# Journalistic distortions using language



## cuchuflete

Pick a "trouble spot" most anywhere in the world.  Here's an unfortunately not rare event:  A person, wearing explosives on his or her body, detonates these in a public place.  Men, women, and children of all ages are killed, wounded, maimed.  The victims are not members of any armed force such as the police or military.


Is the person who did the damage

an insurgent?
 a member of the resistence?
a suicide bomber?
a dissident?
a freedom fighter?
a revolutionary?
a militant?
a murderer?
a terrorist?
a killer?


News reports often use most of these terms, but seem to prefer to avoid
"a murderer", which deflects attention from the act of murder to something which slants the report to pay more attention to the relationship of the person commiting the act to the government in power.   While the dead will still have been murdered, and cannot argue the point with the press, I am troubled that the word selections make the "news" report more of an expression of editorial opinion.

I don't recall seeing the word "killer" used to describe those who kill!

What do you think?


----------



## whatonearth

"killer" is an emotive and indiscriminate term, as is "murderer". Clearly, it is terrible tragedy that innocent people have been killed, but if you were to just call the suicide bomber a "killer" or "murderer" (although, strictly speaking, they are) you would be missing the point. These people believe they are dying for some greater good and while this may be hard for "outsiders" to understand, on some level we must "respect" that, rather than just lump them in with indiscriminate murderer who kill for no apparent reason (although we would like to). This does not condone what they have done, or make it "acceptable", but rather puts it in context. If they were to just call these people "murderers" I would strongly question the credibility of the news reporter and paper involved.


----------



## Fernando

I fully agree with Cuchuflete. It is strange to find a 'neutral' newspaper news. 

In Spanish, many newpaper use "terrorist-speaking" terms to define things:

Examples. I have tried to translate the nuances but I am :

Group of terrorists: Comando (commando)/ grupo de asesinos (killers group)
Attack: Acción (military action)/ Atentado (attack)
Money collected by terrorists from companies: Impuesto revolucionario (Revolutionary tax) / Chantaje terrorista (terrorist blackmail) 

Personally, I don't share the politically correct view of whatonearth. A murderer is a murderer. If you call him 'killer' is yet a 'softer' way to name what he does. In Arab newspapers US soldiers are called 'murderers' when, as a rule, they only aim at people who aimed before at them.


----------



## Aupick

The problem is, I think, that there is no neutral term for the action that you describe: each one of the terms in your list says something about the motives and the nature of the killing, even if these are sometimes too subtle to appear in the dictionary. For me, a murderer is someone who kills for personal reasons, whether out of revenge, sadism, for money or anything else. I think of a murderer as killing one or two people at a time (although perhaps repeatedly), rather than a whole busload of passengers. At first glance 'killer' seems the most neutral word, but I think in fact it's rather similar to 'murderer', except with more emphasis on psychotic detachment from reality.

In the end, I don't think we can get around the problem: I think we have to choose a word that is partial in one way or another, and so our choice of vocabulary is unavoidably a sign of our opinion of such acts. But I think this is OK as long as we _recognise_ what's happening. It's much too easy to read the word 'terrorist' in a newspaper and feel an automatic 100% hatred for the person so described. We need to read carefully, be sensitive to word choices, and try and understand the motivations of the speaker, be they a journalist or a politician. Which is why I think your question, Cuchuflete, is an excellent one.

You've reminded me of an example that struck me six or seven years ago when an abortion doctor was 'killed' at a family planning clinic in the US. All the American news media had headlines such as 'Doctor killed by anti-abortionist'. When I looked at British headlines, they tended to say 'Doctor killed by terrorist'. 'Terrorist' in particular is a loaded word, and the American media's reluctance to use it struck me (although only after seeing the British media used it). To me it said a lot about relative sympathy/antipathy to abortion in the two countries, and taught me to be on my guard about language in general. I think this is more important than ever today.


----------



## whatonearth

Fernando said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't share the politically correct view of whatonearth. A murderer is a murderer. If you call him 'killer' is yet a 'softer' way to name what he does. In Arab newspapers US soldiers are called 'murderers' when, as a rule, they only aim at people who aimed before at them.


