1. #126
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell35 View Post
    You are corrrect; its all about dollars and cents; in the broadcast business there is a saying: "ratings means money; money means ratings!",

    Right now Conservative talk radio has a good thing going; and as such, they don't want it to change to put them at a disadvantage which could effect the ratings of stations that carry their programing.
    The question is who determines what is fair?

  2. #127
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I never stated that you weren't allowed to make a comment. I merely stated that you are not qualified to give an informed opinion. And I stand by that.

    And since you want to be a jerk...

    If you look up and down the forums here, I do not post in about 98% of them. Why? Because either I am uninterested or unqualified to join in the discussion. If I post, it is on a subject that I am knowledgable in. Please show us all how smart you are and find one thread where I am posting about something I am unqualified to comment on. Not a thread where my opinion differs from yours, but a thread where I admit that I have no knowledge of the subject before I post. Ya know, like you did?

    Jerk?? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I post much less frequently than you because I find the subject matter uninteresting, especially the self serving, hooray for me, ones. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "qualified" to respond to a thread, anyone can give their opinion, this is absolutely one of those threads. I could care less where you do or don't post and I won't even look for a thread where you didn't respond because of "unqualified".

    However, when it comes to satire, you are jumping up and down here saying it was satire, it was satire, you have to know Rush to understand and so forth. Yet, on the IACOJ site, you had absolutely NOOOO problem taking offensive to the Saturday Night Live skit where they poked fun at Gov Patterson. That was much more satire than what Rush could make, yet you had no problem speaking against that satire. So tell me, where is the difference? I find Rush's comments idiotic, stupid and moronic, you are claiming satire, but you found SNL's skit just as bad and that was obvious satire.
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  3. #128
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    Jerk?? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I post much less frequently than you because I find the subject matter uninteresting, especially the self serving, hooray for me, ones. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "qualified" to respond to a thread, anyone can give their opinion, this is absolutely one of those threads. I could care less where you do or don't post and I won't even look for a thread where you didn't respond because of "unqualified".

    However, when it comes to satire, you are jumping up and down here saying it was satire, it was satire, you have to know Rush to understand and so forth. Yet, on the IACOJ site, you had absolutely NOOOO problem taking offensive to the Saturday Night Live skit where they poked fun at Gov Patterson. That was much more satire than what Rush could make, yet you had no problem speaking against that satire. So tell me, where is the difference? I find Rush's comments idiotic, stupid and moronic, you are claiming satire, but you found SNL's skit just as bad and that was obvious satire.
    Of course you realize that the subject's aren't remotely related, right?

    The major difference would be that I watched the entire skit on SNL. I have watched SNL for years (most likely longer than you have been alive) and I understand the context of the skit.

    You admitted that you can say none of those things about your understanding of the Rush Limbaugh monologue.

    Run along.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #129
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    So, going back to the origin of this topic (Ya I know, what a concept eh? LOL) Anyhow, I gotta ask:

    Was Limbaugh in as much in support and sympathy for the terrorist crews who flew the aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon?

  5. #130
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    Was Limbaugh in as much in support and sympathy for the terrorist crews who flew the aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon?
    Good question. Did he even feign sympathy in a satirical way as is being claimed here?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #131
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    So, going back to the origin of this topic (Ya I know, what a concept eh? LOL) Anyhow, I gotta ask:

    Was Limbaugh in as much in support and sympathy for the terrorist crews who flew the aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon?
    Stupid question. It is extremely clear that you have zero understanding of what he was actually saying.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  7. #132
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Actually George, you are pretty much correct. Not so much that I have a lack of understanding, as it is a lack of interest in pretty much anything that "man" has to say. Even if I were standing right beside him when he openly declared that the sky was blue, and clouds were white, with a yellow sun, I'd have to look up and confirm for myself that he was indeed referring to the specific moment, because I generally dont have any interest at all in what he has to say. Most of the time it is nothing more than just drivel for the sake of hearing his own voice. This piracy problem is just one more example of "Mr" Limbaugh's lack of anything intelligent.

    Given a choice, I'd rather loose a discussion with you, George than listen to anything that other individual has to say. At least with you, the conversation would have an intelligent and very likely relevant content.

