Fun talk:Liberal/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 27 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Democrats more Anti-semitic than Republicans

I have taken a quick look through the pdf and it does indeed say that Democrats tend to be more anti-semitic than Republicans. Therefore that reference should probably stand. The one about Dawkins is ridiculous and I refuse to debate with anyone who claims that this makes him anti-semitic. Such a person has clearly not bothered to read the quote. (If someone really seriously wants to debate then fine, but the whole thing is so ridiculous it wouldn't even pass as a reference at Conservapedia).

Back to the Pdf. Now the one question I have about the article is the definition it uses for antisemitic. Lets look at some of the questions they ask

1)In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or more with the Arab Nations?

So criticising Israel is antisemitic now?

2)Please tell me how much you think people in the following groups tend to be like yourself in terms of basic beliefs and values. (One of the options was Jewish)

It's antisemitic to believe that people from another culture tend to have different beliefs and values. Maybe it is, but then again some atheists think they have differing values and beliefs to evangelical Christians, does this make them a bigot? Does this make the evangelicals who say such horrible things about atheists bigots as well?

And so on and on. You can read the rest of the questions there from page 40 onwards and draw your own conclusions. As I see it the problem with the report is that it doesn't break up political position for each response. It could be that more democrats are less happy with the conduct of Israel etc. In fact there seem to be no statistics regarding political position at all, just a blanket statement that Democrats are more antisemitic than Republicans. I am prepared to leave the statement in for the sake of fairness, but I must say I do so reservedly.--Damo2353 02:13, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I need more than "read this zillion page pdf" as a ref. Please say on what page the "fact" is cited from. Or pages. Also, who or what is the "Institute for Jewish and Community Research"? I will be deleting the reference as not meeting the simple requirement of "what page(s)?". As I see it, the problem is it the "report" is just a bunch of text on the web. Specifically citing page(s) and quoting them might fly. This doesn't. ħuman 02:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

"it does indeed say that Democrats tend to be more anti-semitic than Republicans" I could assemble a zillion-page pdf to say whatever I wanted, too. What backs up the assertion? ħuman 02:29, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

It is on page 1 (the page numbered 1 not the first page). It also says that it reverses previous historical trends (ie every report before this on found Republicans to be more anti-Semitic). It should be noticed that African Americans and Latino were also found to be more anti-Semitic and they are more likely to be Democrat. So the change may have been more the Republicans have managed to drive every minority group voter away rather then they have improved their position. Also I can't help but notice the survey equate dislikes Israel with anti-Semitism. $\approx$$\pi$ 02:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

We are citing a web shite for an org that doesn't even merit a wikipedia entry. Think about that. Also, I note that their webshite is not very clear as to who they are. The Drudge Report of anti-Semitism? I started an article on them. Ain't much to go by, though. ħuman 02:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

OK sorry for making a big post and then leaving, but I'm back now. TBH I agree with you a lot more than I agree with me before I left but anyway the statement comes on page 6 of the document. They say: "On nearly all variables, Democrats held more anti-Semitic beliefs than Republicans, reversing a historical trend".

Now the obvious question as to whether those beliefs actually are antisemitic is another question. They are, as well as the two mentioned above, That Jews killed Christ, that a Jewish President may have divide loyalties vis-a-vis Israel, that Jews have too much influence on Wall Street, Jewish people control the media, Jews only care about themselves, Jewish lawyers are more unscrupulous and Jewish TV/movie producers cause immorality.

I would argue that only some of those questions actually address antisemitsm. I take issue with the idea that Jews killing Christ is Anti-semitic and have mixed loyalties about the Jewish president one. However an even bigger flaw with the finding is that they never say which questions are more likely to be answered which way by each particular group. They don't really give figures as to why they find the way they do. Where that leaves us I don't knowDamo2353 03:36, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually I lie, I know exactly where that leaves us, I'm just too stubborn to say.--Damo2353 03:40, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