 
I can understand what you are saying but I don't think it is helpful to look at things in such a "black and white" manner. I am not being "politically correct" you can't just lump everybody who kills another person into the same category, taking no account of the reasons for their actions. Of course, there is NO justification for killing a person ever, but we have to try to understand the cause and effects of such acts. If the criminal justice system just considered everyone who had killed a person exactly the same, and treated them all as harshly as each other, this would be a very unjust world. 

These Arab newspapers you describe are hopelessly biased and serve only to stir up anti-American sentiment, this is not helpful or right. It would be a terrible pity for our newspapers to do the same. By calling these people "terorist bombers" etc the newspapers are being objective and detached (as good journalism should be) rather than sensationalist and emotive.


----------



## Jana337

whatonearth said:
			
		

> "killer" is an emotive and indiscriminate term, as is "murderer". Clearly, it is terrible tragedy that innocent people have been killed, but if you were to just call the suicide bomber a "killer" or "murderer" (although, strictly speaking, they are) you would be missing the point. These people believe they are dying for some greater good and while this may be hard for "outsiders" to understand, on some level we must "respect" that, rather than just lump them in with indiscriminate murderer who kill for no apparent reason (although we would like to). This does not condone what they have done, or make it "acceptable", but rather puts it in context. If they were to just call these people "murderers" I would strongly question the credibility of the news reporter and paper involved.



I am sorry, but this is relativism at its worst. "Dying for some greater good" may be crazy and incomprehensible for most of us, but after all, it is a personal choice of the person who dies. 
We should, however, be firm in condemning those who make other, innocent people die for some lofty purposes that I consider an aggravating circumstance rather than a mitigating one. I prefer to call them murderers and terrorists, quite indiscriminately*). The road to hell is paved by good intentions. Zealots are hardly ever stingy with purportedly good intentions.

Jana

*)With the sole exception of killing a tyrant or murderer. Even if there is a tyrant at the helm in a country (and note that detonations often happen in democracies) , barging in a café and blowing up twenty innocent people does nothing to remove the beast and cannot therefore be justified by any means. (Beast is an example of an emotional word that should not appear in unbiased media reports. Terrorists and murders are appropriate terms if we want to call a spade a spade. Freedom fighters, insurgents and such like constitute a mere whitewashing of the facts.)


----------



## whatonearth

Jana, I am simply expressing what I expect from the MEDIA. My own person views of these people, and what I choose to term, them are quite different. The media should present facts clearly and objectively and allow people to make up their own minds (e.g. the BBC), not try to make up peoples minds for them (like some of the "tabloid" press in this country) - this is highly dangerous - and amounts to propoganda. 

I don't know what the press is like elsewhere but it is IMPERITIVE (in my view) the press try to remain as impartial as possible in situations like this, as hard as it may be. People are not stupid, they can see these people are murderers or killers or whatever you want to term them, they don't need to be TOLD as such. As deplorable as it may be it is possible some people may agree with what they are doing.

Either way, this is a discussion of how THE PRESS deals with these people, not a discussion of MY personal views (which I don't think are relevant).


----------



## Helicopta

Suicide bomber, which I would say is the most common description of such people in the British media, to me conveys adequately both the motives and murderous intentions of the perpetrator. After all, a bomber is clearly someone who intends to murder, maim and destroy by their actions and the word suicide serves to clarify the fanatical motives behind those actions. I don’t see any journalistic wishy-washiness in this description. In my opinion, to simply describe them as a murderer, killer, terrorist or whatever wouldn’t convey nearly as much meaning.


----------



## Jana337

whatonearth said:
			
		

> Jana, I am simply expressing what I expect from the MEDIA. My own person views of these people, and what I choose to term, them are quite different. The media should present facts clearly and objectively and allow people to make up their own minds (e.g. the BBC), not try to make up peoples minds for them (like some of the "tabloid" press in this country) - this is highly dangerous - and amounts to propoganda.
> 
> I don't know what the press is like elsewhere but it is IMPERITIVE (in my view) the press try to remain as impartial as possible in situations like this, as hard as it may be. People are not stupid, they can see these people are murderers or killers or whatever you want to term them, they don't need to be TOLD as such. As deplorable as it may be it is possible some people may agree with what they are doing.
> 
> Either way, this is a discussion of how THE PRESS deals with these people, not a discussion of MY personal views (which I don't think are relevant).



