[HN Gopher] Challenging 'rule breakers' - children will confront...
___________________________________________________________________
Challenging 'rule breakers' - children will confront their peers
Author : rustoo
Score : 71 points
Date : 2021-12-28 14:05 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.plymouth.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.plymouth.ac.uk)
| supernova87a wrote:
| I don't recall exactly right now, but I remember an article that
| had a 2x2 description of people who are vocal vs. internalized
| and rule-abiding vs. rulebreaker-tolerating.. or something like
| that.
|
| It did help me accept (or at least understand) a little bit more
| some people I observe who just live their lives like "it's all
| good" or "if the person does that, they must need it really bad".
|
| I never really understood that kind of mentality, for 2 reasons.
|
| 1) When someone breaks the rules, and goes unchecked, it just
| encourages them to do it more and reinforces their belief that
| the bad behavior is acceptable. And there is something to the
| notion that seeing people break the rules degrades respect for
| the rules in general.
|
| 2) Every time someone breaks the rules, it's a tax on those who
| follow the rules. Why am I inconveniencing myself by following
| rules when others just go ahead and break them? Or in another way
| of saying it, especially when rules are only partially enforced,
| the people who follow the rules are made suckers. Better to not
| have the rule at all.
|
| I guess this became a bit more frustrating to me over time (or
| maybe because of age) as I understand rules better and have an
| opinion on their validity (especially the history of them), to
| see people giving up on the idea of enforcing rules or standards
| at the request of people who break the rules, or people who just
| have sympathy for them.
|
| Well then, why did we create the rules in the first place? Just
| toss the rules out, and let everyone go free-for-all, so that the
| rule-abiding people aren't paying a tax while others go "scot-
| free". So easy, isn't it, for people coming later to forget all
| the work that it took to experience and solve for these problems
| that we can just toss them out now.
|
| There was the example of the MIT admissions director who had
| faked her PhD the whole time (or say, how some people get
| meaningless paper PhDs from no-name schools to increase their
| government job pay), and one of my grad school colleagues
| (toiling away for his PhD!) said, "You would go out of your way
| to report that? What harm has it done you?". I was incredulous.
|
| Maybe I'm getting more conservative in my old age.
| sporkland wrote:
| I believe it was pg's, The Four Quadrants of Conformism:
| http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html
|
| I still think about it quite a bit.
|
| I think some rules are valid for a point in time and become
| invalid over time (e.g. some of the old Jewish rules around
| food probably made more sense before modern food mgmt
| standards).
|
| And pg's point is people / kids follow rules without
| understanding them for the most part. Or they don't follow the
| rules for the most part. And a lot of progress comes from the
| scofflaws who aren't wedded to the current rule set and reject
| the nonsensical ones.
|
| At some point democracy and not having a blood line king/queen
| was against the rules. I'm glad some people decided to look
| past those rules.
| supernova87a wrote:
| Ah yes, that was it, thanks!
| WalterBright wrote:
| 1. novice follows the rules because he's told to
|
| 2. master follows the rules because he understands the rules
|
| 3. guru breaks the rules because his knowledge transcends
| them
|
| Doing these out of order doesn't work very well.
| Scarblac wrote:
| I think I'm like that, and it feels very related to the
| "robustness principle" in programming
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle). "Be
| conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept."
|
| And to the idea that I can change what's in my power - my
| actions. I have to accept the things I can't change, like the
| actions of strangers.
|
| And I'm not a judge, I don't like judging people. Who knows,
| they may have a good reason. Walk a mile in their shoes, and so
| on.
|
| If there are enough people who think like me, the rules will
| still mostly hold. And if not, perhaps it wasn't a good rule.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I guess, not really? But this results in justifying any
| existing rule and that conclusion is incompatible with my
| existing world view so I end up viewing it as an artifact of
| rhetoric rather than a result of logic.
| [deleted]
| orgels_revenge wrote:
| As someone who can tolerate just about anything - take it back
| to the start: we were thrust into this life without our
| consent. Life is inherently an inconvenience from this
| perspective. So what if a roommate doesn't do dishes, if people
| cheat, break rules, etc? I didn't even ask to be here in the
| first place. I am quiet, happy, unbothered, when I adopt this
| view. But not unambitious, lazy, etc. Quite the contrary. It
| just seems like complaining about rule-breakers is worse than
| rule-breaking itself.
