Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is accurate or
not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird Watch"
scheme?

Or is this just another charity survey to catch potential supporters
and donors by making them feel useful?

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:37:33 +0000, wrote:

Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is accurate or
not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird Watch"
scheme?

Or is this just another charity survey to catch potential supporters
and donors by making them feel useful?


Nobody's answered my question.

Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is accurate or
not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird Watch"
scheme?

If it's important that the counts are accurate then how does the BTO
ensure they are.

If it's not important then the whole survey is farsical.

It should also be borne in mind that these counts are only in
participating gardens and external influences, such as someone
starting to feed birds or stopping feeding birds nearby, could
dramatically change the number of birds counted in any participating
garden.

And the idea that a narrow study of these garden can be extended to
whole populations seems to me to be complete nonsense. Birds numbers
could be high because they're being fed or low because they are being
infected by disease by sharing bird tables.

So that brings me to my second question:

Is this just another charity survey to catch potential supporters
and donors by making them feel useful?

I believe the RSPB has started a similar scheme.

On Nov 4, 9:37*pm, wrote:
Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is accurate or
not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird Watch"
scheme?

Or is this just another charity survey to catch potential supporters
and donors by making them feel useful?

All sounds a bit random and uncontrolled to me. I don't see how they
can tell anything about numbers. Distribution, maybe. Depending on
how accurately people identify the birds.

It's based on large numbers participating. As people are pointing out,there are questions about accuracy of identification, adherence to rules, people's honesty, amount of effort put in in each week. All this means that the figures are subject to wide margins of error. But, provided there is no reason to think that the sources of error are themselves changing (that people are becoming either more or less likely to 'enhance' their figures, for example), there is much less error associated with general trends. For example, if a species is recorded from 98% of participating gardens, then, over a period, there is a more or less steady decline until it is being recorded from only 60% of gardens, it is indeed likely that the species is in decline. And this is they type of analysis for which Garden Bird Watch seems to be most used.

The consistency of seasonal patterns from year to year in the Garden Bird Watch figures suggests that the sources of error aren't in fact changing much over time.

The benefit of Garden Bird Watch is the large number of observers and the length of time it has been running - this is a useful complement to other studies which, for practical reasons, have to be more limited in both time and location.

Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

It's based on large numbers participating. As people are pointing out,there are questions about accuracy of identification, adherence to rules, people's honesty, amount of effort put in in each week. All this means that the figures are subject to wide margins of error. But, provided there is no reason to think that the sources of error are themselves changing (that people are becoming either more or less likely to 'enhance' their figures, for example), there is much less error associated with general trends. For example, if a species is recorded from 98% of participating gardens, then, over a period, there is a more or less steady decline until it is being recorded from only 60% of gardens, it is indeed likely that the species is in decline. And this is they type of analysis for which Garden Bird Watch seems to be most used.

The consistency of seasonal patterns from year to year in the Garden Bird Watch figures suggests that the sources of error aren't in fact changing much over time.

The benefit of Garden Bird Watch is the large number of observers and the length of time it has been running - this is a useful complement to other studies which, for practical reasons, have to be more limited in both time and location.

Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

On 05/11/2010 14:24, Janet wrote:
In article601b0ad9-3cc3-464d-8496-dbcb7987be30
@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...

All sounds a bit random and uncontrolled to me.

:-) AIUI, statisticians arrange randomisation and anonymity, to avoid
biased results.

That is actually difficult to do with a self seleted "random" sample. By
definition anyone prepared to watch and count for an hour is at least
slightly interested in wildlife and birds in particular.

This means that the folk who have tarmaced their entire front garden for
carparking and installed CCA treated lumber decking on the rest will be
under represented in the sample.

I don't see how they
can tell anything about numbers. Distribution, maybe. Depending on
how accurately people identify the birds.

For anyone unsure of bird ID, there are free photo leaflets available
on request; a good way to encourage children to learn how to recognise
birds. I would guess most adult participants are sufficiently interested
in birds to recognise their local species.

Bird-counts help map population distribution changes. We've been
doing gardenbird counts and local sighting-reports for years. I'm not a
member of any of the bodies I return bird counts and sightings to; there
is no financial or reward incentive involved.