    About the only think I would give at least some grudging credit to Limbaugh is the belief in his own convictions. I will not fault him for that; he has that much entitlement. The past military service of your countrymen and mine have given him the ability to have that voice.

  8. #133
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    Was Limbaugh in as much in support and sympathy for the terrorist crews who flew the aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon?
    Last I checked, the Pirates didn't murder anyone. Comparing the Pirates to the 9/11 hijackers is not apples to apples.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  9. #134
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Of course you realize that the subject's aren't remotely related, right?

    The major difference would be that I watched the entire skit on SNL. I have watched SNL for years (most likely longer than you have been alive) and I understand the context of the skit.

    You admitted that you can say none of those things about your understanding of the Rush Limbaugh monologue.

    Run along.
    Considering I was born before SNL was around, there is no way you have been watching it longer than my lifespan.

    The subjects are different, but what is remotely related is you and satire. On this thread, you are all up in arms about Rush's comments and keep claiming satire, satire and so forth. Yet on the SNL thread in IACOJ, you got your panties all in a bunch because of the SNL skit about Gov Patterson. A skit you admit to watching, a show you admit to watching since "longer than I been alive" so you obviouly know the show is filled with satire. So again I ask, why the big difference? Why are you so up in arms here saying the comments are satire, yet, you let a satire skit on a satire based show to get you all worked up?

    I admitted I don't listen to Rush, but it doesn't mean I never heard his comments. I have better things to do with my time than listen to someone I can't stand. Unlike SC, I'm not as politically involved to listen, but I don't have to listen to the guy to have an opinion about his comments. Rush is not touted as a person of satire, instead touted as a voice of conservatives. John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman and so forth are known for satire and comedy, Rush is not. I don't have to listen to the guy to make my own opinions of what he says. Rush is the guy that stated he wants the president to fail, something of which made national news. Leno, Letterman, etc could make a comment, it can make the news, but people know they are joking around, Rush is not known for joking around.

    I don't have to listen to someone to make an opinion. You watched the full skit on SNL and you claim here you understand the context, yet you got all worked up on IACOJ about that skit. You knew full well about a satire show and a satire skit and got all worked up, now you are saying I can not comment about Rush, because I don't listen to him. Are you the forum gestapo on who gets to say who is "qualified" to speak? Or are you about censorship of people's opinion because they vary from yours? Or are you saying I don't have a freedom of speech, because I don't listen religiously to Rush to have an opinion about his comments?


    Bottom line is, you are touting this satire line about Rush's comments, you are up in arms defending his satire to all on here who disagree with his comments. Get down to the bottom, just admit you agree with his comments made. Why else are you so worried about what other people think? Rush made some moronic, stupid, idiotic comments of which even he would have have a hard time defending...but let's call it satire and move on. Yet, you allowed a known satirical comedy show get you all worked up in another thread. Forgive me if I just don't understand your logic there.
    Last edited by jccrabby3084; 04-22-2009 at 09:39 PM.
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  10. #135
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Limbaugh??

    That worthless waste of skin hasn't died yet???
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  11. #136
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
    Last I checked, the Pirates didn't murder anyone. Comparing the Pirates to the 9/11 hijackers is not apples to apples.
    So sympathy for a criminal is allowed if murder is not involved?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #137
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Originally Posted by txgp17
    Last I checked, the Pirates didn't murder anyone. Comparing the Pirates to the 9/11 hijackers is not apples to apples.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So sympathy for a criminal is allowed if murder is not involved?

    That sounds so... so... liberal.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  13. #138
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    That sounds so... so... liberal.
    Half of a great line is:

    The definition of a liberal is a conservative whose just been arrested.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #139
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Bottom line is, you are touting this satire line about Rush's comments, you are up in arms defending his satire to all on here who disagree with his comments. Get down to the bottom, just admit you agree with his comments made.
    The bottom line is that you do not have the intelligence to understand what satire is and to understand exactly what Rush Limbaugh was even talking about.

    Of course I agree with his comments. Because I understand that he wasn't supporting the pirates, wasn't supporting killing the pirates and wasn't dissing the President. He was satirizing the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to their reaction to a situation depending on who is giving the orders.