| hirundo wrote:
| I saw the new James Bond movie last night and hated the ending.
| Not so much because it wasn't appropriate, as because they broke
| the rule. And not so much the rule, as the Prime Directive. My
| reaction felt like a kind of disgust. At the rule breakers. The
| same kind I'd feel at a cheater in a game.
|
| But of course there's no sense in which I'd been cheated. This
| kind of surprise is meat and potatoes to almost any fiction. I
| think that's not despite this kind of inborn reaction, but to
| leverage it. This particular movie just had a lot of leverage to
| work with.
| zomglings wrote:
| What rule? I didn't watch the movie nor do I know much about
| James Bond beyond watching a few of the films over the past few
| decades.
| dmurray wrote:
| Spoiler (obviously) but trying not to give away too much, I'm
| sure the rule in question is that the hero is meant to live
| happily ever after.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Except that never applied to Bond; any time he seemed to be
| about to have some semblance of a normal life terrible
| stuff happens to him and/or his loved one(s).
| [deleted]
| fnord77 wrote:
| an event happens that terminates the series for good.
|
| though I bet in 4 years the producers will change their mind
| and retcon the series back to life.
| conductr wrote:
| Current Hollywood would just start remaking them. No
| time/budget for new scripts.
| herbstein wrote:
| The movie ended with "James Bond will return". There's not
| even an implied end of the series. They pretty proudly
| showed off that it was continuing.
| yosito wrote:
| So, kids are tattle tales? Did we need a study to tell us this?
| the_only_law wrote:
| Eventually we would see a [citation needed] below the claim.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > So, kids are tattle tales?
|
| No, tattle tales _report_ rule breaking to third-party
| authorities. This is about direct intervention with the rule-
| breaker.
|
| > Did we need a study to tell us this?
|
| If we want to quantify and see how it varies across, say, the
| urban/rural divide (as this does with challenging), then, yes,
| certainly, but it's not this study.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| In my experience kids are tattle tales when they have had
| their power to intervene directly significantly curtailed. I
| remember a kid asking me to tell my daughter to stop doing
| some behavior (she was a few years younger than him). I asked
| him if he had already asked her to stop and he looked at me
| like I was from mars.
|
| At least where I live, many kids have been taught in many
| ways that direct intervention is something that will get them
| in trouble, and tattle-tales are at least partly a result of
| that.
|
| This is also IMO why girls are more likely to tattle-tale.
| Girls, on average, get in way more trouble for instigating
| physical violence than boys, so they have had one method of
| direct intervention more strongly curtailed.
| [deleted]
| dqpb wrote:
| Correcting 'mistakes' - children help their peers.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > We assumed that, because everyone knows everyone else in
| small scale communities, direct interventions would be less
| common, as people could rely on more indirect ways such as
| reputation to ensure compliance with rules. But we actually
| found the opposite to be true.
|
| Sigh. This is the kind of bad assumption I would expect from a
| 1st year college student.
|
| In rural communities, the risk of someone making mistakes is
| more impactful (and therefor more serious). Rural life is a lot
| simpler in some ways, as well. In an urban center, there are
| countless ways to solve problems and discoveries to be made
| with the materials at hand. Urban mistakes or inefficiencies
| are well tolerated, as they may simply be a previously unknown
| solution/technique with their own cost/benefit profile.
| andi999 wrote:
| The article doesn't sustain what the headline is indicating.
| hanoz wrote:
| The scenario descibed in the article isn't children challenging a
| non conformist for stepping out of line, or using a non standard
| technique, the children are correcting, perhaps helping, someone
| who appears to be getting something completely and utterly wrong.
| newsclues wrote:
| Children teach others. They are learning through the teaching
| process.
| conductr wrote:
| Exactly. They're mimicking how they were taught. My 3yo is
| all about "let me show you" because that's exactly what we
| say when we teach him something/how to use a new toy. When a
| guest comes over, it's his turn to show off his new toy and
| teach them how to use it.
