# ESPN Pulls Monday Night Football Intro



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l?fb_ref=NetworkNews&fb_source=home_multiline


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Let's not get into a discussion of our president or politics per se; rather, just comment on ESPN's decision to pull Hank Williams's famous singing intro to Monday Night Football. 

Celebrities say stupid things about our elected leaders all the time, but IMHO, ESPN is going overboard with their decision to immediately terminate Williams's "All My Rowdy Friends" intro to MNF.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This is an interesting situtation.

If sponsors, TV networks, and movie producers voided appearances based on "celebrity" stupid statements...we'd most likely have no TV or movies at all. A day doesn't go by that one of these "public figures" doesn't share their "brilliant wisdom" with us. 

In this case, it was an analogy, not a statement - albeit a dumb one. He's also apologized for using it.

Seems pretty much case closed at this point.


----------



## tunce (Jan 19, 2006)

Obama's a Jack and there is free speech here right? This PC bull crap is killing us. ESPN can kiss it!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when you can no longer verbally express yourself. ESPN's attitude is ludicrous.


----------



## Tiny (Feb 1, 2009)

Land of the Free speech ? The Death star strikes again.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

When will celebrities learn not to use the name "Hitler" in the same sentence as a public official?

Public opinion changes all the time but almost everyone hates Adolph.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> When will celebrities learn not to use the name "Hitler" in the same sentence as a public official?


He didn't call him Hitler, he made an analogy of Obama and Boehner (two people who hate each other) playing golf together to Hitler vs. Netanyahu (two people who would have hated each other had they lived at the same time) playing golf together. It was still a poor choice.



tunce said:


> and there is free speech here right? This PC bull crap is killing us. ESPN can kiss it!


As for the free speech thing, our record of teaching civics in school is woeful. Free speech is not the right to say anything you want at any time. Free speech is the right to say things against the government without fear of government reprisal. Nothing more.

So while you may not agree with ESPN here, they have the right to decide who they want to be associated with and what speech they want to be associated with. I agree it is being PC, but they have that right.


----------



## JeffinSD (Oct 25, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> He didn't call him Hitler, he made an analogy of Obama and Boehner (two people who hate each other) playing golf together to Hitler vs. Netanyahu (two people who would have hated each other had they lived at the same time) playing golf together. It was still a poor choice.
> 
> As for the free speech thing, our record of teaching civics in school is woeful. Free speech is not the right to say anything you want at any time. Free speech is the right to say things against the government without fear of government reprisal. Nothing more.
> 
> So while you may not agree with ESPN here, they have the right to decide who they want to be associated with and what speech they want to be associated with. I agree it is being PC, but they have that right.


Thank you for explaining this basic constitutional right. ESPN, as an employer (or customer of his song), has every right to tell it's employee's you crossed the line. This is not the U.S. government telling a citizen to curtail his speech. The Nazi analogy is lame, unwarranted and frankly I am more offended by Mr. Williams calling our President and Vice President the enemy, which is borderline treasonous.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

JeffinSD said:


> Thank you for explaining this basic constitutional right. ESPN, as an employer (or customer of his song), has every right to tell it's employee's you crossed the line. This is not the U.S. government telling a citizen to curtail his speech. The Nazi analogy is lame, unwarranted and frankly I am more offended by Mr. Williams calling our President and Vice President the enemy, which is borderline treasonous.


It was an analogy, but some newscasters actually reported that he called The President a Nazi, or that he was like Hitler. Not at all. Horrible distortion.

At the same time, Williams, Jr.'s political views are of no interest to me whatsoever, and he showed very poor judgement in mouthing off. However, from the clip I saw, he didn't approach treason.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> He didn't call him Hitler, he made an analogy of Obama and Boehner (two people who hate each other) playing golf together to Hitler vs. Netanyahu


My post stated that it is dangerous to use Hitler's name together in a comment with any other name. I didn't say he called him Hitler.


----------



## JeffinSD (Oct 25, 2008)

> However, from the clip I saw, he didn't approach treason.


You need to watch the entire clip, he called Biden and Obama the three stooges and the enemy. So not only can he not count, he called our elected leaders the enemy. I can see why ESPN would want to distance itself from Hank Williams jr, much in the same way they gave Rush Limbaugh a shot and he shot his mouth off. When Dennis Miller was in the booth, I actually enjoyed his enthusiasm and history of the game from a fan standpoint.

