Filtering out Queers is OK

At 11:29 PM 7/18/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote:

>I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal
>Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any
>entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should
>fight it on all fronts.  This, in my mind, is the only reason to be
>dismayed by the decision on the CDA.  It was found that the government
>shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate
>censorship available.  It would have truely been a great day if the
>decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet
>because censorship is wrong.

Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage
being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific
American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the
sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and
"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing
about.

If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away
from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where
there views are already basically set.

I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to
set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed.
And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can
and can't do.

Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic"
notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from
filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex."

(As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others
practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their
practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see
fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.)

>That is another problem, not the Real Problem.  The Real Problem is that
>parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've
>seen is wrong or bad.  They are afraid to teach their children their
>beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that
>conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is

Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo
the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two
Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in
religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for
schools their own children are no longer using).

Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their
AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but
I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid
their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which
I don't).

I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which  have existed
for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no
tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on
such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay
for the research.

What do you call ten million AIDS deaths?  You figure it out.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:

 > Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational
 > response to garbage being spewed constantly. I filter lots
 > of items. I read "Scientific American" and "The Economist"
 > because they filter (or "censor," in the sense some are
 > objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and
 > "peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no
 > interest in hearing about.

Filtering is wonderful.  Long live filtering.

I used to read "Scientific American" too, back in the days when
the table of contents wasn't illustrated with cute little icons.
Back then, reputable scientists, as opposed to staff writers and
less reputable scientists, actually wrote all the articles, which
were about science, and not political screeds mascarading as
science.

And to conserve bandwidth, please reread the above paragraph
substituting "Nova" for "Scientific American" and "watch" for
"read."

Having offended "Scientific American" and PBS, let us now proceed
to the main agenda item, offending homosexuals.

 > If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes
 > were kept away from them until they reached an age where it
 > no longer mattered, where there views are already basically
 > set.

If I had kids, I would be overjoyed that the new technology of
the information age permitted them to investigate any topic of
their choice in the safety of their own home.  Of course, there
would be some reasonable limits during their very early years, if
only to prevent them from waking up screaming in the middle of
the night, but I expect most of these could be eliminated by the
time they reached their early teens.

If I had kids, I am sure Tim would support my right to give them
access to the entire universe of human knowlege and thought as
early as possible, and to let them form their own opinions on
every conceivable subject, even if those opinions differed from
my own.  Where I suspect we differ, is that I would not only
advocate such an advantage for my kids, but for his as well.

The problem with giving parents the absolute right to control
their childrens' input of memes until the children are too old
and stupid to learn anything new, is that it creates generational
propagation of obsolete ideologies.  All the Dole children think
exactly like Bob.  All the Hitler children think exactly like
Adolf.  Same for the Mengele children, the Nixon children, the
Stalin children, the Netanyahu children, etc...

 > I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of
 > course, free to set his filters differently, but not to
 > insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not
 > free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't
 > do.

Before the days of home computers and filters, we had things
called public libraries.  They provided all citizens with
unfiltered access to information of their choice, even children.
Members of the American Library Association are pretty good at
torching paper trails of what people choose to read, and allowing
children who have reached the age of reason access to almost
everything in the library, as long as they don't talk too loudly
or stick gum to the seats.  Parents may not like this, but up
until now, the librarians have stood their ground.

The movement towards accessing information from home PCs, coupled
with the new "parents rights" movement and filtering software,
creates a situation where no one under the age of 18 can have
access to any information their parents don't want them to see.

As the Web replaces the library, young people won't even be able
to preserve the same anonymous access to controversial
information they have always had in the past.  This is a step
backwards for youth rights.

 > Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by
 > "liberalistic" notions that they think the State needs to
 > intervene to stop me from filtering my son's access to "The
 > Joys of Queer Sex."

 > (As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual
 > practices others practice, so long as I am not forced to
 > either fund or witness their practices. And so long as I am
 > free to filter out their practices as I see fit, including
 > for my minor children and/or members of my household.)

The age of filtering has arrived.  You can filter your childrens'
access to sex manuals, grandma's access to the elder abuse web
page, and your underpaid Ethiopian leaf blower operator's access
to anything having to do with laws against sub-minimum wages or
slavery.

 > Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night
 > trying to undo the propaganda taught in many public school,
 > such as books like "I Have Two Mommies." Many of these
 > parents eventually give up and put their kids in religious
 > or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes
 > for schools their own children are no longer using).

I certainly believe that the education dollar should be in the
hands of the education consumer, that the NEA and the AFT should
be splintered into a million pieces and scattered to the winds,
and that providing educational services should become a
competitive business run with the efficiency of Federal Express.

Nonetheless, I am not going to panic when the kids come home
after having read "Uncle Bruce's Asshole Has Two Uses" or
"Grandma Visits the Euthanasia Clinic" in class.  The solution to
bad speech is more speech.  Older kids can make up their own
minds about such things after hearing all sides, including their
parents', and younger kids generally take what is said at home at
face value anyway.

 > Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to
 > practice their AIDS-spreading practices to any and all
 > receptive anuses they can find, but I eschew this lifestyle
 > and will fight to the death for this right to avoid their
 > practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had
 > any, which I don't).

As an individual who has no desire to engage in gay sex, or watch
it being performed while I am eating, I must admit my attitudes
towards the "gay community" have undergone a certain evolution in
recent years.  Back in the '70s, gays supported a wide-ranging
platform of human rights issues, and a lot of activists whose
work I admired on many issues I supported "happened to be gay."

Now that the gay community has narrowed its focus solely to the
issue of consensual adult sodomy rights, and shown alarming signs
of sucking up to the Radical Religious Right, I really don't have
warm feelings towards it anymore.  They have marginalized many of
their former supporters and seem more interested in pleasing
Jesse Helms than in showing anything resembling ideological
integrity.  I really believe the gay movement of today would sell
out almost anyone if they thought it would guarantee the right of
homosexual men to join the Republican Party and plug each others
assholes in private in the community of their choice.

A right I support, of course, as long as I don't have to watch it
or pay for it.

 > I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses
 > which have existed for millenia now find new vectors for
 > spreading in our population. I cry no tears for those dying
 > of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on such
 > things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new
 > vector pay for the research.

I'm not sure this is "evolution in action", as much as the "law
of unintended consequences." Kind of like feeding ground up sheep
to cows and discovering that the brains of hamburger eaters are
turning to swiss cheese.  Not a morality issue at all.

Homosexual transmission of HIV is not the significant vector in
most of the world anyway, with the exception of the US and a few
other countries where the virus happened by pure accident to find
its way into a high risk population.

 > What do you call ten million AIDS deaths?  You figure it
 > out.

If this is like the lawyer joke, it isn't very nice.

In any case, to summarize...

   1.  Let a thousand filters bloom today.
   2.  Filtering what you read is good.
   3.  Filtering what other people read is bad.
   4.  Choosing your own perversions is good.
   5.  Making other people watch is bad.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

> The problem with giving parents the absolute right to control
> their childrens' input of memes until the children are too old
> and stupid to learn anything new, is that it creates generational
> propagation of obsolete ideologies.  All the Dole children think
> exactly like Bob.  All the Hitler children think exactly like
> Adolf.  Same for the Mengele children, the Nixon children, the
> Stalin children, the Netanyahu children, etc...

The same can be said of the children of the more politically
correct.  My opinion is that religion is a waste of time and
resources, and therefore, those who force their children to
be religious is doing precisely the same harm you allude to.

That is strictly MY opinion.  If there are enough of me
around, should we be allowed to force the government to take
children away from their religious parents?  More mildly, can
the government "protect" a child from religious ideas?

What gives the society more rights to regulate how the child
shall be brought up, except the narrow interest of protecting
the physical safety of the child?  It is not even clear that
the government may force a child to accept secular ideas that
may violate the child's religious background, even if the
government has a compelling secular interest in doing so.

Yes, we would like fewer Hitler's in the future.  But should
we NOT let the people decide how the raise their children
because there is some risk of a few of them turning into
future Hitlers?