But what is wrong with media calling suicide bombers _murderers_? Are you equally appalled when you read about _murderers _who killed a defenceless woman for money? As infamiliar as I am with newspaper pages devoted to criminality, I am pretty sure that _to urderer _is a commonplace word in objective media.

To prevent misunderstanding, I am not against analysing the motives behind the atrocities.

Jana


----------



## Jana337

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Suicide bomber, which I would say is the most common description of such people in the British media, to me conveys adequately both the motives and murderous intentions of the perpetrator. After all, a bomber is clearly someone who intends to murder, maim and destroy by their actions and the word suicide serves to clarify the fanatical motives behind those actions. I don’t see any journalistic wishy-washiness in this description. In my opinion, to simply describe them as a murderer, killer, terrorist or whatever wouldn’t convey nearly as much meaning.



Yes, _suicide bomber _is perfectly acceptable to me.

Jana


----------



## whatonearth

I don't think you are really understanding what I am trying to explain. The example you have given is an example of a senseless, motiveless crime. (If they are convicted) the people involved would be murderers. These suicide bombers are not simply termed 'murderers' in the respectable British press because the term does not adequately convey their motive/methods effectively.

Of course it is upsetting to hear about murder, in any form, but it doesn't need to be spelt out to me that these people are murderers, or that it is an atrocity, or that I should be upset. From the press I just want objective, un-sensationalised reporting, rather than a dictat on how I should react/think.


----------



## Fernando

I think you have a point: we must minimize the use of 'loadad' words, but I think the language must define the real thing they are describing: while there could be some doubt on some insurgent movements, a person who sets a bomb in the street is a terrorist/ a murderer / at least, a killer. English language does not offer too much to choose. Their motivations are not, by far, as important as the fact they have performed. We know that a terrorist ever has motivations.

On the other hand, of course I hate the use of concepts as collateral damage (they are civil victims, if they were targeted or not is to be proved), pro-choice (pro-abortion), pro-life (anti-abortionists)...


----------



## anangelaway

whatonearth said:
			
		

> From the press I just want objective, un-sensationalised reporting, rather than a dictat on how I should react/think.


 
In my strong opinion too... 

Tough, I have few questions:
How would you refer Che Guevarra to? A Revolutionary? A terrorist? A killer/murderer?

How would you refer to those that assassinated Allende? 
How would you refer to soldiers killing civilians?


----------



## cuchuflete

I want accuracy from the media.  Cold, hard, objective reporting in the news pages is what I'm looking for and expecting.  All the 'loaded' opinion words belong in the editorials.

Thus, a suicide bomber is a killer of civilians.  If that person is also driven by revolutionary zeal, greed, lust, hatred, insanity, or some more noble motive, the news article  may say so, if there is factual proof of motive available.  That a killer kills, or a murderer murders, are objective statements of an act described as news.  

If other evidence, such as motivation, political affiliation, or ideology, are available, they should also be stated, but not in place of an honest description of the nature of the act committed.  

An insurgent/revolutionary/whatever killer of civilians is a killer of civilians, and their motivation or objectives don't alter that fact.   In a quest for deeper understanding, perhaps we should ask the parent of a child killed by a suicide bomber if their son or daughter had their life taken by a revolutionary, a fanatical lunatic, a well-intentioned defender of a tribe, or by a dedicated political activist, as if that would make a difference in the fact of the taking of a life.

When civilians are not collateral damage, but targets for extermination, the objective media should report that, together with whatever else is known.

Noble causes do not justify linguistic distortions to obfuscate facts.


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> In Arab newspapers US soldiers are called 'murderers' when, as a rule, they only aim at people who aimed before at them.



http://www.peaceuk.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=576


----------



## JLanguage

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Yes, _suicide bomber _is perfectly acceptable to me.
> 
> Jana


 
I prefer the term _homicide bomber _because it emphasizes that they are not merely killing themselves, but are also robbing innocent people of life.