I think ESPN should rotate and bring in new talent every week to kick off MNF and expose us to different musicians, kind of like SNF.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

JeffinSD said:


> You need to watch the entire clip, he called Biden and Obama the three stooges and the enemy. So not only can he not count, he called our elected leaders the enemy. I can see why ESPN would want to distance itself from Hank Williams jr, much in the same way they gave Rush Limbaugh a shot and he shot his mouth off. When Dennis Miller was in the booth, I actually enjoyed his enthusiasm and history of the game from a fan standpoint.
> 
> I think ESPN should rotate and bring in new talent every week to kick off MNF and expose us to different musicians, kind of like SNF.


Why not leave showbiz out of it and just play football. Less mischief that way and no offending the thin skinned.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

JeffinSD said:


> I think ESPN should rotate and bring in new talent every week to kick off MNF and expose us to different musicians, kind of like SNF.


All I can see that they did was take away that short skirt shot of Faith and put her in some ugly white pants.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

This is not a censorship/free speech case.

ESPN can put whomever they want on their network. "Free Speech", as put forth in the Constitution, means the GOVERNMENT can't shut you up.

Now, citizens are free to exercise THEIR free speech rights by boycotting ESPN, if they so choose.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Tiny said:


> Land of the Free speech ? The Death star strikes again.


He was free to say it. And ESPN was free to pull him from the opening. No jail time being served here.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> Why not leave showbiz out of it and just play football. Less mischief that way and no offending the thin skinned.


Amen! 'Ceptin' when it's a crap game, some of which are predictable.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

JeffinSD said:


> You need to watch the entire clip, he called Biden and Obama the three stooges and the enemy. So not only can he not count, he called our elected leaders the enemy. I can see why ESPN would want to distance itself from Hank Williams jr, much in the same way they gave Rush Limbaugh a shot and he shot his mouth off. When Dennis Miller was in the booth, I actually enjoyed his enthusiasm and history of the game from a fan standpoint.
> 
> I think ESPN should rotate and bring in new talent every week to kick off MNF and expose us to different musicians, kind of like SNF.


I'd rather watch actual football, with actual knowledgeable commentators.

But calling any of our elected leaders dolts, or incompetents, or enemies isn't treason.

I don't have a big problem with ESPN dumping Jr., as I was tired of that theme anyway. But they overreacted. I further think the political views of entertainers is best left to faux news shows and gossip columnists. I.e., leave it out!


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Anybody else as cynical as I am and think this is a business decision and nothing more?

I've long thought the Hank Williams Jr. opening was old and needed to be replaced, but it was also identified so much with the show it was a difficult change for the suits at ESPN to make.

Now the change isn't so tough to justify.

I smell a weaselly excuse more than anything else.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

First, the little picture...

I know what he meant... but his analogy fails on several levels to convey what he actually means... and depending on how you look at it, could be just as insulting to the party he likes as it is the other party.

Right or wrong, dumb or not, he has the right to believe and to say it. Other people have the right to react to it and agree or disagree.

ESPN has the right to distance themselves from him and his statements too.

Now the big picture...

I can't support ESPN's stance here because of what we know it really is. Hank said something stupid, but at least it was something he believes.

ESPN pulls Monday's song intro, but you know they will run it next week and the rest of the season... so it was just a stunt to get them pats on the back. They don't really want to distance themselves from the statement, they just want the appearance of doing so, and hope people forget next week.

To me... ESPN had two choices here:

1. Detach complete from Hank forever. Cancel his intro the rest of the season, and find a new song starting next season. Done and done.

OR

2. Release the statement that Hank's statements do not reflect their views and they don't support his words, but note he has the right to express his opinion. Then run the song as usual, and say nothing further.

ESPN is trying to walk the line and not lose Hank while simultaneously trying to appease fans who might wish they would. It probably will work because people will forget all this in a week or two... but I wish they would have taken a believable stand.

Either support free speech and disagree with the content and move on OR take a stand that they are against his words and sever ties with him. Trying to have it both ways actually makes me respect ESPN less than Hank... and I didn't like what Hank said, but at least I feel like he believed it AND he has the right to his opinion.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It's a shame because I really am ready for some football.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It's a shame because I really am ready for some football.


:lol: Great comeback.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It's a shame because I really am ready for some football.


Stephen Colbert had a bit about that on last night's show... talking about how he was left completely unprepared for the football that began on ESPN without the proper readiness preparation


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ESPN's action brought more light to the comment than if they would have just left well enough alone. It also shows that ESPN cares more about their corporate image than their audience, who were likely ready for some football - regardless of if Hank Williams Jr asked them or not - and were not ready for such an overreaction to a stupid comment.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> ESPN's action brought more light to the comment than if they would have just left well enough alone. It also shows that ESPN cares more about their corporate image than their audience, who were likely ready for some football - regardless of if Hank Williams Jr asked them or not - and were not ready for such an overreaction to a stupid comment.