Ern

Ernest Hua <hua@xenon.chromatic.com> writes:
> The same can be said of the children of the more politically
> correct.  My opinion is that religion is a waste of time and
> resources, and therefore, those who force their children to
> be religious is doing precisely the same harm you allude to.
>
> That is strictly MY opinion.  If there are enough of me
> around, should we be allowed to force the government to take
> children away from their religious parents?  More mildly, can
> the government "protect" a child from religious ideas?

In Russia, under Khrushchev, teaching children religion was viewed
as a serious form of child abuse, and its victims would often be
taken away and placed in orphanages.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage
> being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific
> American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the
> sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and

Actually, the Economist has, er,  come out strongly in favour of gay 
rights on numerous occasions- most recently on the issue of same sex 
marriages.

At 7:07 PM -0700 7/18/96, Timothy C. May wrote:

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage
>being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific
>American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the
>sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and
>"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing
>about.

<omitted>

>
>I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which  have existed
>for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no
>tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on
>such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay
>for the research.

Pretty good summary of one position. I'd add that in addition, some groups
you mention blackmail society by being loud and in your face, and prey on
others' fear of being thought politically incorrect, to gain amounts of
public treasure and air time vastly disproportionate to their needs or
their problem in the heirarchy of needs and problems facing society.

Putting it a bit more directly, gays are a small percentage of society but
many are constantly demanding air time, infiltrating the media to create
exposure vastly disproportionate to their numbers, and demanding public
funds per capita way in excess of what the poor, the heart-disease or
cancer-ridden, or the heterosexuals get for _their_ needs. In their latest
attempt at public blackmail they're trying to get the nation to agree that
we should provide incentives for homosexual marriages (the marriage
benefits of Federal law are incentives to behavior society wants to
encourage, not an inherent "right" of marriage).

David

At 12:48 AM -0700 7/19/96, Mike Duvos wrote:

<Long argument that children should be exposed to every idea, omitted>

This is simply incorrect. It is a supportable advocacy for most adults, but
children's minds tend to be like sponges--everything they take in (up until
a certain age) is thought to be true, interesting, worth experimenting
with, based on authority, etc. Read Piaget.

What is more, a parent can't watch them every second while they're on the
net, nor will they ask all the questions they should about certain material
they see. I'd no more permit young kids to view gay or bestial or porno
sites on the net than I'd let them view propaganda for how good pigs taste
(unsupervised), if I were an orthodox Jew.

When they've passed the developmental stage (I rely on the experts in this
field for that determination) where they have independent critical
judgement and the security to exercise it, THEN I would open up their
horizons.

I speak as a father who has raised four children who turned out to be
independent beings to successful adulthood and families of their own, not
as a theoretician.

David

David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:

 > This is simply incorrect. It is a supportable advocacy for
 > most adults, but children's minds tend to be like
 > sponges--everything they take in (up until a certain age) is
 > thought to be true, interesting, worth experimenting with,
 > based on authority, etc. Read Piaget.

Piaget was very good at "proving" how fundamentally different the
minds of children were from those of adults, and at constructing
elaborate webs of complex terminology and doctrine to support his
notions.

Unfortunately, his experiments suffered from obvious flaws.  I
recall one in which he trained a child to relate the terms "more"
and "less" to whether the same amount of fluid was poured into a
taller or shorter container.  Piaget concluded that this
demonstrated that children have no quantitative skills.  Others
had a less flattering description of the research, and realized
that all Piaget had accomplished was to teach his subjects
incorrect meanings for a few common words.  Similar defects can
be found is most of his other constructs, and better designed
experiments do not demonstrate the effects he claimed.

 > What is more, a parent can't watch them every second while
 > they're on the net, nor will they ask all the questions they
 > should about certain material they see. I'd no more permit
 > young kids to view gay or bestial or porno sites on the net
 > than I'd let them view propaganda for how good pigs taste
 > (unsupervised), if I were an orthodox Jew.

Again, we are applying a standard to the Net which has never been
applied to libraries.  Any orthodox Jewish child can read all he
or she wants in a library about the wonders of pig-eating,
without any possibility of parental supervision or disclosure of
their un-Jewish interests.

