Talk:Frank Turek

Strawman Fallacy in this Article
I suggest that the sentence about Frank Turek having the belief that "atheists have no morals or 'moral compass' to 'guide' their ethical decision-making" be altered. The "atheists have no morals" part of the sentence is inaccurate for Frank Turek, so it should be removed because it can mislead people to what he actually believes about the morality of nonbelievers. It should only include the part about "atheists not having a moral compass to their decision making." He's said that agnostics and atheists can be moral on multiple occasions, including during a debate with the late Christopher Hitchens. Here's some sources to prove it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fdSkmY07G8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYZ1ByzWY9U&t=1s 108.196.90.169 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems more like Turek splitting hairs to me. If someone lacks a moral compass, does it not follow that they lack morals? And if they have morals, does this not disprove Turek's claim that morality can only come from God? And that's without getting into the problems with Turek's base claim. 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't like Turek either but he said that athiests can be moral, plenty of times, he also is an old earth creationist not a young earth creationist. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:EDDE:63EF:D2CA:AE74 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's like you didn't listen to a word I said in reply... If I state that "Y lack the framework for X", does it it not follow that I've essentially said that "Y lacks X"? Turek can say that one needs god for morality and say that non-theists can be moral sure, though there is a term for that, and not a flattering one. 03:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't support his arguments, he didn't say someone needs god for morality, he said god is where they get "objective morality", he didn't say that athiests can't be moral though.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:6D79:FA9:1ED5:465F (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what splitting hairs is? It's when you try to make distinctions that either don't exist or don't matter. When Turek says "objective morality" the unspoken part of his argument is "real morality", hence atheists have "non-objective" or "false" morality. Ipso facto, they "have no morality". The guy's arguments are shit. That's his problem, not ours. 04:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

yes his arguments are bad, but you still misrepresent(and lie about) him here like you do with everyone else on this page I thought it was supposed to be RATIONALwiki.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:E5B5:75E:CAF3:168B (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lulz, chum! Huehuehuehuehue. Twodots (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you an idiot? Do you know how knowledge works? "Lie"? What the fuck?!?! Accusations of dishonesty require a demonstration of malicious intent, not to mention evidence of intentional misrepresentation. To lie and to be wrong are not necessarily the same thing, you fucking dolt! 16:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the BoN hasn't established any inherent misrepresentation. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

you misrepresent everyone who doesn't fit your worldview because this page is biased, (BUT ACCORDING TO Y'ALL BIAS IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE ARE ALL BIASED AGAINST PEDOPHILIA), here you said that he said atheists can't be moral even though he didn't say that you call him a young earth creationist even though in that video which is your reference HE SAID THAT THE WORLD IS OLDER THAN 6000 YEARS AND SAID THAT THE BIBLE DOESN'T MEAN 6 literal days. Anyone who is a conservative has to also be dumb and racist even if they are actually not. Same with any other anti sjw liberal (I know those are dead thank god tbh but so is this page) or anyone that doesn't support blm because this page oversimplifies and strawmans. Also every christian who used to be an atheist is apparently committing a logical fallacy for an argument and were never really an atheist, however any atheist that used to be religious isn't committing the same fallacy that is special pleading. I think this page should change its name from rationalwiki to Iamabiasedmoronwiki, because that would be a better representation of this page. The only news source that you defend here is THE YOUNG TURKS one of the worst who deny the Armenian Genocide, Kyle Kullinski will forever be better because he is actually smart and rational.Imagine being in your 20s or 30s and spending your day creating and editing a wiki to talk badly about those who you disagree with so sad go outside fam or get an actual job. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:E5B5:75E:CAF3:168B (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "you misrepresent everyone who doesn't fit your worldview because this page is biased, (BUT ACCORDING TO Y'ALL BIAS IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE ARE ALL BIASED AGAINST PEDOPHILIA), " Oh for fuck's sake!! Bias is neither good nor bad, per se. That's not how fucking psychology works!!! It is an element of human cognition that can lead to different outcomes depending on various contributing factors, such as subject matter, emotional investment, and personality. Why must you morons moralize and essentialize this shit?!?!?!?! You make discussions on this subject far harder than they need to be. It'd be like saying memory is good, or that it is bad. It is neither, because such concepts do not fucking apply. "The only news source that you defend here is THE YOUNG TURKS one of the worst who deny the Armenian Genocide, Kyle Kullinski will forever be better because he is actually smart and rational." What the fuck are you on about you fucking dolt??!?!? Where exactly have I, the person you've been arguing with, said such things? You do fucking realize that this site is the result of multiple people who don't necessarily agree with each other right? 17:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