On another point, 1000 interviews seems like a pretty small number to be representative of the US population. That's what the polls in this country use and we're only about five million people. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:43, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Human I have to take issue with you on the 1000 people being small sample for the US. 1,000 people if they are randomly sampled correctly is a significant sample size whether they are from a population of 1,001 people or 100,000,000 people. This is part of the law of large numbers. Sometime over the weekend I should probably write an article on it. $\approx$$\pi$ 04:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you mean AKjeldesn not Human. But 1000 is a small sample for a country like the USA with 300m people over a very large geographical area, Denmark is relatively compact and probably more homogeneous than the USA. A survey in the USA would have a much larger margin of error with only 1000 people than with a survey of 1000 people in Denmark. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:02, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Human when I saw Denmark I thought of you (I often do). Actually Genghis the error for a survey of 1,000 people in the US is the same error as a survey of 1,000 people in Denmark. It is the absolute size of the sample that is important, not its relative size. When I can think of good way of explaining it I will write an article why. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:28, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

At least part of their anti-Semitic evaluation seems to come from "Anti Bush ME policy = Anti-Semitic" rather than any feeling about Jews/Judaism (You know, of course that Arabs are Semites?)   ^Contribs_Talk 08:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Are you guys at least basically OK with how I reworded the assertion? (I'm about to add "page 1 as numbered" to the ref) ħuman 15:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh yeah article writing that is what we do here. I think you summed it up well. Thinking of you. $\approx$$\pi$ 19:22, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Evil atheists biggest threat!!

According to the famous PDF, when asked who is the biggest threat to America out of Atheists, Muslims, Christian fundamentalists, Asians, African-Americans, Mexicans, or Jews, the majority thought the biggest threat came from atheists. Page 24.--Bob^{bing up} 06:04, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Valid questions?

So ... what would be some valid questions intended to determine if someone is anti-Semitic? I don't really know the answer, but i may have an idea for one question.

Did your blood boil when Israel invaded Lebanon to get at Hezbollah who had been firing hundreds of Katusha rockets at Israel, killing civilians?

Enthusiastically taking the side of Palestinians against Israel without ever having studied or seriously thought about the events that led up to the current ongoing Mid-East conflict would seem to me to indicate, at the very least, a bias against Jews. And that would include some Jews who are themselves anti-Semitic.

Rem^Beau 08:57, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Enthusiastically taking any side in a situation as complex and as involved as the Middle East shows you don't know what you're talking about. The various rights and wrongs are far too deeply entrenched and neither side is, strictly speaking 'in the right'. Having said that there seem to be many in the US who accuse anyone who doesn't automatically take the "Israel = good; Palestine = bad" on each and every issue of being anti-Semitic. Silver Sloth 09:05, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Silver -- with your first sentence, i agree, and with the second as well. Your third puzzles me. You are surely correct that there must be many in that category (300 million is a lot of people), but i have never run into one. I take it you have ... perhaps i travel in the wrong circles. Percentage-wise, i expect those who "accuse" to be small compared to those that take the (roughly) opposite view. I suspect that actual anti-Semites in America are not especially numerous (i could be wrong), but there are certainly more of them than there are those who fall in your "accuse" group.

-- Rem^Beau 23:59, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

If you take anti-semiticism at face value, that is hating jews and jewish things because it is Jewish, then there aren't a huge amount. But if you ask the questions that some beleive go deeper you will recieve a vast amount. Now asking do you beleive that Jews are wrong goes a bit too far. The proper question is seems would be "If you could, would you convert all Jews to christians". If you answer yes, I personally would say that is anti-semitic. To go even deeper, Would you Convert them if it meant killing a million of them? To say yes to that is not anti-semiticism. It is evil. Essentially, To say you support Palestine over Isreal is not anti-semiticism. TO wish to wipe Isreal off the map, is. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:10, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen at this website: I am happy to announce that as of this moment, I will unilaterally consider all who do not fully and enthusiastically support the restoration of the Papal States to their natural 1796 borders as anti-Catholic. In completely unrelated news, I am saddened to see the extent to which anti-Catholicism has increased during the last five minutes. This is a disturbing trend, and further expensive research is needed to examine the causes behind this. That is all for now. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:14, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Well said. Silver Sloth 09:20, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Everyone knows that the Vatican controls the world cracker industry. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I would be glad to carry out that research AK, and you are correct that my expenses will be huge, requiring me to request a gymongous retainer in the form of unmarked bills. (I suppose my first task will be to find out what the heck a Papal State is. I wonder if Papal is actually a typo, and you meant Paypal?)