But it is now being advocated that on the Net, no child has a
right to view even a syllable of any information their parents do
not want them to see.  While gay or bestial sex is frequently the
excuse for such antics, it is clear that parents will be using
this new technology to impose a level of control over their
childrens' minds which has heretofore never been possible.  This
should worry us all.

 > When they've passed the developmental stage (I rely on the
 > experts in this field for that determination) where they
 > have independent critical judgement and the security to
 > exercise it, THEN I would open up their horizons.

Generally, very young children do not have the neural wiring in
place to suspend emotional reactions to imagery based on
intellectual considerations. Seeing an picture of someone being
hurt in a movie causes them the same emotional pain as seeing
someone hurt in real life, even though they may know perfectly
well that the former image is fictional in nature.

Almost all children develop this important critical faculty by
the age of 12, by which point, they manage to only be sickened by
the evening news, and not by the latest "Nightmare on Elm Street"
sequel.

While limiting the "horizons" of persons in their middle to late
teens is often justified by arguments about developmental stages,
the truth is that it is simply an attempt by their keepers to
control how they think and to what views, mostly political and
social in nature, they are exposed to.

 > I speak as a father who has raised four children who turned
 > out to be independent beings to successful adulthood and
 > families of their own, not as a theoretician.

Do they troll on Usenet too? :)

At 12:57 PM -0700 7/19/96, Mike Duvos wrote:
>David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:
>
> > This is simply incorrect. It is a supportable advocacy for
> > most adults, but children's minds tend to be like
> > sponges--everything they take in (up until a certain age) is
> > thought to be true, interesting, worth experimenting with,
> > based on authority, etc. Read Piaget.
>
>Piaget was very good at "proving" how fundamentally different the
>minds of children were from those of adults, and at constructing
>elaborate webs of complex terminology and doctrine to support his
>notions.

There are many others who have come to similar conclusions about the
formation of independent judgement in children, and lots of non-Piaget
experiments. Your comments are diversionary and in fact by the end of your
post you come to agree with my basic point.

>
>Again, we are applying a standard to the Net which has never been
>applied to libraries.  Any orthodox Jewish child can read all he
>or she wants in a library about the wonders of pig-eating,
>without any possibility of parental supervision or disclosure of
>their un-Jewish interests.

That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in loco parentis,
and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials young children are
exposed to and what is more, are responsive to community pressure in the
matter since most libraries are community-based. Again you have seized on
the details of an example to act as if it were the argument itself, and
nit-picked. My core point remains unrefuted.

>
>Generally, very young children do not have the neural wiring in
>place to suspend emotional reactions to imagery based on
>intellectual considerations. Seeing an picture of someone being
>hurt in a movie causes them the same emotional pain as seeing
>someone hurt in real life, even though they may know perfectly
>well that the former image is fictional in nature.
>
>Almost all children develop this important critical faculty by
>the age of 12, by which point, they manage to only be sickened by
>the evening news, and not by the latest "Nightmare on Elm Street"
>sequel.

So after trying to refute my point, you come to agree with it and want to
shift the issue to the question of at what age.... I'm not competent to
assess that nor, I assert, are you; I suggest it varies with the child and
it's up to the individual parent to make those subtle distinctions, issue
by issue, child by child.

>
>While limiting the "horizons" of persons in their middle to late
>teens is often justified by arguments about developmental stages,
>the truth is that it is simply an attempt by their keepers to
>control how they think and to what views, mostly political and
>social in nature, they are exposed to.

Now you've really got me on the ropes to understand you. As I parse the
above sentence it says limiting is often justified but it might not be.
What kind of definitive conclusion is that? I suggest none, and your bottom
line is that it's case by case. If so, it's up to the parents to figure out
where THEIR kid is on the scale--nobody else has as much time, motivation,
or opportunity to observe.

David.

At 10:24 AM -0700 7/21/96, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

>The purpose of a librarian is to aid patrons in locating
>materials and to maintain the order of the library.  The Library Bill of
>Rights (which, of course, legally means nothing) guarantees access to any
>materials by any patron.  If little eight year old Johnny Doe comes and
>asks for _The Joy of Gay Sex_, a librarian is supposed to do nothing more
>that point Johnny to the "J" section.