so your site has a bunch of people call me idiots and swear of me yeah because that's rational. Also your site said that bias impacting your decisions was a good thing not me so you're arguing against yourself which is really funny. Also the extra exclamation and question marks are unnecessary, and maybe you should read your bullying page as you've called me an idiot or a moron plenty of times because I shown that this site lied and misrepresented. This site on their article on the young turks claimed it was the best news site when it is terrible OBJECTIVELY, and criticized heavily Kyle Kullinski simply because he is rational,against sjws and not far left which is what this site hates (well the truth is actually what it hates). No this site is a monolith considering everyone hates religious people and conservatives. I find it ironic that a guy who is in his late 20s or 30s is calling someone who is 13 an idiot simply because they disagree with them that's funny man maybe go outside and get a hobby I recommend going on walks listening to music that is really fun instead of cyber bullying kids. Also frank turek said that atheists have subjective morality which he thinks is dangerous but not no morality you would be a great farmer because all you do is strawman HAHAHA. You would also be good at dodgeball since you dodged everything because you don't got it get lost kid. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:E5B5:75E:CAF3:168B (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep raging, my hormonally imbalanced pre-teen. Let's go over your "claims."
 * You start off with a bang by saying that "you" (which I take to mean the users of this site, as it was not directed towards a particular comment) "misrepresent everyone who doesn't fit your worldview," which is blatantly false. Unless you believe jokes and satire should be taken as reasonable sources of evidence and fact, but thankfully there are several Supreme Court rulings that show just the opposite.
 * What exactly does bias mean? Does it mean understanding facts, and recognizing that individuals or organizations that say and do things contrary to these known facts are wrong? Should we tolerate flat-earthers, and give space for anti-vaxxers, so we can be less "biased?" It isn't rational to cower behind neutrality while others spew out nonsense.
 * Next, I don't think you've fully thought through your "special pleading" accusation. Converting to a religion and deconverting from all religions are very different processes, which involve different lines of thought and experiences to induce someone to change their ways. They aren't opposites of each other. This isn't physics: equal and opposite actions don't occur. As such, you can't invoke special pleading, because those processes are not nearly equivalent to fall under that fallacy.
 * While the very pathetic personal insult is noted(seriously kid, work on your witticisms, that was hilariously weak), you should actually read the page before you criticize it. There is an entire section devoted to TYT and genocide denial. Furthermore, our userbase doesn't have an orthodoxy. There are many of us (myself included) that disagree often with TYT.
 * Ah, the old, tired "gEt A jOB!!" Well, some of us are under 18, or in college, and many of us already have jobs. We just like refuting pseudoscience and making the world more aware of quacks and kooks.
 * You press onwards with a rather incomprehensible textwall. Let's dive in, shall we?
 * You say that we call you idiots and swear at you, so we can't be rational. First, I'd invite you to look through this response and highlight where I swear at you. Secondly, it is rational to rightly call people fools and idiots, provided you have evidence to support such a claim. Judging from your posts, we have ample evidence.
 * You have not shown that this site lied.
 * The TYT article makes some fair criticisms for the site, just read the intro. Also, scroll down to the Sam Harris v. Uygur debate, where the article portrays Harris's views in a balanced, almost sympathetic way.
 * Not sure how Kyle Kullinski, someone who stridently advocates for Medicare for All, isn't far-left, and how I, someone who is vociferously opposed to M4A, like many users on this site, am far-left.
 * Considering that I am a Christian, I wouldn't say this site is a monolith. We have capitalists, religious folk, and our own little pet revolutionary anarcho-commies.
 * Following from "Atheists have subjective morality," one would reach the conclusion that atheists would lack a coherent and robust system of morality; given that morality is explicitly defined as a "system," his claim logically leads to the conclusion that atheists possess almost no morality, to the point that they practically possess none.
 * Work on your insults and grammar, kid. They make you look pathetic. I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not much older than you. Let that sink in...