-- Rem^Beau 00:04, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Hahaha, Rimbuckle made a funny! Laugh "with" him for now... ħuman 00:08, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not going to take sides in the Palestine?Israel fight, 'cause I'm so far away and have been spoon fed the opinions of others & more involved minds than mine have failed to understand it BUT Rembrandt, you seem to equate Jew and Israel too tightly. I know a couple of Jews who are old enough (one = 65 other 50ish) to have considered the matter at length and would be very annoyed if you even hinted that they were pro Israel - that even though one of them has children living there. Two other, younger (I think about 22 - 25) Jews (M & F) are ardently pro Israel/ anti Palestinian, That's one reason I won't take sides. Of course, I might know other Jews, without being aware of it. (I also know an Iranian family all of whom are delightful, if a bit overwhelming on the hospitality front [I've never come out of their house less than bloated with the amount of food that's been force fed to me! - including once going to borrow a hair drier!])   ^Contribs_Talk 09:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Susan -- you appear to have misunderstood me -- i have not taken sides. At all. Nor have i equated Jews and Israel as you have suggested, and i don't see how your pointing out that some Jews would be annoyed if they were thought to be pro-Israel refutes anything i have said. Neither do i have anything against Iranian people -- did you think i did? I am certain that many Iranian families are delightful as you say, and i am not sure if there is a nationality on this planet that wouldn't have many delightful families. Was there something i said that elicited your responses?

But you have not said anything about my responses to the topic at hand: anti-Semitism. (1) Can YOU think of any valid questions intended to determine if someone is anti-Semitic? (2) Do you disagree that my idea of a question (enthusiastically taking side ...) might work? (3) Would you deny some Jews are anti-Semitic? Nobody has commented on my points -- i would like to hear your opinion. Pretty please?

-- Rem^Beau 00:21, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I would disagree. She did in fact mention the point of it where you asked if it would be a good point. If you beleive disagreeing with Isreal meant you were anti-semitic, you are equating the two too much. And others have answered to your response. I beleive Bob and myself both gave excellent questions toward seeking out Anti-semiticism. And again, the second point was answered specifically by Susan. Isreal v Palestine is not a good indicator of anti-semiticism, in my opinion and seemingly others. Third.....Yes I would deny jews are anti-semitic. Unless they are simply self depricating and you view that as anti-semiticism (it isn't). Some jews do disagree with Isreal, but they are not Anti-semitic. Sorry for answering the question directed at Susan but it seems that she did answer you. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:31, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

No problem. I don't mind your answering as well (glad to have it), i just hope Susan will respond to my 3 questions at some point. Bob was joking with his question; i'd bet on it, and i responded in kind. I haven't undestood what you mean in your second sentence, about the points. Your "Israel v Palestine" comment isn't what i said. What i posed was, "Did your blood boil when Israel invaded Lebanon to get at Hezbollah who had been firing hundreds of Katusha rockets at Israel, killing civilians?". That was a very specific question, carefully worded, and i implied nothing other than that, no hidden meaning, no code words. Is it your contention that a "yes" response to that question would NOT indicate anri-Semitism?

I know there are other comments on this page directed at me -- i will probably get to them sometime manana.

-- Rem^Beau 04:04, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Papal states? I demand that they revert to their founding year's size (either 0 AD or 32 AD)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah -- i see you are not aware of the latest fashion. The true savants wouldn't use 500 BC or 32 AD -- they would use 500 BCE and 32 CE. Quite coincidental that those numbers just happen to work out the same, wouldn't you say? It's tricky to get from one to the other -- i hope someone develops a nomograph to make the conversion easier.

-- Rem^Beau 00:42, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, you really missed the joke opportunity there, RumBow. PS, you know, you can sign your comments "in line", you don't need to create an extra line for your tildes. Or maybe I need to learn even more from you? ħuman 00:49, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

What? I did take advantage of the joke opportunity and made a joke. Let me guess, you thought i was serious about a CE/AD convertor nomograph? Perhaps you are suggesting i missed Susan's joke? If so, you would be wrong. I didn't lead off with LOL, but neither did you.

And yes, you do "need to learn even more from" me. Maybe you could grow a sense of humor. Or not.