I reckon it is fairly harmless and as you say helps get some more people
interested in birds and wildlife.

Regards,
Martin Brown

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa) use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants, and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme. GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its rigorous scientific position.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , BTO GBW
writes

kay;904411 Wrote:


Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.

You should note that the original poster has been trolling these same
views on GBW in not only this newsgroup but also
uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.birdwatching.

You should also note that he is strongly anti-conservation and
conservation organisations. See, for example:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/a3285_00.html

which sets out the court case in which the Woodland Trust sued him
concerning what he was saying about them and won.

I have already informed him of the scientific value of the GBW, for
example:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0012215

and, from the Independent website
"This citizen science project highlights the valuable role that volunteers
can play in helping us learn more about wildlife diseases, even by just
watching birds in their gardens for a couple of hours each week," said
Becki Lawson, a wildlife vet from the Zoological Society of London and
another lead author of the study.

--
Just to add to what Malcolm has said and warn urglers that Angus was a
perfect nuisance on the birdwatching group some time ago re his
anti-conservation organisation stance in particular the RSPB. I'd hoped
he'd gone but it seems he's resurfaced to try his luck on gardeners.
He'll just go back in my killfile.
Tina

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:24:44 -0000, BTO GBW
wrote:


kay;904411 Wrote:


Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.


As a contributor to GBW for some years I fully support the project and I
am happy that I get out it as much, if not more, than I input. Whilst I
do have some concerns about the big business ethic of the RSPB and the
disproportionate influence it has in some quarters, I wholeheartedly
support the aims of the BTO and am grateful for the knowledge that I have
gained from them, particularly from their reports and publications.

It is worth bearing in mind that the OP does have a long history of
confrontations with various conservation organisations and URGlers may
wish to check his bona fides before responding.

--
rbel

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:24:44 +0000, BTO GBW
wrote:


kay;904411 Wrote:


Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved.

That's beginning to sound like it's a money spinner. It is
interesting that BTO charge gardeners for the infoprmation rather than
the other way round.

The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers.

Could you expand on that and tell us what scientific merit it has?


The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time,

But only in participating gardens.

in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Please tell us how you work that out?


Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.


It's not even the ability of individual participants that is a
problem; it's the unknown factors outside of participating gardens
that make this whole exercise look like nonsense to me.. OK , it's a
bit of fun for the gullible but is it of any use other than to make
the BTO a few bob?

Have you ever tried to count sparrows coming and going in a garden?

We have loads of them and I defy anyone to count them and know whether
the same ones are counted over and over again?


The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants.

I'm sure it is :-)) Would that be the point of it?

and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor.

Like what habitat?



It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.


Well, how about proving it here on this newsgroup.

No better place!

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:31:40 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , BTO GBW
writes

kay;904411 Wrote:


Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.

You should note that the original poster has been trolling these same
views on GBW in not only this newsgroup but also
uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.birdwatching.

I'm not trolling anything!

I have asked you upmteen times to answer the simple question:

Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is accurate or
not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird Watch"
scheme?

And you won't answer it.

If it's important that the counts are accurate then how does the BTO
ensure they are.

If it's not important then the whole survey is farsical.

It should also be borne in mind that these counts are only in
participating gardens and external influences, such as someone
starting to feed birds or stopping feeding birds nearby, could
dramatically change the number of birds counted in any participating
garden.


You should also note that he is strongly anti-conservation and
conservation organisations. See, for example:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/a3285_00.html

which sets out the court case in which the Woodland Trust sued him
concerning what he was saying about them and won.

They objected to about three everyday words used to describe their
killing of roe deer And are they really "conservationists" when they
expand the human footprint into wildlife habitats? Little wonder
urban foxes and deer are increasing. They are keen to promote the
planting of trees but not much is said about killing wildlife to
protect them.


I have already informed him of the scientific value of the GBW, for
example:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0012215

and, from the Independent website
"This citizen science project highlights the valuable role that
volunteers can play in helping us learn more about wildlife diseases,
even by just watching birds in their gardens for a couple of hours each
week," said Becki Lawson, a wildlife vet from the Zoological Society of
London and another lead author of the study.