Not in the cities I'm familiar with. And so to do would be wrong, in my
view. In fact, library children's programs do a LOT more than simply aiding
patrons in locating materials and maintaining the order of the library, so
your contention is false on its face.

David

Sorry Perry, I tried. 

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> At 10:24 AM -0700 7/21/96, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
> >The purpose of a librarian is to aid patrons in locating
> >materials and to maintain the order of the library.  The Library Bill of
> >Rights (which, of course, legally means nothing) guarantees access to any
> >materials by any patron.  If little eight year old Johnny Doe comes and
> >asks for _The Joy of Gay Sex_, a librarian is supposed to do nothing more
> >that point Johnny to the "J" section.
> Not in the cities I'm familiar with. And so to do would be wrong, in my
> view. In fact, library children's programs do a LOT more than simply aiding
> patrons in locating materials and maintaining the order of the library, so
> your contention is false on its face.

     Ok bonehead, explain the difference between LIBRARIAN and LIBRARY
CHILDREN'S PROGRAM. 

     Then go back and re-read what Mr. Hayden wrote. Then think about it for
a couple hours. Then look at what you wrote. Does what you wrote have 
more than a passing relationship with what Mr. Hayden wrote? 

     No. You ignored his point, you missed his point, and you didn't bother
to reply to his point, you just went blythly blathering along on your own 
self indulgent little course. 

     Let us look at this line by line:

> >The purpose of a librarian is to aid patrons in locating
> view. In fact, library children's programs do a LOT more than simply aiding

     Librarian != library children's program. 

> >materials and to maintain the order of the library.  The Library Bill of
> >Rights (which, of course, legally means nothing) guarantees access to any
> >materials by any patron.  If little eight year old Johnny Doe comes and
> >asks for _The Joy of Gay Sex_, a librarian is supposed to do nothing more
> >that point Johnny to the "J" section.
> Not in the cities I'm familiar with. And so to do would be wrong, in my
> view. In fact, library children's programs do a LOT more than simply aiding
> patrons in locating materials and maintaining the order of the library, so
> your contention is false on its face.

    How so Mr AssTorch? He contends that the Library Bill of Rights says one 
thing and you argue that the library childrens programs do a LOT more than 
this bill of rights says they must. 

    The US Bill of rights says a lot of things that our government ignores 
whenever possible, that doesn't mean that those words aren't written, nor
does it mean that they aren't in effect anywhere. 
y

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in loco parentis,
> and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials young children are
> exposed to and what is more, are responsive to community pressure in the
> matter since most libraries are community-based. Again you have seized on
> the details of an example to act as if it were the argument itself, and
> nit-picked. My core point remains unrefuted.

Uh, wait a second.  Libraries and Librarians are not acting in loco 
parentis.  The purpose of a librarian is to aid patrons in locating 
materials and to maintain the order of the library.  The Library Bill of 
Rights (which, of course, legally means nothing) guarantees access to any 
materials by any patron.  If little eight year old Johnny Doe comes and 
asks for _The Joy of Gay Sex_, a librarian is supposed to do nothing more 
that point Johnny to the "J" section.

Now, I am generalizing as SOME librarian do refuse to check materials some
might feel inappropriate, but that is not a librarian policy.  The Library
Establishment (ALA, basicly) believes in the idea that it is the parents
that should be responsible for what Little Johnny reads, not the
librarian. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMfJLmjokqlyVGmCFAQFGLwP/YCz5RNWunZnDlEXIUaiWyyKtQWkY1eFo
H6ztprN9u8natpFQPn9beRq0QyV3g54gkGUvNKs2jh34caCRpaAbv4dajXSBE9Jy
VzdryDZFhUsNATGJ+Vz8S8v/mFXBLr9Duni41llElzNj8RQDKWx2m4tbquaLiz/L
Lo5hBJBXkcI=
=G65B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
____           Robert A. Hayden      <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__     Finger for Geek Code Info <=>    Finger for PGP Public Key
 \/  /           -=-=-=-=-=-                      -=-=-=-=-=-
   \/        http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GED/J d-- s:++>: a- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+
K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++
R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------