| hanoz wrote:
| Indeed. The lead author expresses surprise that rural
| children are more likely to intervene. That's exactly what
| I'd expect.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Eh, the study calls "rule breakers" the children who seemingly
| make mistakes applying a set of rules to a puzzle.
|
| These aren't kids acting out in class and being put back in line
| by their peers, it's two kids doing some pair programming.
|
| Am I "confronting" my coworker when I suggest a different way to
| loop than the one they implemented?
|
| Nothing wrong with the study, just saying the word "challenging"
| is not used here in the layperson sense, that is
| confrontationally.
| slibhb wrote:
| I don't think your criticism is valid. Children often play
| games that have rules. Comparing candyland or soccer or "block
| game we inevented for this experiment" to different ways of
| programming a loop misses the point.
| V-2 wrote:
| A valid point, although it's probably the article, not the
| study itself. The actual title is "Children across societies
| enforce conventional norms but in culturally variable ways". I
| say "probably", because I haven't looked into the paper -
| perhaps it does use this terminology after all (but I doubt
| it).
| sandworm101 wrote:
| In modern schools, most any deviation from prescribed behavior
| is considered "rule breaking". A kid playing a game they way
| they want to play it, rather than the way they were taught to
| play it, is a disruptive kid that needs correction by peers or
| authority figures.
| WalterBright wrote:
| When Flight Simulator came out, my first thought was to see
| what would happen when you crashed the airplane. People would
| actually get upset as I would try to crash it. These were
| adults! They'd get so into the game they were afraid of
| crashing the imaginary airplane.
|
| (It was a bit disappointing, it would only freeze the screen
| and draw a crack across it!)
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Surely by 2021 there is the equivalent of Burnout for
| aviation games?
| mherdeg wrote:
| I've seen this!
|
| When the toddler plays an iPad game he likes to start by
| "failing" (choosing the wrong option, deliberately crashing a
| toy car, doing nothing at all) and watching what happens. It
| looks to me like he's basically experimenting - trying things
| and watching what happens. I generally just let him try and
| fail (and discuss what happened with him) and after about 1-2
| minutes he tries the "right" thing because it helps him make
| progress - or hits the "X" and quits if he can't figure it
| out.
|
| But some folks who watch him do this get pretty mad -- "no,
| kid, you're supposed to click on the blue one! No, don't
| crash the car, go down there! You have to push something!".
| This is an interesting philosophy, and while it's not one I
| share I'm not gonna intervene because he needs to get used to
| hearing this from people sometimes.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| A toddler probably gets as much 'reward' from the Skinner
| box like iPad games on failure as on success. It makes a
| noise, flashes an interesting image.
|
| The reason to 'succeed' an older child is to satisfy the
| conditions and progress in the game, a toddler maybe gets
| equal reward (at first) because they don't see why driving
| further is success.
|
| Once the novelty of the first set of sounds and images is
| exhausted then interaction products new images and so
| greater 'reward'.
|
| Doesn't seem useful behaviourally?
| mlyle wrote:
| Being able to control the game and progress on demand is
| still mastery, even if the spectacular failure is
| interesting to explore first.
|
| I blow up plenty of things in Kerbal Space Program in
| interesting ways before deciding to buckle down and get
| more science.
|
| Playing around with the "wrong" geometrical proof instead
| of taking the straightforward and known-to-myself
| approach isn't harming me, either.
|
| Young kids like exploring the whole state space-- not
| just the ones we're likely to label as success or useful.
| Then at some point later they get afraid to fail--
| especially to be _seen_ failing. It 's a mixed bag:
| motivation to push "forward" is useful, but fear of
| failure prevents deeper understanding or full effort
| sometimes.
| [deleted]
| sharikous wrote:
| Thinking "meta" this same behavior (adults intervening in
| how children play games) is analogous to the phenomenon
| described by the article, that is children correcting their
| peers.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I have this problem, and it takes concerted effort for me
| not to "fix" those situations. Even though I know they're
| better off if they figure it out themselves, my desire to
| "help" people is very hard to overcome. I use quotes around
| those words because I know that what I'm doing is not
| actually those things in many cases, and they'd actually be
| better off if I waited for them to ask for help.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| swayvil wrote:
| It's like that with Lego.
|
| Some people grab the bricks, mess around, create and
| destroy chaotically, explore.