Really! Well perhaps the BTO or the scientists involved can justify
their study on this newsgroup since you can't.

Let me start it off by saying: the idea that a narrow study of these
participating gardens can be extended to whole populations seems to me
to be complete nonsense. Birds numbers could be high because they're
being fed or low because they are being infected by disease by sharing
bird tables or being in close proximinity with each other

So that brings me to my second question:

Is this just another charity survey to catch potential supporters
and donors by making them feel useful?

I'm quite willing to debate this at length. Is the BTO willing to do
the same?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:15:33 -0000, rbel wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:24:44 -0000, BTO GBW
wrote:


kay;904411 Wrote:


Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.


As a contributor to GBW for some years I fully support the project and I
am happy that I get out it as much, if not more, than I input.

Like what? Do you believe it can actually provide data outside of the
participating gardens and be used to extend that information to whole
bird populations?

Whilst I
do have some concerns about the big business ethic of the RSPB and the
disproportionate influence it has in some quarters, I wholeheartedly
support the aims of the BTO and am grateful for the knowledge that I have
gained from them, particularly from their reports and publications.

Good, I have no problem with your position with the BTO who probably
do some good in some areas.

But you haven't addressed the specific issue I raise. Why not?


It is worth bearing in mind that the OP does have a long history of
confrontations with various conservation organisations and URGlers may
wish to check his bona fides before responding.

I don't deny I criticise dishonesty and misrepresentation in the
conservation industry. Many are fakes in reality. They exploit the
natural environment to fund their agendas; they don't conserve it.

So rather than follow Malcolm's obsession against me, who follows me
around like a little dog, look at what I say objectively and if you
wish, argue against it?

On Nov 5, 7:13*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:15:33 -0000, rbel wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:24:44 -0000, BTO GBW *
wrote:

kay;904411 Wrote:

Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme..
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.

As a contributor to GBW for some years I fully support the project and I *
am happy that I get out it as much, if not more, than I input. *

Like what? *Do you believe it can actually provide data outside of the
participating gardens and be used to extend that information to whole
bird populations?

Whilst I *
do have some concerns about the big business ethic of the RSPB and the *
disproportionate influence it has in some quarters, I wholeheartedly *
support the aims of the BTO and am grateful for the knowledge that I have *
gained from them, particularly from their reports and publications.

Good, I have no problem with your position with the BTO who probably
do some good in some areas.

But you haven't addressed the specific issue I raise. *Why not?



It is worth bearing in mind that the OP does have a long history of *
confrontations with various conservation organisations and URGlers may *
wish to check his bona fides before responding.

I don't deny I criticise dishonesty and misrepresentation in the
conservation industry. *Many are fakes in reality. *They exploit the
natural environment to fund their agendas; they don't conserve it.

So rather than follow Malcolm's obsession against me, who follows me
around like a little dog, look at what I say objectively and if you
wish, argue against it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's no doubt that all the big charities have jumped to gap from
just charity to career and well paid at that.
At one time the tin rattler in the street would be working for
nothing. Now they're all on a percentage. There are beaurocrats and
fancy offices.
I have given up donating money, I think they are all too dodgy and
most of the money is used in adminisration. If you every get to talk
to some of the hierarchy, most of them know nothing about their
charity, it's just another business to them. I have spent money in
creating my own reserve. ******** to these money grubbers.
A case in point is the "Fair Trade" ripoff. They give some farmer
in Costa Rica an extra ten pence/kilo for coffee beans. The they
charge me an extra fifty pence. No thanks.
All these charities for third world countries are the same. Clowns,
idiot and crooks.

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:14:12 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Nov 5, 7:13*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:15:33 -0000, rbel wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:24:44 -0000, BTO GBW *
wrote:

kay;904411 Wrote:

Has anyone asked Garden Bird Watch for their response?

We completely understand the suspicion that sometimes surrounds 'citizen
science' projects, especially where some form of subscription is
involved. The year-round BTO Garden BirdWatch (GBW) certainly has
scientific merit, with a sizeable publication record of peer-reviewed
scientific papers. The survey relies on its robust and repeatable
methods to collect large-scale information on how birds (and other taxa)
use gardens and how this use varies over time, in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the underlying
patterns that are important.

