not a racist cannot authentically call themselves a Christian. Certainly, I support the right of anyone to make outrageous claims on their own blogs or platforms. But he insists (for some reason) on posting his radical philosophy in the comment section of my blog posts. As such I believe it is entirely in my right to respond to him in this way.

He claims his racism is a “traditional” racism which is not to be confused with the “liberal” definition of racism. According to him, “traditional racism” actually means “love of Father” and not (as he says the liberal conception of racism espouses) hatred of the black man. This love of Father in his mind is connected with the “white race” and his line of white fathers which he claims stretches back in an unbroken white line all the way to God the Father Himself. He specifically rejects the scientific consensus that all presently alive humans (black and white alike) can trace their ancestry back to a common line of fathers. Presumably he sees this research as a liberal conspiracy or some such. Despite his claims that his racism is a love of father and not hatred of “other” he has specifically stated he is against racial mixing and integration. In this respect, I am not sure how his love of father differs from hatred of the other. It seems as if he does not want to fully own his racism.

His logic in claiming Christianity endorses racism seems to be rooted in the primacy of racism in his own mind. In other words, he believes racism is true and correct and that Christianity is also true and correct. As such Christianity ipso facto must endorse racism and anyone who does not endorse racism is ipso facto not a real Christian.

The rather glaring problem with this logic is not only that there is no scriptural basis to support this argument, there is substantial scriptural basis to reject this argument.

Love Thy Neighbor / Good Samaritan

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus teaches that love of God and love of neighbor are of primary importance under the law. By saying that love of neighbor is second only to loving God with all one’s heart Jesus is ranking love of neighbor above the commandment to honor one’s biological parents. When asked “who is my neighbor?” Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

… A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him… Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Lk 10:30-37).

Here we see Jesus explain that one’s neighbor is defined by his behavior (specifically acts of kindness and compassion) and not by race or political affiliation. This point is made even clearer when one considers the fact that Jews and Samaritans were of separate lineages and enemies in the context of this story. Certainly, if Christianity preached a gospel that racism is of primary importance that fact would have been referenced in this parable.

Hate Thy Father

Indeed, in the Gospel of Luke Jesus specifically states that one must reject his biological ties in order to follow him.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Lk 14:26)

It is the consensus of biblical scholars that this rather strongly worded passage is properly interpreted to mean that a follower of Jesus needs to prioritize Him above one’s kin. At the very least this passage calls into question the notion that love of one’s line of fathers is of primary importance for a true Christian.

Teach All Nations

In the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus instructs his disciples to “… teach all nations…” (Mt 28:19). There is no instruction to restrict Christianity to white people or to any specific people as there would have to be if Christianity espoused a doctrine of racism.

Things Above

 In Paul’s letter to the Colossians he says to “[s]et your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” (Col 3:2). Clearly one’s race is tied to materiality and of lesser importance that one’s life with Christ. In light of these and many other passages I could reference there is simply no scriptural basis to support the idea that Christ taught a gospel of racism. When I consider this in light of the fact that I have never heard anyone argue that Christ taught racism and the fact that my self labeled “Genuine white Supremacist” neighbor does not claim to belong to any particular community of fellow believers, I must conclude that he is very much alone in the world. Although his beliefs are interesting in their bizarre complexity and consistency I do not think they reflect anything greater than the contents of his own mind.

101 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized