|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2014 12:40:30 GMT -5
A comparable example would be people paying to see a concert by a particular band, and overwelmingly demanding a certain song be played, but the band would rather sing another song, which they've played so often that it's now become stale, and they want to play it over and over and over again. So the band grudgingly agree to the play the song the audience want to hear, but they intentionally sing it out of tune using all the wrong instruments, then when the audience dissents they say "what's the problem? you wanted the song....we played it"
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 1, 2014 13:51:52 GMT -5
Oh my post wasn't about Bryan necessarily, more so the show as a whole. There's a lot of talent on the roster that has gotten pushed or de-pushed despite the crowds response to that performer. Right, well it's still dependant on those Superstars to be reliable employees, too. That's something that's lost on 99% of wrestling fans. Shockingly enough, the measuring stick for success in WWE isn't JUST based on whether fans cheer loudly or not. As Jim Ross has mentioned countless times, talents are measured by their willingness to continue to get better every day, they're willing to stay on track and be professional and hopefully stay injury free. If a Superstar can't check off all those boxes, then why would WWE trust them with a key role on WWE TV, let alone the main event? Why would I care about that as a fan though? If a performer entertains me and makes me want to tune in to the show, I want to keep seeing that performer regardless of if they appear to keep improving, are unprofessional or if they call Cena a c***. Really anybody that unprofessional that they warrant a de-push usually finds a way to lose favour with the audience and I'd argue most of the solidified main event talent stopped seeming to improve when they got their hands on a world title. Jimmy Uso could take a shit right on Vince's desk and I'm still gonna cheer for and want to see more of him.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Jan 1, 2014 14:30:46 GMT -5
Right, well it's still dependant on those Superstars to be reliable employees, too. That's something that's lost on 99% of wrestling fans. Shockingly enough, the measuring stick for success in WWE isn't JUST based on whether fans cheer loudly or not. As Jim Ross has mentioned countless times, talents are measured by their willingness to continue to get better every day, they're willing to stay on track and be professional and hopefully stay injury free. If a Superstar can't check off all those boxes, then why would WWE trust them with a key role on WWE TV, let alone the main event? Why would I care about that as a fan though? If a performer entertains me and makes me want to tune in to the show, I want to keep seeing that performer regardless of if they appear to keep improving, are unprofessional or if they call Cena a c***. Really anybody that unprofessional that they warrant a de-push usually finds a way to lose favour with the audience and I'd argue most of the solidified main event talent stopped seeming to improve when they got their hands on a world title. Jimmy Uso could take a shit right on Vince's desk and I'm still gonna cheer for and want to see more of him. That would be like if fans got angry at CBS for firing Charlie Sheen after he had his meltdown and hurled anti-Semitic remarks at the creators of his show. Any other company and you would lose your job or at least get demoted. So yeah, WWE ain't any different, bro.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 14:31:56 GMT -5
Also, the free entertainment isn't a 100% true, as everyone that watches is at least paying for cable/satellite/internet to view it. Semantics maybe, but you're not watching a cable show sans contributing $ somewhere. Not to mention ad revenue etc. Free entertainment makes it sound like they're putting on shows out of altruism. Clearly that's not the case, they're a very successful business that sometimes provides top notch entertainment to the consumer. Not to mention the one resource we give to the WWE that we'll never get back: TIME. They aren't getting my eyeballs for multiple hours a week just to put on a maddening show I should accept because...eh. I don't watch a show for that long, then not get pissed because the only reaction I can constantly muster is "Eh, it could be worse..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 14:37:27 GMT -5
Why would I care about that as a fan though? If a performer entertains me and makes me want to tune in to the show, I want to keep seeing that performer regardless of if they appear to keep improving, are unprofessional or if they call Cena a c***. Really anybody that unprofessional that they warrant a de-push usually finds a way to lose favour with the audience and I'd argue most of the solidified main event talent stopped seeming to improve when they got their hands on a world title. Jimmy Uso could take a shit right on Vince's desk and I'm still gonna cheer for and want to see more of him. That would be like if fans got angry at CBS for firing Charlie Sheen after he had his meltdown and hurled anti-Semitic remarks at the creators of his show. Any other company and you would lose your job or at least get demoted. So yeah, WWE ain't any different, bro. It's a case of separating the character & the fiction from the real life. I mean, if Daniel started using antisemitic statements then we may have more of an understanding as to why he could justifiably & correctly be dropped down for the sake of PR to teach others to stop holding those beliefs...but he hasn't done that, so that's why people have justifiable confusion over the companies seemingly arse backwards approach to the single most popular full time wrestler on the roster. But then we get into the point of the majority of users of this forum not being shareholders or interested in stock, so why would someone's real life attitude piss any of us off? I mean, Randy Orton putting lotion into a person's bag doesn't make him less of one of the single most talented in ring wrestlers in the company over the last 10 years does it? People's sex lives (Batista/JoMo etc) don't affect how damned cool or interesting they can be in storylines? It's one of the moments where I feel a lot of users (including myself when I get far too cynical) rely on incomplete, strawman, inappropriate comparisons in order to make a point about companies being justified in not placing their most popular guys (again, not in sales/business etc terms but in fan reaction/excitement in audiences) on top for a prolonged period of time, why should we give a toss about the personal backstage drama as long as they're entertaining on screen to us as fans, because that's all we are. We aren't the boardroom.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 1, 2014 14:38:16 GMT -5
Why would I care about that as a fan though? If a performer entertains me and makes me want to tune in to the show, I want to keep seeing that performer regardless of if they appear to keep improving, are unprofessional or if they call Cena a c***. Really anybody that unprofessional that they warrant a de-push usually finds a way to lose favour with the audience and I'd argue most of the solidified main event talent stopped seeming to improve when they got their hands on a world title. Jimmy Uso could take a shit right on Vince's desk and I'm still gonna cheer for and want to see more of him. That would be like if fans got angry at CBS for firing Charlie Sheen after he had his meltdown and hurled anti-Semitic remarks at the creators of his show. Any other company and you would lose your job or at least get demoted. So yeah, WWE ain't any different, bro. That was included in part of my post though, anyone that unprofessional most likely wouldn't be supported and cheered for anymore anyway.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jan 1, 2014 14:55:28 GMT -5
not louder, more loudmouthed. Opinionated, obnoxious No one ever held up a If _____ wins we riot sign during the Attitude Era Yeah, but is this a case of fans in the Attitude Era actually enjoying the product? And overwhelmingly so? For the very reason that they wanted to cheer Austin, the Rock, Foley, and DX? And the WWF responded by pushing the guys fans were cheering? And giving them meaningful, logical, consistent, and planned-out angles that involved the good guy beating the bad guy, often by winning the title from him and proving the powers that be wrong? Whereas later fans have been vocal about how much they DON'T like the product, and here we can quibble about how much of the audience this in fact is, and have been consistent in their vocalizations, yet the product on the whole rarely ever changes? Yeah, we're almost eight years away from "If Cena wins, we riot," but the overall structural problems of WWE's product haven't gone away since then. Hell, I think if anything they've been exacerbated since 2006. And the way you conceive fans today as being more opinionated and obnoxious, is that because you don't like the fact that they have opinions that don't correspond with your own? Because I can't help but think that fans who chant "asshole!" or "Vince is gay!" or "we want tables" when Bubba Ray Dudley wants to hurt a woman were more loudmouthed, opinionated, and obnoxious, which is exactly the kind of reaction the WWF was encouraging at the time, than they are now. Sure, fans now may chant for the announcers, or for Randy Savage, or for taber corn, but that's in spite of the show. If you put on a great show, then you aren't giving time for fans to go 'off book', as it were. This 'blame the fans' mentality for the product's failings, as I've said before, is really strange, and likely not at all normative as to how most people, live audiences and television audiences, view and perceive the product. The tv show analogy doesn't really work though, as wrestling is unique in that your storylines can, and should, change to cater to what the majority of your audiences want. Furthermore, in regular shows, there are stories and characters that are 'locked in' because of the story the writer is telling. The viewer has a much more passive relationship to the material. Apples-oranges comparison. Eh, to be fair, in the age of social networks, showrunners can look at what's out there in the ether and then make changes accrodingly, even when shows are not filmed in front of a live studio audience. Dan Harmon talks a lot about responding to fan concerns voiced on Twitter while making Community. Mind you, the earlier seasons of the show had 22 episodes, so if you receive a criticism by episode 4, you can course-correct by episode 17. Much of which can be applied to WWE. Fans are vocal in the arena, first and foremost, but also respond to the product on Twitter, Facebook, and to some degree, yest, internet forums. The fact that they have all this immediate data, good and bad, affirmative or negative, shouldn't be hand-waved away at all because WWE does a wrestling show. As I've said before, WWE is a television show that just so happens to feature wrestling, and not a wrestling show that just so happens to be on television. In this sense, comparisons to other television shows are entirely appropriate. And if we compare Vince McMahon to Vince Gilligan, or Alan Ball, or Dan Harmon, or Bryan Fuller, or Damon Lindelof and Carleton Cuse, then we might come to think that he's not a very good showrunner at all (or that he can at least make improvements).
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 15:11:43 GMT -5
not louder, more loudmouthed. Opinionated, obnoxious No one ever held up a If _____ wins we riot sign during the Attitude Era Yeah, but is this a case of fans in the Attitude Era actually enjoying the product? And overwhelmingly so? For the very reason that they wanted to cheer Austin, the Rock, Foley, and DX? And the WWF responded by pushing the guys fans were cheering? And giving them meaningful, logical, consistent, and planned-out angles that involved the good guy beating the bad guy, often by winning the title from him and proving the powers that be wrong? Whereas later fans have been vocal about how much they DON'T like the product, and here we can quibble about how much of the audience this in fact is, and have been consistent in their vocalizations, yet the product on the whole rarely ever changes? Yeah, we're almost eight years away from "If Cena wins, we riot," but the overall structural problems of WWE's product haven't gone away since then. Hell, I think if anything they've been exacerbated since 2006. And the way you conceive fans today as being more opinionated and obnoxious, is that because you don't like the fact that they have opinions that don't correspond with your own? Because I can't help but think that fans who chant "asshole!" or "Vince is gay!" or "we want tables" when Bubba Ray Dudley wants to hurt a woman were more loudmouthed, opinionated, and obnoxious, which is exactly the kind of reaction the WWF was encouraging at the time, than they are now. Sure, fans now may chant for the announcers, or for Randy Savage, or for taber corn, but that's in spite of the show. If you put on a great show, then you aren't giving time for fans to go 'off book', as it were. This 'blame the fans' mentality for the product's failings, as I've said before, is really strange, and likely not at all normative as to how most people, live audiences and television audiences, view and perceive the product. I disliked much of the Attitude Era. I liked Rocky Maivia and the Rock was only palatable when diluted with heavy amounts of Mick Foley. From the time of the Dangerous Alliance I never saw the appeal of Steve Austin, and didn't see much in the way of talent either. DX was only occasionally funny. Crash TV was not at all my style so I didn't like the opinion of the fans then either. I also didn't like women getting tabled. I question how much people can actually dislike the show because during that era we saw what happens when people get sick of something with WCW. They stop coming. WWE isn't exactly failing right now, even if it's not in a boom period, so there isn't exactly much to blame fans for. I just feel like fans these days are more demanding, or as I've put it in the past, the fans want what they want. In the past, it's like fans went to shows "I'm going to the WWF's show to see my favorite wrestler. I hope he wins." Now they're like "I'm going to the WWE's show to see my favorite wrestler. He BETTER win the title."
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2014 15:28:08 GMT -5
Not really. Brodus fans (I'm sure he has a few) would have no expectations of him winning the title. But when the overwelming fan favourite is so obviously being shunted around while they continue to push a stale feud for the title, their frustrations are justified. Things are different now due to WWE's shift in booking style. In days past, they would move with fan reactions. Now, they try to resist them in favour of their preferred ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 1, 2014 16:10:19 GMT -5
Just the other day, Brie posted pictures of her and Bryan on Facebook.
If that's not cause for worry, I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2014 16:15:19 GMT -5
So... were "smart" fans able to wrap their heads around Mick Foley back in the Attitude Era, or did he inspire a similar constant barrage of blithering whining that management was trying to bury him and destroy his momentum because they resented him getting over? What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that the reason there isn't going to be a big "star-making" angle for Bryan coming up isn't that he's getting held down and denied it, it's because he's already a star. This is his schtick, being the plucky underdog who fights the good fight and gets beaten up and then people hate the heels who took him down. His occasional moments of genuine victory will always be quickly followed by more grief and punishment from villains. That isn't a burial, that's his character, and it's a valuable character to have in a pro wrestling promotion. Foley was a plucky underdog because he was basically an overweight, oddball, freak desperate for acceptance and approval and put his body on the line in an extreme way to do it. Bryan is capable of being more than the sad sack punching bag who wins a few battles but eventually loses the war. He's been shoehorned into the weirdo Mick Foley role even though he's more suited for the fighting champion Bret Hart role. Take away the beard and he's a typical clean cut babyface, not some Mankind-esque oddity Yeah. Without the beard, Daniel Bryan is just a shorter version of John Cena who dabbles in MMA rather than powerlifting/weightlifting. And in hindsight, Foley's run at the top was a glorified Thank You run. Daniel Bryan by comparison is in the prime of his career.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,355
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2014 16:17:41 GMT -5
I'd say part of the problem is that the WWE sometimes does cut off its own nose to spite its face. It does not matter how much fans embrace a talent if that does not entirely match their personal impression of the guy's potential and that makes warming up to a potential underdog difficult. Let's consider some of the recent past history:
- Were you one of the many that voted for Kaval to win the second season of NXT? If so, you spit in the eye of the WWE plan and you were made to pay for it. Their impression was that Kaval's potential topped out as an enhancement talent and possible comedy character. I can understand why they felt like that as he demonstrated that he had all of the tools to be rather successful in that role, but his popularity with the fans should have dictated that they at least test the waters to see if he could be a viable upper midcarder. Instead, they booked him into oblivion and then cut him and forced him to say that he asked for his release in exchange for waiving his non-compete clause. Seriously, Kaval honestly had more televised wins as an enhancement talent in the Attitude Era than he did in his NXT/Smackdown run. They did not even use him as they thought he could be used, seemingly because his NXT win took the wind out of the sails of their planned push for Alex Riley.
- While most might be reluctant to admit it now because of how he fell from grace, but if everyone was being honest a large percentage of you here would have to admit that you were a fan at some level or another of Matt Hardy. Between his tag team run, his V2 days, his feud with Edge, his run as the main reason to watch matches on Smackdown, and his run on ECW, Matt Hardy made the WWE a lot of money. Yes, there are others that made them a lot more money but he had a real knack for connecting with fans despite not being a particularly effective speaker(outside of his V2 persona). His overall popularity and ability to put together good matches with most opponents probably should have dictated that they try using him in the manner that they used Benoit, an upper-midcarder who was useful as a transitional champion during the brand split and occasional challenger for a top title at other times and the last stop for developing future main eventers. Granted, he was never going to be the biggest star in the WWE but I feel he was not given opportunities when the fans wanted it because he was always viewed by management as the Jannetty to Jeff's HBK, even when Jeff was stinking up his first run in TNA. Granted, the fact that no one was as big a Matt Hardy mark as Matt Hardy might have hurt him with management but the fans can't see that and only can see the WWE not even attempt do anything of note with, at the time, a rather popular talent on their roster. They did use him to develop MVP and Drew McIntire, but did nothing with those guys after then.
- It took the WWE years to start booking Booker T as a top talent despite being one of the only WCW guys to arrive in the WWE with their own momentum.
- Speaking of WCW talents, DDP should have had one hell of a feud with UT. He still should have lost, but he got creamed. He even got pinned by Taker's non-wrestling wife-at-the-time. The fans exploded when he showed up. The WWE rewarded that investment of interest by taking a giant dump on the angle.
- MVP. Just, MVP. While this guy wasn't young when he first showed up he was next level capable, at least by the time he was done with his first big angle. They did nothing of note with him.
Now, it is worth noting two things. First, if a fan favorite isn't being pushed someone always was. The rationale for who gets pushed isn't something that the fans always are privy to. Where would the WWE have been in the early 90's if Jake Roberts was given Bret Hart's top of the card push? There are obviously times guys outperform their capabilities and the fans want more for them, but management would be wise not to overreach with them.
Secondly, I think the WWE honestly has developed more flexibility than they had in the past. Granted, they are still sometimes slow to kill pushes that no one cares about (I stopped watching a year ago except for catching the occasional highlight on WWE.com. Has anyone started to care about ADR yet?), but they strike me as being better at responding to what the fans want.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 1, 2014 16:24:40 GMT -5
In all seriousness, Bryan has been built up at this point to where he probably could become the company's flagship face if Cena all of a sudden had to retire or disaster struck. But even if he did, it's unlikely that we'll ever see someone showcased and relied upon the way Cena was ever again.
The style in which WWE presents "The Man" and the way fans look at top guys will probably evolve, as they always have- and what John is/was willing to tackle and sacrifice is/was rather remarkable. But godspeed to whoever is ready for all of that, and we don't fully know how big Bryan wants to be or what goes on in his head (aside from bears).
My best guess as to the rest of his WWE run (barring injuries) is that he becomes the next Kurt Angle in terms of having great matches with guys and how he bounces around main events and title feuds. Only with less stalking and with far fewer Twitter "hacks".
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 16:32:47 GMT -5
Not really. Brodus fans (I'm sure he has a few) would have no expectations of him winning the title. But when the overwelming fan favourite is so obviously being shunted around while they continue to push a stale feud for the title, their frustrations are justified. Things are different now due to WWE's shift in booking style. In days past, they would move with fan reactions. Now, they try to resist them in favour of their preferred ideas. well, we don't know how things will end, but I can point out some cases where you're wrong about going with fan reactions at least for a time. Austin losing the WWF title to Kane and the Undertaker until he got it back at the next Mania. He was screw jobbed more than once during that period and had to see other faces win his title. Angle during the Invasion angle. He got very over. He had a reign for a few days with the title and then a run with the US title.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2014 16:38:51 GMT -5
I'd say part of the problem is that the WWE sometimes does cut off its own nose to spite its face. It does not matter how much fans embrace a talent if that does not entirely match their personal impression of the guy's potential and that makes warming up to a potential underdog difficult. Let's consider some of the recent past history: - Were you one of the many that voted for Kaval to win the second season of NXT? If so, you spit in the eye of the WWE plan and you were made to pay for it. Their impression was that Kaval's potential topped out as an enhancement talent and possible comedy character. I can understand why they felt like that as he demonstrated that he had all of the tools to be rather successful in that role, but his popularity with the fans should have dictated that they at least test the waters to see if he could be a viable upper midcarder. Instead, they booked him into oblivion and then cut him and forced him to say that he asked for his release in exchange for waiving his non-compete clause. Seriously, Kaval honestly had more televised wins as an enhancement talent in the Attitude Era than he did in his NXT/Smackdown run. They did not even use him as they thought he could be used, seemingly because his NXT win took the wind out of the sails of their planned push for Alex Riley. I did not vote for Kaval for NXT 2. My vote went towards the man then known as Husky Harris. I don't think WWE had any plans for ANY of the NXT2 stars, not even Alex Riley. NXT Season 2 seemed like it was just designed as a platform for the midcarder pros (mainly Miz and LayCool, and to a lesser extent Cody Rhodes) to be "doing something" rather than an actual attempt to get the rookies over. Speaking of Alex Riley, I don't think there was a "planned push" for him. Riley IS another one of those "wasn't supposed to get over" guys who unfortunately also has the " WWE Homegrown Former Football Player Factory Made Clone" stigma hanging over his head. Riley was booked like a total goober during his time with The Miz, and kept in a glorified non-wrestling role. Doesn't exactly scream future star. They never let Riley step into the ring except for squash matches and to eat finishers, and thus was kept from gaining experience and improving his craft, thus leading to his many infamous fails on WWE TV. It was almost as if he were set up to fail. Riley is a guy who somehow magically connected with both casuals and IWC alike, despite the fact that he doesn't have the prolific indy background or "teh workratez". Dude was the drizzling shits, yet somehow persevered through pure charisma and willingness to learn and improve. Fast forward a few months and Riley has gone from being a sloppy worker who botched every 3rd move to a serviceable hand in the ring, all while maintaining that overness with the fans, but gained nothing from it. If Riley were one of those company golden boys, he would've been easily afforded the same protection and perpetual strong booking that the likes of Sheamus or Del Rio had gotten, but instead he's stuck on commentary and makes no televised appearances outside of "entire roster" appearances.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2014 16:43:52 GMT -5
The point is that when the opportunity came to make all four of those guys into stars after their characters caught on, WWE did it.
Today, they are more resistant.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2014 16:46:46 GMT -5
The point is that when the opportunity came to make all four of those guys into stars after their characters caught on, WWE did it. Today, they are more resistant. But those four could have been guys who were proven ratings draws or who surveyed well etc. We make a LOT of assumptions of Bryan's popularity based on crowd reaction alone
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2014 16:52:09 GMT -5
The point is that when the opportunity came to make all four of those guys into stars after their characters caught on, WWE did it. Today, they are more resistant. But those four could have been guys who were proven ratings draws or who surveyed well etc. We make a LOT of assumptions of Bryan's popularity based on crowd reaction alone And when does Bryan get that opportunity to prove himself so that he can also become a "proven ratings draw"?
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jan 1, 2014 16:59:23 GMT -5
The point is that when the opportunity came to make all four of those guys into stars after their characters caught on, WWE did it. Today, they are more resistant. But those four could have been guys who were proven ratings draws or who surveyed well etc. We make a LOT of assumptions of Bryan's popularity based on crowd reaction alone Where else are we supposed to get it from? It starts with crowd reaction, and eventually that seeps over into ratings over time. You can't count on a guy instantly becoming a massive ratings draw because of their crowd reaction, it takes time. Unfortunately, they've cut off multiple guys at the knees with strong crowd reactions lately because of stupid bullshit, so it is what it is.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2014 17:03:42 GMT -5
But those four could have been guys who were proven ratings draws or who surveyed well etc. We make a LOT of assumptions of Bryan's popularity based on crowd reaction alone Where else are we supposed to get it from? It starts with crowd reaction, and eventually that seeps over into ratings over time. You can't count on a guy instantly becoming a massive ratings draw because of their crowd reaction, it takes time. Unfortunately, they've cut off multiple guys at the knees with strong crowd reactions lately because of stupid bullshit, so it is what it is. But there's more than just crowd reactions. If a guy doesn't do well in ratings or buys or consumer surveys or focus groups - they won't do much with him. There are many elements to decide whether or not you push someone and crowd reaction is just one. Arguably the least significant. Look at Cena. At least half of every arena in the world craps on him but they clearly look at the numbers and know that he pulls his weight in certain areas or at least has a track record of doing so. In the decision to determine who is over and who to run with, crowd reaction is just one consideration. If they've discovered Bryan is a bit of a ratings turn off or they feel ppv buys aren't there for him or the focus groups respond meekly to him - what are they going to do? Push him based on crowd reaction alone? Of course there not. In an area where probably the biggest money spinner in the company gets some of the worst reactions it's incredible how people still think the decision on who to push or run with should be made on those alone.
|
|