That's where I stand,
-Jonathan.


----------



## Helicopta

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> When civilians are not *collateral damage*, but targets for extermination, the objective media should report that, together with whatever else is known.


Of all the journalistic distortions and use of language in the sanitisation of horror, surely ‘collateral damage’ is the worst? A term that conjures up pictures of an inconvenient bomb crater that’s holding up traffic or bullet holes in someone’s nice new car, used to describe the (often large-scale) destruction of civilian life.



			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> I prefer the term _homicide bomber _because it emphasizes that they are not merely killing themselves, but are also robbing innocent people of life.


I don’t think ‘homicide’ emphasises anything, the word bomber tells me enough on its own. Bombers were responsible for murdering innocent people in Oklahoma, Omagh, Warrington and many other places where the perpetrators weren’t killed in the blasts. If a suicide bomber causes similar carnage, the word ‘suicide’ doesn’t imply that any sympathy should be felt towards their cause. It simply states the fact that they took their own life in the process.


----------



## Everness

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Of all the journalistic distortions and use of language in the sanitisation of horror, surely ‘collateral damage’ is the worst? .



I agree. Unfortunate collateral damage is when we bomb a city and kill and maim innocent civilians, including women and children (see my link a couple of posts above). A heinous act of terrorism is when someone does the same thing to us. It's a matter of perspective...


----------



## Fernando

No, it is not. A when 'we' (not me) bomb a city and kill innocent civilians when they are not targeted, we kill civilians, period. This thing is made in a war declared by a civilized and democratic country when press can oppose it. 

When a guy and his friends decide in its troubled mind that the best to fight Great Satan is to blow a bomb in the center of a city, regardless if the targets are or not civilians, that is a heinous act of terrorism.


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> No, it is not. A when 'we' (not me) bomb a city and kill innocent civilians when they are not targeted, we kill civilians, period. This thing is made in a war declared by a civilized and democratic country when press can oppose it.
> 
> When a guy and his friends decide in its troubled mind that the best to fight Great Satan is to blow a bomb in the center of a city, regardless if the targets are or not civilians, that is a heinous act of terrorism.



Yes it's a matter of perspective. Who determines what country is civilized or uncivilized? Being a Western democracy entitles you to invade a sovereign country and carpet bomb its territory? Who determines what political and military goals and objectives as well as strategies are appropriate or inappropriate, justifiable or unjustifiable? People go to war because they don't share the same perspective on things.


----------



## cuchuflete

Helicopta said:
			
		

> *Of all the journalistic distortions and use of language in the sanitisation of horror, surely ‘collateral damage’ is the worst? *A term that conjures up pictures of an inconvenient bomb crater that’s holding up traffic or bullet holes in someone’s nice new car, used to describe the (often large-scale) destruction of civilian life.



Iain-  I agree completely.  It's inconvenient for the politically correct press to say that the military or police or terrorists accidentally, or through a monumental error, killed people they didn't mean to kill.

c.


----------



## Fernando

Everness said:
			
		

> Yes it's a matter of perspective.


No, it is not. 



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Who determines what country is civilized or uncivilized?


Me. US is a civilized country. Congo is not. 



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Being a Western democracy entitles you to invade a sovereign country and carpet bomb its territory?


No, being a Western democracy entitles you to describe what he does when ININTENTIONALLY (Spanglish?) kill people as 'killing civilians', not terrorism.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Who determines what political and military goals and objectives as well as strategies are appropriate or inappropriate, justifiable or unjustifiable?


 Me, again. To kill 3,000 civilians specifically targeted, for the sake of an Islamic uprising, shared by you and your friends is inappropiate and unjustifiable. To fight Hitler with an army is appropiate and justifiable.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> People go to war because they don't share the same perspective on things.


No, people go to war because of a variety of reasons. The main one is because they think they will win the war, regardless if they are right or not.

I would not describe the Shoah as:

'A number of Jews died during the period 1933-45 in Europe because a number of reasons'. 

I would rather say (objectively enough):

'Several million Jews were murdered in Europe by Nazis in the period 1933-45'.


----------



## chica11

War is always a time when the media uses euphimisms to explain what is going on and obviously for political reasons. I think there are a lot of euphisms being thrown around now in the US media because of our current war with Iraq. I agree that collateral damage is what of the worst terms we use, because it makes me think of physical items being destroyed only and not human beings. I also don't like the term "casualties" either. In terms of suicide bomber, I don't see a problem with the term. The person is bombing something, therefore will be killing people, and will also commit suicide in the process. I still have a negative picture in my mind of someone who is a suicide bomber as I should.


----------



## Helicopta

Anangelaway,

Your tough and pertinent questions seem to have been lost in the midst of this thread.
Here are my answers/opinions which, I must stress, in some cases are based on a relatively flimsy knowledge of the subject matter. 


			
				anangelaway said:
			
		

> Tough, I have few question:
> How would you refer Che Guevarra to? A Revolutionary? A terrorist? A killer/murderer?


A revolutionary, but certainly not the saint that he is so frequently portrayed as having been.





> How would you refer to those that assassinated Allende?


Right wing military thugs who murdered a democratically elected president to replace him with a brutal dictator.





> How would you refer to soldiers killing civilians?


In cases of ethnic cleansing such as went on in the former Yugoslavia, as murderers, plain and simple.
In the case of the men who drop the bombs that result in ‘collateral damage’, it's a lot harder to say. Political pawns maybe?


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> Me. US is a civilized country. Congo is not.



So what's your take on Iraq? Is it a civilized or uncivilized country? Maybe it wasn't but now that the US invaded Iraq, this country is in the process of becoming both civilized and democratic! Right?  And of course, Iraq will be eternally indebted to America for rescuing it from its uncivilized ways (First they'll have to survive the civil war that the US-led invasion triggered. Ah, we haven't yet seen the worst of it.)

I'm also intrigued about your view on the US vs. Congo. It's clear that you don't find anything redeemable in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I'm also sure that you might be able to document the atrocities that took place in that country from 1998 to 2000. However, have you stopped to reflect on the role that your beloved "civilized" world played in this awful outcome? 

Check out this Web site and pay special attention to the role of the US in this country and what the "civilized" world is doing to help this country out. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> No, being a Western democracy entitles you to describe what he does when ININTENTIONALLY (Spanglish?) kill people as 'killing civilians', not terrorism.



Unintentionally kill people? You gotta be kiddin' me! W. must be very proud of you because you found a new use of democracy. It allows you to reframe stuff! 

When a military power like the US invades another country with almost no support from the world community, it surely and intentionally terrorizes and kills innocent civilians. Call it whatever you want...



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Me, again. To kill 3,000 civilians specifically targeted, for the sake of an Islamic uprising, shared by *you and your friends * is inappropiate and unjustifiable. To fight Hitler with an army is appropiate and justifiable.



For the record, I have no friends but I'm working on this with my shrink. I'll let you know when I get my act together, ok? 

You also state that fighting Hitler militarily was appropriate and justifiable. If that were the case, doesn't the Iraqi resistance have the right to fight the interim government in Iraq and the foreign invaders? I hope you find the definitions on this link useful

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Iraqi_resistance



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> No, people go to war because of a variety of reasons. The main one is because they think they will win the war, regardless if they are right or not.



You captured my president's motivation to go to war. Bush wasn't concerned about the rightness or wrongness of war. He thought he could win it and win it fast. Do you remember his words on May 2, 2003?  "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the US and our allies have prevailed." Well, someone should remind the insurgents that combat in Iraq is over.


----------



## Fernando

You haven't understood anything, Everness.

A country can be a civilized, democratic country and can perform a slaughter. Germany was a civilized and democratic country in 1933 and it elected a mass killer. Germany was not a democratic country in 1934 and was not a civilized country in 1945. Of course I think there are two or three differences between Germany 1933 and US 2005.

No, I do not think there is much redeemable in Congo nowadays and I am aware of the awful role of civilized countries (Belgium, to name one) in Congo current situation.

"For the record, I have no friends but I'm working on this with my shrink. I'll let you know when I get my act together, ok? " Obviously I referred to the friends of the terrorist. If you are ready to blow yourself, please let me know.