The survey is self-funded, through the generosity of its participants
and without this funding we would not be able to operate such a scheme.
GBW data feed into conservation indicators and have real value, allowing
us to collect information for a habitat that is difficult to monitor. It
is worth noting that the BTO is an independent and impartial research
organisation. It does not campaign and it is well-respected for its
rigorous scientific position.

As a contributor to GBW for some years I fully support the project and I *
am happy that I get out it as much, if not more, than I input. *

Like what? *Do you believe it can actually provide data outside of the
participating gardens and be used to extend that information to whole
bird populations?

Whilst I *
do have some concerns about the big business ethic of the RSPB and the *
disproportionate influence it has in some quarters, I wholeheartedly *
support the aims of the BTO and am grateful for the knowledge that I have *
gained from them, particularly from their reports and publications.

Good, I have no problem with your position with the BTO who probably
do some good in some areas.

But you haven't addressed the specific issue I raise. *Why not?



It is worth bearing in mind that the OP does have a long history of *
confrontations with various conservation organisations and URGlers may *
wish to check his bona fides before responding.

I don't deny I criticise dishonesty and misrepresentation in the
conservation industry. *Many are fakes in reality. *They exploit the
natural environment to fund their agendas; they don't conserve it.

So rather than follow Malcolm's obsession against me, who follows me
around like a little dog, look at what I say objectively and if you
wish, argue against it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's no doubt that all the big charities have jumped to gap from
just charity to career and well paid at that.
At one time the tin rattler in the street would be working for
nothing. Now they're all on a percentage. There are beaurocrats and
fancy offices.
I have given up donating money, I think they are all too dodgy and
most of the money is used in adminisration. If you every get to talk
to some of the hierarchy, most of them know nothing about their
charity, it's just another business to them. I have spent money in
creating my own reserve. ******** to these money grubbers.
A case in point is the "Fair Trade" ripoff. They give some farmer
in Costa Rica an extra ten pence/kilo for coffee beans. The they
charge me an extra fifty pence. No thanks.
All these charities for third world countries are the same. Clowns,
idiot and crooks.

I agree entirely!

Some time ago I was speaking to an RSPB volunteer at a stall in
Glasgow who wasn't aware that the organisation had an income of over
£1million a week, with the CEO was earning around £100,000 a year and
fifteen other executives earning over £50,000. That's not "charity".
Organisations kike these are tax avoidance vehicles and should be
stripped of charitable status.

Charitable status should only be awarded to those organisations that
are entirely run by volunteers with perhaps a maximum of
administration staff in single figures to deal with day to day letters
etc.

"harry" wrote in message
...

(I know people on this newsgroup don't like previous postings being snipped,
but sorry, to save trawling down over old stuff I have pruned it out)


There's no doubt that all the big charities have jumped to gap from
just charity to career and well paid at that.
At one time the tin rattler in the street would be working for
nothing. Now they're all on a percentage. There are beaurocrats and
fancy offices.
I have given up donating money, I think they are all too dodgy and
most of the money is used in adminisration. If you every get to talk
to some of the hierarchy, most of them know nothing about their
charity, it's just another business to them. I have spent money in
creating my own reserve. ******** to these money grubbers.
A case in point is the "Fair Trade" ripoff. They give some farmer
in Costa Rica an extra ten pence/kilo for coffee beans. The they
charge me an extra fifty pence. No thanks.
All these charities for third world countries are the same. Clowns,
idiot and crooks.

.................................................. ................................

Harry I have to agree with you on the waste of money on these charities. I
have been involved on building lifeboats and the waste, and I mean admin
waste, was so bad I cancelled my subscription to them. Dreadful story from
one of their repair depots. They had a maintenance budget and it was getting
towards the end of the financial year and the manager still had some money
left in it, so he decorated some rooms to spend it, 'Because if I don't
spend it, they will cut my budget for next year'. That is just one, I have
others. If you want to subscribe to the RNLI, do it to a lifeboat station
itself if they have a specific need/appeal for a piece of equipment. Don't
let Poole get its grubby hands on it.

Mike



--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................