 * In conclusion, you haven't added any substance to your initial accusation of "bias." And next time, please try to use standard grammatical conventions. That textwall looked like it was written by a twelve year-old with minimal knowledge of autocorrect. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Imagine spending time out of your day to write this. Firstly, 13 is a teenage not a preteen. You don't misrepresent flat earths or anti vaxxers, more religious apologists (even ones I disagree with), Republicans (even ones I disgaree with) and anti sjws or not far left liberals. You misrepresent and lie about their arguments, 10000s of times and insult them simply because you disagree with them. The special pleading is when someone like David Wood was an atheist and is now a Christian (this site claims oh he's just doing that for an argument and always believed) but when someone like Aron Ra (mr.temper tantrum). Claims to have been a mormon and is now an atheist no one says he's just doing a fallacious argument, so if it applies to someone like David Wood it would have to apply to someone like Aron Ra, or it's special pleading. Thanks for being mean and insulting me maybe stop bullying man, TYT sucks and this site called it one of the best when it has been laughably wrong millions of times. I've shown you've lied so many times and misrepresented others, and the article defends Uygur when he was a pseudo intellectual and got DESTROYED by Harris. Really you're a Christian on this site well they ridiculte your belief and call people who are Christian stupid plenty of times so that congitive dissonace (I know you don't know what that means so just google it please). Also Kyle Kullinski is centre left I would say and yes he's for medicare for all because he is rational and smart and actually has a degree unlike you, he's spoken out against some feminists and SJWs. Which is what this site protects, also the atheists have subjective morality isn't saying they don't have objective morality he never said atheists can't be moral I can prove it mutiple times but y'all will just strawman and plug your ears and go la la la. In conclusion you're a bully who condescendingly talks down to others and thinks he's a lot smarter than he is and spends his whole time "correcting" others who are much smarter than they are. Thanks for calling me an idiot though even though you know nothing about me whatsoever but because I disagree with this site I must be stupid! Aha makes sense bud, also I even have a job buddy and I'm barely in high school so I just think people on this site need a life and something tright o do instead of bullying others it's really sad and pathetic. I shown this site had bias and was wrong plenty of times but y'all refuse to see it!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:E5B5:75E:CAF3:168B (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kulinski is a socialist. He's pretty open about this. To put this in perspective, Kulinski is to my left, and I'm an open anti-capitalist. 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but unlike you Kullinksi actually has degrees has read books and knows what he's talking about!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:B594:FAAD:862B:EB08 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you this, but reading books or saying you've read them doesn't mean you're right. And again, please stop making edits, you are embarrassing yourself. Twodots (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said that makes you right nice strawman (again you'd be a great farmer Haha), but Kullinski knows what he's talking about not some random guy who bullies kids on the internet on his spare time also, I'm embarrassing this wiki and how pathetic it is.
 * Your argument is that Kulinski is correct in his positions because he's read books. I replied by saying that reading books or claiming to have does not make you correct. That is not a straw man. You aren't being bullied. You are essentially biting my fist and asking me to apologize for punching you in the teeth. Again, the only person you're embarrassing is yourself. This wiki is far from pathetic- it has over 7000 articles, and hundreds of users. What's your greatest accomplishment? Twodots (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said, Kullinski is not right because he read books, so you misrepresented me which is a strawman, this is bullying calling me dumb, stupid a no life, troll all because I disagree with you is bullying i'm not embarassing myself just this trash wiki. It is pathetic with its bigotry, straw man arguments, and its bullies who use it. Also conservepedia has plenty of articles and hundreds of users however we would agree that it is pathetic.My greatest accomplishment is getting a 145 on an iq test and gradfuating from Harvard with a 4.0 GPA--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:5159:B401:2562:F4B7 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me your diploma, bitch. Twodots (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will lol but stop swearing and being rude this is why you guys are all lonely without friends,(BURN)!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:714C:6CD4:8621:7C77 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we have friends? And how do we know you have a diploma? Looks like you took an online IQ test. To quote Stephen Hawking, "People who boast about their IQ are losers." IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well because I tried to make friends here but everyone was rude and mean to me. Idk I can show you and it wasn't online I wasn't boasted just mentioning because it came up and I was asked stop insulting me dude you look pathetic every other edditor on this site is laughing at how pathetic you are.