"You also state that fighting Hitler militarily was appropriate and justifiable. If that were the case, doesn't the Iraqi resistance have the right to fight the interim government in Iraq and the foreign invaders?"

Yes, I think that, if US begins to kill every Iraqi they see in the streets, armed or not, Iraqis have the right to fight and to kill US soldiers. Given that 
- it has happened to the moment 
- 60% of Iraqi population has voted in the last elections
- insurgents are currently killing their own people

I think they are just terrorists.


----------



## Fernando

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Right wing military thugs who murdered a democratically elected president to replace him with a brutal dictator.



Right, but Allende committed suicide.


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> "For the record, I have no friends but I'm working on this with my shrink. I'll let you know when I get my act together, ok? " Obviously I referred to the friends of the terrorist. If you are ready to blow yourself, please let me know.



Hola, ahora entiendo lo que querias decir. Lo tome medio personal. No tengo ni el interes ni la intencion de volarme en pedazos. No hay causa en este mundo que se compadezca del valor que me asigno a mi mismo...


----------



## cuchuflete

To all those who would like to be understanding of --and thus sympathetic to-- murderers....

Put your ideology aside for a moment and consider what monsters do..



> Mr Livingstone said: "This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary working class people."
> 
> The mayor said the blasts were a *cowardly and indiscriminate attempt at mass murder* which would fail in its bid to destroy free society.


----------



## panjandrum

Thank you Cuchu.
I have lived through 30 years of this......


----------



## chica11

Hello!

Speaking of terrorists attacks, everyone knows about what happened in London this morning.  I lived their last year and it was always in the back of my mind while I was there but I never actually thought it would happen (this soon).  Don't ask me why.  Anyway, if any of you are over in London or know anyone there I hope that you and people you may know are ok. 

Best!


----------



## Allanis

Fernando said:
			
		

> Me. US is a civilized country. Congo is not.



US is NOT a civilized country. Congo is NEITHER..



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I would not describe the Shoah as:
> 
> 'A number of Jews died during the period 1933-45 in Europe because a number of reasons'.
> 
> I would rather say (objectively enough):
> 
> 'Several million Jews were murdered in Europe by Nazis in the period 1933-45'.



Yes. I agree with you. 
In fact I would also add with equal objectivity that more than 3000 palestinians civilians have been willingly killed 5000 imprisoned and their families made homeless by Israel.

Political correctness/incorrectness is always a two way road.

Do you want to talk about the infamous US base in Guantanamo Mr.Fernando ? I guess not .

Have a nice day.


----------



## Fernando

I can talk about whatever you want, Allanis. Plase, open a thread. 

As a example, I would like to ask you which is the deep relation between the Holocaust and the Israeli behaviour to Palestinian. I am a bit tired of the smart comment 'The Shoah was good because nowadays Jews are bad guys'.

Let us take, in second place, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The way I see it, if Palestinians would have the opportunity during the last 60 year period or so, they would have destroyed every Israeli life. As a matter of fact, they have killed +1,000 israelis, most of them civilians without weapons (meanwhile, most Palestinians are killed with a weapon in their hands). Palestinians are living under (oppresive) Israel rule, but their population is growing. 

I will repeat what I said in other threads: Palestina vs Israel is a wolf vs wolf fight. Kill yourself and let the world in peace.


----------



## chica11

Allanis, I agree that the US does a lot of horrible things in the world to perpetuate violence. And we certaintly aren't clean of human rights violations by any means. Heck, I don't always think we are the best role model for other countries to follow in terms of our society and government either. But do you think France is clean of human rights violations? Do you think France does not OR did not in the past perpetuate suffering and violence in the world? Do you think France is clean of racism and prejudice? And France should me the model? I don't think many countries in the world would fall into the category of being free of human rights violations, free of causing pain and suffering within their country or around the world. Do you? Sure there are exceptions don't get me wrong (mostly small countries that really have not had great power at all.). The point is, the US is a huge super power and power can corrupt. Any country who has been in power at some point in history knows this. It's just the focus is mostly now on the US because of our place in the world. 

Remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------