One of the few times I agree 100% with what you say, James. There's hope for you still. :lol:

Seriously, though, you've hit the nail on the head. When I started this thread, I never meant to imply that ESPN had no right to do what they did. Of course they did. I simply believe it was an overreaction to a comment that was stupid itself.

I think every president since Johnson has in some way been compared to or called Hitler. It's really growing old (and inaccurate, too). It's also still stupid and irresponsible.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Not that I have a dog in this hunt or anything....

...but I, for one, am glad ESPN did what it did - and I usually DON'T like what they do.

Maybe now - maybe just a little - someone might THINK a little bit before shooting their mouth off on nationwide TV doing nothing but drowning us further into hyperpartisanship.

Yeah, the comment was ridiculous - and Hank's defense of it even MORE ridiculous..

And no, I don't think this will single-handedly return us to an era of civil debate.. But maybe it's a step - an exceedingly SMALL one - in the right direction.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> ESPN's action brought more light to the comment than if they would have just left well enough alone. It also shows that ESPN cares more about their corporate image than their audience, who were likely ready for some football - regardless of if Hank Williams Jr asked them or not - and were not ready for such an overreaction to a stupid comment.


Of course they care about their corporate image.... it's their image, and their brand, that is vital to their success.

How does pulling the opening tune to the broadcast do anything to the audience? nothing... it's been the same thing for how long now? The only change are the names of the teams... .and I would gather that most of us, are getting our final food and beverages while that tune is playing....

I think they were very much prepared for the reaction... this isn't their rodeo with controversial or high profile statements.

As for the stuff that came out today, ESPN in their statement took what I think is the high road in their announcement that they have parted way, but the other side of fence... wasn't the high road.

And in the statement that I just read... Hank again, for someone that has political aspirations... doesn't seem to understand the First Amendment.

You can say what ever you want to say, and the government can't forbid you from doing so.... however, a private entity/company most certainly can.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hank did not intend to call either side of the golf pairing Hitler. He just picked two well known historical figures that were far apart in political viewpoints ... one wants to protect a Jewish state, the other wanted to exterminate all of the jews.

But in this world mentioning the name of Hitler in the same breath as anyone is considered banned political speech ... almost as bad as anyone not of color saying that 'n' word. I'm sure this isn't the first time Hank has said something political and completely disconnected from his ABC/ESPN work in the past 22 years.

BTW: The concepts expressed in constitutional rights often get extended into the workplace. With the right lawyer he could probably press a civil rights case against ESPN over this premature termination of contract. (The latest statements where Hank says he ended the relationship would not help such a case.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

There were THOUSANDS of comparisons that he could have used... but he chose to use a pretty extreme one.

He could have said Tom and Jerry playing a round of golf together, and gotten the message across... and stating that they are the enemy? 

As for a Civil case, that would be a monster hill to attempt to climb, as I am pretty sure that for the last several days... the ESPN legal department (which I am sure isn't small)... was verifying that they could terminate him.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This is an interesting situtation.
> 
> If sponsors, TV networks, and movie producers voided appearances based on "celebrity" stupid statements...we'd most likely have no TV or movies at all. A day doesn't go by that one of these "public figures" doesn't share their "brilliant wisdom" with us.


It happens all the time. They make a stupid comment, they lose their gig, everyone forgets about it, and 1 year later some other network picks them up and offers them another gig.

I mean, how many football fans still care about the horrible things Michael Vick did to animals? Most Philly fans probably could care less, as long as he scores points for the team.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

maartena said:


> It happens all the time. They make a stupid comment, they lose their gig, everyone forgets about it, and 1 year later some other network picks them up and offers them another gig.
> 
> I mean, how many football fans still care about the horrible things Michael Vick did to animals? Most Philly fans probably could care less, as long as he scores points for the team.


Sad....but true.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> He could have said Tom and Jerry playing a round of golf together, and gotten the message across...


At the root of the battle Tom and Jerry are friends - Sylvester and Tweety Bird too. Yes, these are violent children's cartoons (no where near the violence of today's adult cartoons) where one character wants to do harm to another but T&J is literally a game of cat and mouse. Tom and Jerry *would* play golf together, until Tom got hungry and hilarity ensued.