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:2120:EB3D:E546:EB88 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posturing is for the weak. You're posturing BoN. 16:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "I wasn't boasted" isn't grammatically correct, and neither is your run-on sentence structure. As a result, I can't quite take you or your claims of intelligence seriously. If you can show me, do so. If you can't, then it might as well be a lie, because I cannot find a reason to believe it without substantive evidence. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you "tried to make friends"? You know your activity is visible, right? Your first ever interaction on this site wasn't "friendly" in any sense of the term; you immediately went down the "irrationalWiki" path that you've retrod several times now. If you tried at all, you gave only a modicum of effort. I'm not insulting you, and besides, I believe you've insulted me several times. Eye for an eye, eh chum? IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what does BoN mean and who cares about grammar I don't we all make typos, just because I did make some doesn't mean I'm dumb. Next I did try to make friends, it was friendly I was just nicely giving constructive criticism, where I was struck with insult after insult and you are insulting me but any insult i've said about you wasn't ad hominem and everything I said was true. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:85F9:FE3A:1E2D:B72F / talk
 * First, grammar and writing ability is a good indicator of intelligence; there's a reason it's part of all standardized tests and even the IQ test, which you boast about. And you don't just make a couple typos. To show you the scale of this, I'll rewrite the first sentence of your response to make it grammatically correct:
 * "Firstly, what does BoN mean? Who cares about grammar? I don't! We all make typos - just because I made some doesn't mean I'm dumb."
 * As you can see, your errors extend beyond typos into run-on sentences, clause errors, punctuation errors, and unnecessary verbs. I'm not insulting you, I'm just stating what I see. Next, you should really look up the definition of ad hominem. You and your other IPs have laden me with such weak insults as "you have no friends" and "you're a 40 year old in a basement," neither of which are true, by the way. I could continue, but I value my time. So don't make yourself out to be an innocent, helpless victim. In fact, if memory serves, it was you who twice left my talk page with this run-on sentence filled with personal attacks:
 * "YOU're mad you'll never be as smart as me or as popular or as kind it's ok buddy it's ok"
 * You're not arguing against my positions (which have nothing to do with who I am), but throwing points against me as a person. That is the very definition of an ad homeniem attack. I eagerly await whatever mangled response you will produce to this, and am wondering just how many run-on sentences I will have the pleasure of correcting. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly who cares about grammar on the internet you must be a loser because i can use proper grammar (judging by the fact I got an 97 in university level Harvard fourth year english) and you didn't even graduate high school so I would shut your mouth. Also you didnt tell me what BoN means, and my "insults" were just me spitting facts you have no friends and it's easy to tell why you're arrogant condescending and you're a bully and mean. Secondly, an insult isn't ad hominem you should look up the definition ad hominem is me saying you're wrong BECAUSE of something unrelated for example Steve must be wrong about science because he got a DUI in 2004, also you have no points because you know you don't got and you can't refute it at all, and you are mad you'll never be as smart which is why you're 40 in your mother's basement,speding 23 hours a day insulting me and thinking I live rent free in your brain. You are a helpless victim who just wants sympathy!--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:85F9:FE3A:1E2D:B72F (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't prove you went to Harvard and got those scores, don't even say it - everyone else can tell it's a bald-faced lie. I'd like to see some of that Harvard smarts and formality on display: write me some beautifully sentences that you must have written to get such high scores! And unfortunately, you're wrong again. From the University of Texas, an ad homiem attack focuses on a person's traits or other aspects rather than their arguments. You keep saying I'm 40 and friendless over and over again, to the point that you have derailed this entire talk page. Also, I'm not 40, I'm far younger. I don't live in my mother's basement, because I don't have a basement, and cannot legally own property. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I did go to Harvard lol idk how to prove that, also nice try calling me stupid again and I saw those things because they're true, please just be kind and get a hobby stop bullying others it's damn pathetic.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:88D8:6D8F:FEA3:B58E (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WOAH THERE BUDDY. Is that a CUSSY WORD I see??!??oneone??! YOU said the MEANIE word that starts with the letter after C!!!!Twodots (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't prove it, I see no reason to believe it. Look through my response: I didn't use the word "stupid" once.