-- Rem^Beau 02:49, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

To answer the question "What would be some valid questions intended to determine if someone is anti-Semitic?". How about "Do you hate Jews because they are Jewish?" or something of that nature?--Bob^{bing up} 09:41, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

I do think you are on to something here. Except your phrasing might give the game away. Perhaps i could suggest this instead: "Do you hate Jews because they are direct descendants of Abraham?" See, this way responders wouldn't be tipped off.

-- Rem^Beau 00:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Who cares if they are tipped off? If they hate jews, they are going to say they hate Jews. As did Hitler, the KKK, Akhmadinawhateverthehell and all of the other Ant-semitics. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:33, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Hitler said that? (I thought he was Jewish.) Don't get me started on Awkminijob -- he owes me twenty bob. We don't want to be too harsh with members of the KKK do we? The oldest member of the US Senate was a Grand Kleagle (does that rhyme with beagle?) so i have heard, but that was back in the day when there were REAL men. And some of those folks are real nice when you break bread with them ... lovely people. I think of John Goodman in, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

-- Rem^Beau 01:11, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Whuh? Hitler was Catholic. And I have never more hoped a person was joking than I hope you are now about the KKK. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 01:15, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Shriiiiiink? -- you've got to be kidding -- that whole paragraph was one long joke. Hitler a Jew? Awkminijob owes me twenty bob? Senator Byrd a REAL man? KKKers lovely people? I hope i don't have to start enclosing the word "joke" in parantheses. Do me a favor and don't be influenced by the likes of Human (i suspect he may not like me) (humor) -- i've read a fair bit of history, starting in HS, and would like to teach a history class at some point. (Human could attend my class.)

But you believe Hitler to be a Catholic? Now it's my turn to hope you are joking. I know there are a lot of anti-Catholic websites that push that view, citing his altar-boy-hood, but that kind of cherry-picking of history is not very convincing. I'm not Catholic, but his ardent worship (with his henchmen) of Nietzsche, plus all the anti-Christian comments he made, puts a lie to that myth. Those websites also like to quote Hitler's early speeches, ignoring the nasty stuff he said later. Hard to imagine a polical demagogue using speeches to pander to folks, i guess.

-- Rem^Beau 02:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Raised catholic. Maintained and professed a belief in Jesus Christ as the messiah. He often spoke of the fact that his CHristian beleifs were the main motivation for his anti-semiticism (I certainly hope you will agree that he is). Although he was religious, he was not a huge fan of traditional christianity. Yes, I'm essentially quoting WP. So? By nasty stuff I assume you mean the whole "kill all the Jews thing". And I really don't think you can talk about Hitler and expect people won't remember that little detail. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 02:40, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow -- you seem really convinced of Hitler's belief in Catholicism, and willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary. I shant try to disabuse you of that notion; it is obviously deeply felt. Done. But you seem to be suggesting that i might be expecting people won't remember that he was anti-Semitic and killed six million Jews -- c'mon. I have a pretty clear picture of all the big totalitarian countries in the 20th century, and the evil they wrought. Fascism, Nazism, Communism -- all cut from the same cloth. All determined to shut down the churches. Except Hitler -- his approach was to take over the churches, and resisting pastors were sent to the camps. We know of two: Bonhoffer and Niemoller. Only one survived.

-- Rem^Beau 03:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, so when you (Rumbout) come across as a total ass, you're just joking, right? And we are supposed to know that from your amazing knowledge of history, that you wish to teach. I find it amusing that you wish to teach me history, in spite of not even knowing basic US political history (and tax law) that slightly precedes your lifetime, as exhibited above - or even evincing a desire to "research" the topic! Rimbot, when you have something you can actually back up (besides the classic "I study history" riff), please let us know. ħuman 02:44, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

What IS your problem? Get a grip. You can forget about pushing me into researching tax law. I'm too busy trying to teach tolerance to guys like you. If you want to lay out for us the tax data you have, fine. If i disagree with your data, THEN i'll produce mine. And i'm ready to go toe-to-toe with you on history -- anytime. Go for it. I have laid down the gauntlet.

-- Rem^Beau 03:30, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, our friend Rumbot is excited, has listened to a lot of people it agrees with, but is not very well informed. And actually refuses to do the research it should do to find out about what it thinks, and was taught, and whether it is true or not. Sorry, Rumbot, this is true. ħuman 01:28, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Has there been an independent, double blind, conservative endorsed study to back up your claims? Until you can give me one, take your liberal edits and bias elswhere. Godspeed -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 01:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Though now I actually read it it may need some work - "Have you stopped beating your wife"?--Bob^{bing up} 09:42, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Well yes ... i mean no ... you obviously haven't met my wife, a female version of The Incredible Hulk.