    You see, I can be honest about this. I completely, 100% support the SEALS removing the Pirates heads from their shoulders. It should happen about 1000 more times. I do not believe that the Pres. gave the order to fire, and he shouldn't have. It's not his job. If he approved an overall plan to end that situation, then kudos to him and I support him 100%.

    But the media (for the most part) made it sound like Pres. Obama shot all three maggots himself. That's a lie. The hypocrisyt lies in the historical approach that the media and the left has to similar situations that Pres. Bush was involved in. That was the subject of the satire. Not support for the pirates or shots against the Pres. I understand that you are not smart enough to understand it.

    It's time now to look at the definition of satire. Just to help you catch up, definitions are found in a biiiiiiiig book called a dictionary. Satire is defined as;

    1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
    2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
    3. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

    That is exactly what Rush was doing.

    Now, on to the SNL sketch. I was ****ed, because that sketch was NOT satire. It was an imbecile making a joke out of physical challenges and disabilites. It was a poor attempt at comedy. I took it personally because I have a challenged son. Satire would probably not have insulted me as much.

    Again, you are not smart enough to understand the difference.

    Now. As I said before. Run along.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #140
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So sympathy for a criminal is allowed if murder is not involved?
    You can have it for who ever you want. Liberals almost always choose to blame society rather than the individual.

    There is little, is any, parallel to be drawn between a kidnapping profiteering pirate, and a indiscriminate suicidal mass murderer.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  16. #141
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
    There is little, is any, parallel to be drawn between a kidnapping profiteering pirate, and a indiscriminate suicidal mass murderer.
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #142
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    The kidnapping and Piracy may come down in the not too distant future. I happen to know that at least 3 countries have placed armed security personnel onboard any of their own vessels transitting the Gulf of Aden or the Indian ocean via the Suez. Could be some wannabe Blackbeards may get a rude awkening.

  18. #143
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Bats and blue whales are both mammals. I guess you think that's a significant parallel too.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  19. #144
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    There is a very significant parallel. They're both criminals.
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  20. #145
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    Hmmm. Yes, basically true. However, do you not also try terrorists as "criminals" in a court of law once they are caught? True, each terrorist who is tried and convicted is still labled as a terrorist, but it is a criminal conviction, under example the Criminal Code of Canada for instance (only because I am not sure of the exact wording of the US title for that level).

    I add the following for "flavour":

    Criminal Code of Canada, Part II - Offences Against Public Order
    Part II.1 - Terrorism
    and

    The Anti-terrorism Act included amendments to the Criminal Code adding section 320.1 and section 430(4.1) to the Criminal Code
    specificially.

  21. #146
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Yes, basically true. However, do you not also try terrorists as "criminals" in a court of law once they are caught?
    That is a liberal line of thought. For example, they want to take a terrorist such as KSM, read him his Miranda Rights, give him a lawyer, let him free on bail, give him his due process rights to a fair trial and so forth. Al Queda declared war on us, we didn't declare war on them (even now). He is a war criminal and a terrorist and should get none of those rights guaranteed to our citizens.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  22. #147
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Of course I agree with his comments. Because I understand that he wasn't supporting the pirates, wasn't supporting killing the pirates and wasn't dissing the President. He was satirizing the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to their reaction to a situation depending on who is giving the orders.

    You see, I can be honest about this. I completely, 100% support the SEALS removing the Pirates heads from their shoulders. It should happen about 1000 more times. I do not believe that the Pres. gave the order to fire, and he shouldn't have. It's not his job. If he approved an overall plan to end that situation, then kudos to him and I support him 100%.