 * "I saw those things..." What things? It seems your rants are becoming eerily similar to a schizophrenics' frenetic scribbles. And look who swore! Guess you can't use that defense again. You know, I have many hobbies, but I don't brag about them. And I'll tell you what's pathetic: graduating from Harvard without a diploma, or any other proof of it. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we preemptively vandal bin him or confine him to his talkpage? I imagine he'll go on a vandalism spree eventually. Twodots (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of me wants to see how long this will go on. With his ranting, instances, and incoherent style of talking, he's like a childish, sweaty version of our old friend Ken. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Eh, he hasn't vandalized anything, and he seems like he has nothing better to do at the moment then to post rants. Maybe we should just let him blow off whatever steam he has in his system and then he'll leave on his own. Twodots (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Harvard did give me a diploma buddy don't worry about it, secondly just I don't have schzophrenia nice ad hominim again, also when did I swear, and I love just because I DESTROYED this wiki, I get accsued of vandalism, even though I haven't even edited 1 article or been mean to anyone. I'm not childish i'm the more mature one here, also I do have better things to do which is why i'm not on this site nearly as often as y'all are thanks for being mean and proving nothing another time--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:99BD:DF76:EF41:12F (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of vandalism, I was saying that you weren't vandalizing anything. Actually read/listen to what people say before replying. Twodots (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If Harvard did give you a diploma, then I'm sure there's ample proof of it, from score reports to class schedules to the diploma itself. The fact that you're unable to produce anything shows just how ludicrous this claim is. I didn't say that you had "schzophrenia" (not how it's spelled, by the way), merely that you rambled on like someone with it. I should know, I've known people with schizophrenia. What does "and I love just" mean? Your walls of text are becoming harder to understand every time you post. Also, you haven't been mean to anyone? You take the word "stupid" as an insult and rant about it constantly (even though I never call you stupid in many of my responses), while you feel free to say how you're "ROASTING" me, I have no friends, am 40, and live in my mom's basement. Guess what: none of those things are true. I appreciate, though, that you recognize that I'm far more mature than you. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a diploma and can prove it in other ways, also thanks for adding ad hominem attacks. I haven't been mean to anyone I've just told the truth I guess this site is so irrational and filled with snowflakes that telling the truth is to harsh! I was roasting you and all those things are true because it gets you defensive and makes you cry (BURN!!!!!!). You are not more mature than me you have the maturity of a kindergartner (ROASTED!!). --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DDAA:70F:AF90:2821 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao, Captain Dipshit's back. All aboard the Comedy Train. Toot-toot! Twodots (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swearing and the ad hominem attack again, secondly I was busy with work, friends and family because it's Christmas sorry I'm not wasting my time everyday arguing with ignorant bigots online who don't understand logic and just resort to using ad hominem attacks, strawmaning and just being a baby.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DDAA:70F:AF90:2821 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How am I a bigot, m'lord? Do tell, I cannot wait to be astounded by the sheer size of your intellect. Twodots (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I love how the amount of times I tell you to stop being insufferably arrogant and condescending, it's to hard for you, you really belong on r/iamreallysmart, I'm actually so worried you suffer from low self-esteem, you're a bigot because a bigot is one attached to a belief, prejudiced against others who inhibit another belief or one who is intolerant to others beliefs. I could explain how those characteristics exactly inhibit this website but it would be a waste of time. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DDAA:70F:AF90:2821 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's not what the word "bigot" means. 03:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bigot
BoN, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Twodots (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm I guess all the dictionaries in this world are wrong but two random 40 year old jobless, friendless, arrogant, neckbeards who didn't graduate high school are right, wow you should totally let them know! --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DDAA:70F:AF90:2821 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome bit of sarcasm, bro! Everyone is laughing at your clever insults and incredible wit! Jokes aside, are you still going with the whole "yor fourty yearz odl nekkbard!!!" schtick? You've used that insult at least six times, and it hasn't been effective once. I'm way younger than forty, my neck is devoid of beard, and I have a job. You're right about me not graduating high school, though. I'm currently a high school student. By the way: I noticed your little spelling fix and all, but I'm afraid you've already been spotted. Twodots (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out the dictionaries know more than you do. 03:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly it's funny how Twodots lost this argument and is so embarassed and scared that he needs to block me from this page (censoring my right to freedom of speech), secondly GrammarCommie you literally pulled up a definition that I said so nice job buddy you debunked yourself! Thirdly, clearly Twodots I hurt your feelings and made you cry and defensive. Which I apologize for, however it made you this mad because it's true and it's a really funny joke.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:90E8:2120:6BFD:BDD0 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)