-- Rem^Beau 00:31, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

There is one already. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:33, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, when she breaks thru that wall as she comes home after a hard day at the office, you better believe i have a hot meal on the table, and her favorite dessert ready (me). Then she beats me up, and when i ask what that was for, she replies, "That's for nuthin'". But i know she loves me. Sometimes she does make it hard for me, tho.

-- Rem^Beau 00:54, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Removed edit

Why has an edit been removed from history just because of a copy-right violation? I don't feel this is an appropriate use of hide/show. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

A quick check of history showed no deletions - did I miss it? (I agree with the sentiment, and also think hiderevision might be a dangerous tool we should unavail ourselves of) ħuman 01:54, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Of course, at any given moment, I don't know if I'm still a janitor or a postrophecrat... ħuman 01:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Here. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 04:18, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, there was no reason to "hide" that, simply editing it out is enough. Things like that aren't why we have the function anyway. ħuman 16:22, 10 February 2009 (EST)

First paragraph

I don't want to touch the first paragraph without anyone else agreeing with why I think it should be changed, so here goes:
1) I think it should be de-CPifed. There is too much focus on how Andy sees liberals, not enough on liberals themselves.
2) In the US, "liberal" does mean politically left (as far as I know, at least). Perhaps we should have something in there about the difference between the US definition of liberal and the rest of the world's definition?
Any thoughts? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing "According to the creator ... as the Schlafly Reversal." wouldn't take anything away at all. I'd leave the CP link in the short list in teh next paragraph, though. ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

Works for me. What about the "Americans think means politically left" part though? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do, don't they? Maybe the "definitions" or whatever section should be ahead of the other sections? ħuman 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is an absolute piece of shit.

A huge chunk of it is dedicated to a delusional mouth-breather named Phillip Fucking Rayment; it barely says anyting about what liberalism is; the snark is hardly worthy of the RatWik brand. We needs to fix it. P-Foster (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the PJR stuff is just in one section, and yeah, could vanish without a trace. There are a few "real" definitions mixed in there. ħuman 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Worth re-doing the entire thing from scratch, then? ^pathetic 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Naw, just delete the PJR crap. If we didn't already. ħuman 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?

What's the purpose of the sentence at the beginning of this article 'Liberals are usually mad at damn conservatives?'. What purpose does it serve and how is it 'rational' in any way? ^{— Unsigned, by: 116.71.160.90 / talk / contribs}

*WOOSH!* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the counterpart conservative article says that "conservatives are usually mad at liberals". Which is fairly true. ^pathetic 07:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be added to the end of the article, not at the top, and some explanation should be added, otherwise it looks like vandalism and makes this site seem non-credible.

Dawkins forbid this site look non-credible! - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG NO!! We has teh wandalism!!!!! (On a serious note: dude, there are other credible sources to get information from. People come here for the healthy dose of snark.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant, of course, "incredible" - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then change your name from RationalWiki to ComedyWiki or DramaWiki, you fucktards.{^{— Unsigned, by: 119.152.167.85 / talk / contribs}

In fairness, look at the top right corner of the article. What do you see? Nothing. That means it's an unrated and unimportant article by RW standards. If the BoN has the motivation would like to solve the article's problems, then the door is open and perhaps we can eventually stick a bronze brainstar on this one. ^pathetic 12:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I tried to improve it, i made a start at it by removing that useless sentence, but people kept reverting my edits. I maintain that if you need to have it, at least move it to the bottom of the page or include some explanation, otherwise this looks more like ComedyWiki than RationalWiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: 119.152.56.18 / talk / contribs}

Then we have succeeded! We do seek to be funny, as well as smert. ħuman 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why have you achieved neither? 86.40.103.195 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To this, the response is again: *WOOSH!* Perhaps it's not funny to you, because you don't get it? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added the phrase "too much poop in their pants". If this is not funny to you, then I say *WOOSH* because perhaps you don't get it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 59.9.53.26 / talk / contribs} 20:06, 20 November 2010

Your wit astounds me. ^EXTERMINATE 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)