Tom and Jerry playing golf would be like the Manning brothers having lunch together, even though they are employed by opposing teams. Hank needed a stronger example of people diametrically opposed to each other. "Tom and Jerry" isn't it.

Hank went for the strongest difference he could think of ... if one wants to offer "less than Hitler" options one should at least pick a pairing that isn't a cartoon joke. There is nothing funny about Hitler.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I am all over the place on this... where to start?

Hank said something dumb... and defended it poorly... and then pitched a semi-fit.

ESPN went for some easy press... thought about it and decided to make it permanent... smacks of perhaps they wanted to end the relationship anyway and this was a convenient way out.

Hank is entitled to his opinion... and entitled to free speech. I don't think I agree with his opinion, but the opinion itself isn't necessarily dumb... HOWEVER, his analogy was horrible... and most of what he said was dumb. He sounded like he sounds when he has pitched back a few if you ask me.

Think about his analogy for a moment... I assume he was meaning to convey that the two parties playing golf were "enemies" on opposite sides and shouldn't be hanging out like that. Ok, but in his extreme analogy, I think you could make a case that Obama comes across a lot better than Boehner.

Think about it... IF Obama = Hitler, and Boehner = Israeli Prime Minister... it is an attempt to have a good vs evil scenario in the analogy... BUT if you accept Obama = Hitler = evil... then Obama with Boehner makes sense BUT Boehner with Obama doesn't... so... in actuality, that analogy could be read to insult Boehner for golfing with the devil... and yet I'm 100% certain that Hank means to be insulting Obama somehow.

Thus, my conclusion that his actual words didn't reflect his actual opinion... and yet, I still say he has the right to say them.

Flip that to ESPN... they have the right to want to terminate the contract. There may be a financial penalty for early exit... who knows.

Curiously... Hank extends his misuse of words to saying that ESPN is trampling on his first amendment rights... How so? He exercised his right. Now they are exercising theirs.

You have the right to free speech... I have the right to free speech... and I have the right to stop being your friend if I don't like what you say.

I see this attitude with a lot of people... people who think they can say anything because of their rights... but that there are no consequences for doing so.

I have the right to curse you out on the street... but lose the right to be surprised when you no longer want to do business with me afterwards.

I still don't have a lot of respect for ESPN here either... because I know they only went for the full disconnect after reading the tea leaves... but just as Hank has the right to make a stupid analogy, ESPN has the right to make a knee-jerk reaction to it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> BTW: The concepts expressed in constitutional rights often get extended into the workplace. With the right lawyer he could probably press a civil rights case against ESPN over this premature termination of contract. (The latest statements where Hank says he ended the relationship would not help such a case.)


O, my heavens; I hope not, regardless of subsequent statements by Jr. Employers in the E! business should be able to fire anyone they want, except for cases of discrimination due to age, gender, race, sexual orientation, place of origin or political or religious beliefs. *(The latter two restricted in that whatever you believe is fine as long as you don't push it out on the airwaves.)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> Hank went for the strongest difference he could think of ... if one wants to offer "less than Hitler" options one should at least pick a pairing that isn't a cartoon joke. There is nothing funny about Hitler.


Tell that to Woody Allen! :lol:


----------



## balboadave (Mar 3, 2010)

James Long said:


> Hank did not intend to call either side of the golf pairing Hitler. He just picked two well known historical figures that were far apart in political viewpoints ... one wants to protect a Jewish state, the other wanted to exterminate all of the jews.
> 
> But in this world mentioning the name of Hitler in the same breath as anyone is considered banned political speech ... almost as bad as anyone not of color saying that 'n' word. I'm sure this isn't the first time Hank has said something political and completely disconnected from his ABC/ESPN work in the past 22 years.
> 
> BTW: The concepts expressed in constitutional rights often get extended into the workplace. With the right lawyer he could probably press a civil rights case against ESPN over this premature termination of contract. (The latest statements where Hank says he ended the relationship would not help such a case.)


I 'm not so sure it was the Hitler part that got him fired. I say it was when he said "They're the enemy: Obama! And Biden!" That is what Al Qaeda says, not Americans.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I am all over the place on this... where to start?
> 
> Hank said something dumb... and defended it poorly... and then pitched a semi-fit.
> 
> ...


This is one of the rare occasions where we agree Stewart.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

It appears Hank wants to have the last word. CNN reported this morning he's fired back with a new song aimed at ESPN and the current administration.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

maartena said:


> It happens all the time. They make a stupid comment, they lose their gig, everyone forgets about it, and 1 year later some other network picks them up and offers them another gig.
> 
> I mean, how many football fans still care about the horrible things Michael Vick did to animals? Most Philly fans probably could care less, as long as he scores points for the team.