|
| But then there's this whole other culture. They create the
| thing described by the directions, step by step.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I was a combo of both. I would build the thing one time
| when it was brand new. It was a good way of learning how
| some pieces could be combined and be used in designs.
| After that, all the pieces got placed into big buckets
| for later assembly into whatever. I've never had a lego
| "build" last longer than a few days.
| brnt wrote:
| I think I treated Lego instruction books a bit as my
| bible. Thou shalt built this, at least once. Most of my
| creativity was in composition: I would built a city out
| of all those more or less built-to-instruction sets, and
| would overhaul said city every few months or so. Road
| plates would have sidewalks, roads with directions, that
| I would type and print on a computer, rail, preferable
| with a higher bridge somewhere every time. Once the whole
| city was built up and complete (no space left empty), I'd
| take it all away and compose a new city.
| mlyle wrote:
| Man, we do both in my house.
|
| When I was a kid, I mostly had pile-of-legos and not
| sets. I did very little following of the directions.
|
| My kids *love* just messing around with piles of LEGO
| (and even Duplo) and making their own creations: mostly
| weapons. And they also love working on the 3000 piece
| crazy-complicated sets, presorting everything and
| figuring out where to put each piece step by step.
|
| There's a whole lot of creative, unstructured play (not
| really heading towards mastery of sculpting or design),
| and a whole lot of concentrating replicating a model.
| It'd be kind of neat if they'd decide to do something
| inbetween.
| hosh wrote:
| My 1 yr old does this all the time when exploring the
| world. I have had to tell my 17-year old stepchild who
| easily gets down on failures, that my role as a parent
| isn't to protect my children from failure, but to protect
| them from catastrophic failure (ones that cannot be easily
| recoverable from).
|
| Myself, it isn't something I learned until I was an adult,
| encountering "growth mindset" and practicing martial arts.
| Failures are the foundation of growth and anti-fragility,
| and works better if you can un-identify with it.
| hosh wrote:
| Which is a contrast to say, watching what Daniel Tiger's
| Neighborhood teaches 2-4 year olds about conflict resolution,
| taking turns, and finding ways to play together.
| OtomotO wrote:
| You're talking about US modern schools, right? (Genuine
| question)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not my school in the US.
|
| Cynical me thinks there is no actual underlying experience
| driving the observation.
| adamrezich wrote:
| this was my _entire_ experience in "computer" classes
| K-12 in the 90s-00s. never once were we encouraged to
| play around or try new things. we were taught to follow
| instructions to the letter to use computers to complete
| arbitrary tasks exactly as prescribed. the closest thing
| to letting us "color outside the lines" was letting us
| literally pick the color and bgcolor attributes for the
| HTML4 web pages we made for some assignments in "Web
| Development" class... in 2008. (of course about half of
| our graduating class had all already taught themselves
| rudimentary CSS to style their MySpace profiles a few
| years prior!) around 2004(!!) we spent a couple weeks
| learning HyperCard (in the Classic Mac emulator OSX used
| to ship with), and while I immediately recognized the
| possibilities for making games and interactive stories
| and all kinds of neat stuff using this then-ancient
| software, nope, just shut up and make this slide
| presentation about snakes or whatever like the assignment
| tells you to. I've posted about this here in the past but
| looking back I have this vague feeling that, at least in
| these computer classes, the teachers like barely had a
| grasp on how to do anything with computer outside of
| specifically prescribed tasks of the assignments they had
| us do, and were sort of _scared_ of anyone like me who
| wanted to eff around and see what all we could do with
| the technology. part of me has always wanted to be a
| public school computer class teacher just so I can
| instill some of the sense of discovery and creativity
| that access to these powerful machines grant us, that I
| was never given in school growing up.
| WalterBright wrote:
| In my last year of high school in the 70s, the school
| acquired a Business Basic 4 computer to do some of the
| administration work. They also created a computer class
| for the students, where we punched out programs on punch
| cards, and the teacher would batch run them overnight.
|
| The teacher did not allow any students near that
| computer, as he was sure we were going to hack it and
| wreck everything.
|
| (Yes, hacking was a thing even in the 70s!)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| In a computer class in the 90s, it would actually have
| made some sense. Schools have never had good IT staff,
| and it was easy to screw things up accidentally. Hell, in
| '94 I was in USAF tech school and watched a guy answer
| yes to the "WARNING: This will remove all data on non-
| removable disk drive C:" prompt not 30 seconds after the
| teacher explicitly said that getting that message meant
| you had mistyped. Allegedly an adult, and actually a
| pretty smart guy, but still managed to render that
| particular workstation unusable for a while.
|
| Today, the school uses disposable VMs which are built on
| demand and nothing the student does can render them
| inoperable. And Chromebooks that are similarly
| unkillable. Different world now than 25 years ago, for
| sure. My kids' school gives the students wide latitude to
| screw up.
| adamrezich wrote:
| reasonably fair assessment, but the problem with
| Chromebooks is that they're basically glorified
| smartphones as opposed to desktop PCs, in that they're
| consumption devices as opposed to creative devices. sure
| you can get various chrome extensions (presumably not on
| these school Chromebooks though) that let you get part of
| the way there--I passed my first semester of CS using
| only a Chromebook with the Secure Shell extension to
| remote into my linux box at home--but by and large the
| era of everyone having the untapped creative power of a
| cheap commercial desktop PC in their home is kind of over
| now, and in my opinion we largely squandered that
| wonderful time by not encouraging more young people to
| play around with them creatively.
| mlyle wrote:
| It was a pretty common feature of the schools I grew up
| in.
|
| My second-earliest school memory was being asked to sit
| on my nametag in Kindergarten (the standard time out). We
| were doing an activity where we were supposed to circle
| whether something made a short or long O sound, and were
| listening to an audio tape with headphones. The words
| were printed on the worksheet, though, so I went ahead
| and circled all the correct ones and then sat quietly
| doing nothing. When the aide noticed she sent me to the
| tag on the carpet and then everyone forgot about me
| because I was so quiet. I would guess I was there for
| quite some time, but my 5 year old notion of time was
| wacked.
|
| I have many more memories of similar things: being
| punished for doing math problems in different ways, or
| completing work early, mutually agreeing to play a board
| game by different rules during "free time", or responding
| to an essay prompt in an unexpected way.
|
| I am now a teacher at a pretty good independent school
| which my 3 sons attend. Faculty tries really hard to
| avoid doing this. It _is_ aggravating and difficult when
| you have 20 kids and a subset go off in a completely
| different direction than you were hoping to reach with
| the activity. I can totally understand that with larger
| classes like most public schools have, a worse behavior
| baseline, etc, how one would be tempted to leap to
| chastisement.
| [deleted]
| fnord77 wrote:
| > The children were each taught to play a block sorting game -
| with half taught to sort the blocks by colour, and half taught to
| sort them by shape. They were then put into pairs, with one
| playing the game and the other observing.
|
| At an early stage of development, could this sort of study
| introduce some sort of neurosis or pathology into these
| children's behaviors?
|
| My "this might not be harmless" radar is pinging
| thro1 wrote:
| It's: _challenging_ the kids _with_ rule breaking (that 's normal
| kids, not _rule breakers_ ).
|
| About true, _challenging rule breaker_ see the movie: "System
| Crasher" (2019).
| thro1 wrote:
| Downvoted ? - the title is clickbait: nor the kids are
| challenging (hard cases), nor challenging others (only
| confronting, maybe to help), neither they are challenged at any
| point to do that - but if they do, they are not _rule breakers_
| but 'rule _breakers_ ' - _keepers_ and conformists to what
| they been taught (the only rule breaking are the researchers,
| their challenge is to mess with kids, not being challenged
| self).
| conductr wrote:
| I like how the comments are full of people challenging the rule
| breaking author/title/study
| carom wrote:
| Tangentially related, I've looked for research in the past on
| what compels people to report rule breakers. I find it super
| interesting that people want to get other people in trouble over
| (often) things that don't negatively affect them, but instead are
| just "the rules".
| ckqyt wrote:
| If someone has no real talents apart from following and
| enforcing arbitrary rules, he/she can rise in the social
| hierarchy by virtue signaling and reporting others. We see this
| in many open source projects now.
| bob1029 wrote:
| It's probably some form of crab bucket mentality. Many follow
| their paleolithic urges when it comes to watching others
| succeed.
|
| I'll be the first to admit that it takes a little bit of
| conscious effort for me to look at another person leaving me in
| the dust and thinking "wow that's awesome. good for them".
|
| Attempting to reframe my own comparative lack of success in
| terms of "they must have broken the rules or something" is a
| thing I reserve for competitive video gaming where the
| likelihood of an actual cheater is very high and the
| consequences of being wrong in my accusation are zero. Even if
| I totally delude myself into thinking everyone is using an
| aimbot and it has nothing to do with my shitty aim and I wind
| up the worst gamer on earth, I still have the rest of my life
| to work with.
|
| In my personal experience, when you make your whole existence
| about winners breaking the rules and you being a relative loser
| because you follow all the rules, you turn into a monster.
| itronitron wrote:
| >> what compels people to report rule breakers
|
| they still believe there will be consequences to the rule
| breakers as a result of reporting them...
| tux3 wrote:
| I suspect it stems from a feeling of fairness: I have to follow
| the rules, so how come you get away with doing whatever you
| want? That's intuitively not fair.
|
| Now I don't agree with that from a consequentialist point of
| view, but I could understand the feeling.
| javajosh wrote:
| For some kids this just means they trust that the rules are
| there for a very good reason, and so are intrinsically good to
| follow. As a parent one hopes that your kids come to see your
| rules in that light, rather than as a tool to exercise power or
| maximize personal convenience, or any number of abuses.
|
| The tricky rules are the very non-obvious ones, like those
| involving seat belts. Insurance against very infrequent events
| are difficult to motivate, and require a sophisticated
| understanding of risk to not seem arbitrary. (And given the
| number of baby-boomers who managed to survive childhood despite
| being thrown into a large back-seat with no seat-belts at all
| tells me that these rules might not be as wise as we think!)
|
| _Reporting_ rule-breakers is, of course, slightly different
| because now rule-breaking is not intrinsically bad, but
| extrinsically good to the person doing the turning in. (The
| motivation must be power and indirect punishment, and not
| compassion, because otherwise you 'd talk to the rule-breaker
| first.) This is a favorite weapon that siblings naturally wield
| against each other at a very young age. That is the perversity
| of it rules, is that a human's first innocent instinct is to
| abuse them to harm a sibling. Ain't that something?
| swayvil wrote:
| In a society with rules and such, if you're in a battle for
| social dominance, the rules are your best weapon.
|
| You just need to find a way to create a narrative painting your
| opponent as a rule-breaker. Evidence needs to be interpreted
| appropriately, etc.
|
| "If you're in a battle for social dominance" is key, of course.
|
| Consider the present popularity of "victimhood".
| _jal wrote:
| > I find it super interesting that people want to get other
| people in trouble over (often) things that don't negatively
| affect them
|
| I find it super interesting that people don't see a gradient
| here.
|
| On one extreme, you have something like crossing the street
| against the light when nobody is at the intersection. On the
| other, you have all sorts of horrific things done to other
| people.
|
| I'm pretty sure that the bulk of people in wealthy societies
| would intervene against "rule breakers" well before the
| horrific extreme. But where they start having qualms is
| interesting, and where you get all sorts of negative group
| behaviors, and that point will start to drift in response to
| how members of the group behave.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > I find it super interesting that people don't see a
| gradient here.
|
| People tend to divide rules into 2 buckets: Ones that are
| inviolable and ones that are silly. It's like the old joke
| that "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, and
| everyone who drives faster is a maniac."
|
| In tight-knit homogeneous societies, this leads to a set of
| "unwritten rules," but in less well-connected or less
| homogeneous societies, this leads to quite a bit of friction
| and people harassing each other. My friend is a cop and he
| gets called to a lot of apartment complexes where there are
| two cultures abutting each other (e.g. Mexicano and non-
| hispanic) and it's just both sides calling the cops on each
| other (in his estimation) not out of racism, but because they
| disagree on the unwritten rules. Then as each side becomes
| more convinced of their moral superiority (because _we_ obey
| all the _important_ rules), the arguments become more and
| more petty and ticky-tacky.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-28 23:01 UTC)