    But the media (for the most part) made it sound like Pres. Obama shot all three maggots himself. That's a lie. The hypocrisyt lies in the historical approach that the media and the left has to similar situations that Pres. Bush was involved in. That was the subject of the satire. Not support for the pirates or shots against the Pres. I understand that you are not smart enough to understand it.
    As I made it clear in my first post here that I believed the comments made were stupid and idiotic, out of context or not. You're right I don't understand exactly what Rush is talking about, because I can't dumb myself down enough to listen to him. Instead of you making a reply about his comments like you did here, you believe you are the forum police, and go on in telling others what they can and can't comment on. It is a matter of opinion, same as how you talk about the media here, it is a matter of opinion. Instead you came right out on here defending your boy Rush here and saying it is satire and people are taking his comments out of context, yet that is exactly what you do all the time on here. I was pointing out how you could defend satire here, but get completely worked up about it elsewhere.
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  23. #148
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    That is a liberal line of thought. For example, they want to take a terrorist such as KSM, read him his Miranda Rights, give him a lawyer, let him free on bail, give him his due process rights to a fair trial and so forth. Al Queda declared war on us, we didn't declare war on them (even now). He is a war criminal and a terrorist and should get none of those rights guaranteed to our citizens.
    It ain't Liberal Noth'n. Not Liberalism, not Conservatism, not Communism, not Socialism or any other "ism". Its the law. The same law that you uphold in your day to day work. We all know this is exactly what is going to happen. I think they call it "Due Process".

    I am not in anyway saying I disagree with you George, because I am not. I support your suggestion on how to treat Terroists. I really do. Remember, I was among the first to deploy from more than 3 different countries when the Towers fell. My only point is that regardless of whether its a guy who robs a bank and kills 15 people on his way out or three guys on an airplane that they force to crash into a building or a field, the basic principle applies, they (if they were to be caught) would be tried in a court of law. I know you know that.

    The final difference (should be - and I wish it were always the case) is that the terrorist will (probably?) be put in cells for life, whereas the guy who robbed the bank will probably be let go in 5 or 10 years. I also personally agree that a conviction of a terrorist act should be met with a rifle at dawn. No "lethal" injection, no waste of electricity. One man, one bullet. But of course we stopped doing firing squads because it was too hard on the officers who had to carry out that detail.

    By the way, like it or not, your Constitution decrees that the Terrorist should get his rights. I didn't write that document and neither did you. But it reads to that affect.

  24. #149
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Pirates are criminals.

    Terrorists are our enemy. No different than the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
    There is a difference between Al Queda and Japan. At least at Pearl Harbor we knew exactly who was bombing us and where they were. Al Queda cowardly hides amongst law abiding citizens, has no clear base of operations and so forth, enemy? absolutely, but not a clearly defined one.

    Problem with war criminal and or terrorist, even when war crimes are charged the accussed are still given a defense and a trial. KSM, while not a citizen and considered a war criminal, still goes through the same type of due process as the Nazis in Nuremberg. I would agree he shouldn't get the rights entitled to citizens, but any person brought up on war crimes had such rights.

    Go to the case of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the Beltway snipers, I would say they caused more terror in that area than committing random crimes and probably instilled more fear to Americans, than Al Queda after 9/11. Sure, because they were American citizens, they do get the due process allowed by law, but their acts could be considered terroristic, but they were not labeled as terrorists. Is there really a clear distinction between a terrorist and criminal?
    The thoughts and opinions posted here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the thoughts and or views of city or dept affiliation.

  25. #150
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jccrabby3084 View Post
    As I made it clear in my first post here that I believed the comments made were stupid and idiotic, out of context or not. You're right I don't understand exactly what Rush is talking about, because I can't dumb myself down enough to listen to him. Instead of you making a reply about his comments like you did here, you believe you are the forum police, and go on in telling others what they can and can't comment on. It is a matter of opinion, same as how you talk about the media here, it is a matter of opinion. Instead you came right out on here defending your boy Rush here and saying it is satire and people are taking his comments out of context, yet that is exactly what you do all the time on here. I was pointing out how you could defend satire here, but get completely worked up about it elsewhere.
    And I'm pretty sure that I explained to you in nice small words that the SNL thing wasn't satire.

    I never said you couldn't post here. I am the smartest guy on the forums, but Ii am not the forum police. I was talking about you not posting about this from an intellectual standpoint. You are clearky outmatched.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Royal Navy Engages Pirates
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 424
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 09:41 AM
  2. Fire chief defends grant
    By CaptainS in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-28-2005, 11:44 AM
  3. Is every Marine a rifleman? Not according to Limbaugh
    By scfire86 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:43 AM
  4. The Pirates may stink...but you'll NEVER take away 1979...
    By StayBack500FT in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 03:18 PM
  5. An interesting perspective from Rush Limbaugh
    By stm4710 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2005, 09:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register