I'm not a football fan but I do care about what Vick did to animals. In his case Vick was tried and punished for his actions. Under our system of justice he did his time and now deserves a second chance. I have no problem with that unless he does further stupid things.

Same goes for Williams, he is an entertainer (not a good one in my opinion) and should have kept it at that. When he represents ESPN as an entertainer he should keep things at that. When he starts making political or religious statements he has stepped out of the strictly entertainment field. If his remarks are offensive and can in any way reflect on his employer, they have the right to can him. To keep him or not require an apology implies that he is their spokesman and they agree with his statements. Punish him, get over it and then reevaluate down the road.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> It appears Hank wants to have the last word. CNN reported this morning he's fired back with a new song aimed at ESPN and the current administration.


Song / Words... same thing in this case.

And I watched ESPN MNF football last night, and didn't miss a beat with the song not being there....

ESPN is probably kicking themselves for not scratching the song a decade ago, as it didn't change anything about who was going to watch or not watch the broadcast last night.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Song / Words... same thing in this case.
> 
> And I watched ESPN MNF football last night, and didn't miss a beat with the song not being there....
> 
> ESPN is probably kicking themselves for not scratching the song a decade ago, as it didn't change anything about who was going to watch or not watch the broadcast last night.


Have the announcers, color people and the rest been gagged from saying the phrase? I watched last night, but too many FFs to catch what may or may not have been said.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Song / Words... same thing in this case.
> 
> And I watched ESPN MNF football last night, and didn't miss a beat with the song not being there....
> 
> ESPN is probably kicking themselves for not scratching the song a decade ago, as it didn't change anything about who was going to watch or not watch the broadcast last night.


Actually, Earl, MNF would have been better WITH the song, because if one is a Bears fan, the game sucked. :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Actually, Earl, MNF would have been better WITH the song, because if one is a Bears fan, the game sucked. :lol:


The song would have played way before the Bears had three major gaps in their defense...

But with 10 false starts, they would have had plenty of time to play a new jingle.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Have the announcers, color people and the rest been gagged from saying the phrase? I watched last night, but too many FFs to catch what may or may not have been said.


Didn't hear it mentioned once, but I try my hardnest to tune out the MNF announcer crew.... They change "love" so fast, it would make a "professional" blush.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I suspect they probably are gagged by ESPN to not say "are you ready for some football" because IF they did, they would probably (and rightfully) owe some royalties to Hank Williams, Jr.

Glad they aren't trying to have it both ways... when you part ways like that, you can't use the slogan or history of it to still sell your product.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> It appears Hank wants to have the last word. CNN reported this morning he's fired back with a new song aimed at ESPN and the current administration.







Interesting lyrics.


----------



## chick3112215 (Jul 20, 2010)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

does not apply to private institutions, period. The same people that were all over the Dixie Chicks over their "Dumya" comment are the same ones defending Hank. Kinda funny when you think about it. First Ammendment rights don't even protect you on an internet forum.... Ask my ole' man......


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I suspect they probably are gagged by ESPN to not say "are you ready for some football" because IF they did, they would probably (and rightfully) owe some royalties to Hank Williams, Jr.


There might be some unsuccessful lawsuits from that "entertainer", but the real reason for not saying it is to distance themselves from Jr. and the controversy.

Actually, Jr. may have clear grounds for a suit, or may be totally barred therefrom; I bet there's a contract that spells out a lot of that.

But the network has big reason to not say that phrase for a while that has nothing to do with liability.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> There might be some unsuccessful lawsuits from that "entertainer", but the real reason for not saying it is to distance themselves from Jr. and the controversy.
> 
> Actually, Jr. may have clear grounds for a suit, or may be totally barred therefrom; I bet there's a contract that spells out a lot of that.
> 
> But the network has big reason to not say that phrase for a while that has nothing to do with liability.


I agree... they are best served to create distance and keep it... I was just thinking there probably is a liability aspect they want to be sure is covered too.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> There might be some unsuccessful lawsuits from that "entertainer", but the real reason for not saying it is to distance themselves from Jr. and the controversy.
> 
> Actually, Jr. may have clear grounds for a suit, or may be totally barred therefrom; I bet there's a contract that spells out a lot of that.


What if they paid him? He may have been paid in full at the beginning of the year for all 17 versions of the song. Whether or not they choose to air them at that point is none of his business.


----------

