Walton presents a very concise and well reasoned structure of fear appeals in his article. He presents normative and the empirical side of fear appeals and attempts to join them together. While I never really saw the two sides joined in this paper not so much as presented independently, the unfolding of both paradigms individually is done well. The normative (logical) structure of the fear appeal consists of the speaker telling the hearer to perform an action in order to prevent or mitigate a negative consequence. This example is seen throughout society and is commonplace in nearly all levels. While the structure remains similar, the efficacy of the fear appeal is variable to a number of empirical (psychological) factors. The psychological process that Walton outlines is as follows: The hearer reasons with himself wondering if there are any other solutions, whether it is possible to perform this action, the motive of the speaker and also the consequence of the action. In General, it comes down to whether the action is seen as more difficult and painful than the consequence as the long term vs. short term gratification. Younger people find it hard to focus on the long-term, so long term consequences will be reasoned and thought of as an impossibility. This results from a sense of immortality that younger people have. I'm not worried, I don't think I suffer from this. Nothing like that could ever happen to me.
When looking at fear appeals there are two very important questions you must answer. The first thing you need to ask is does the fear appeal have a logical fallacy and the second is does the fear appeal work on the targeted audience. The answer to these questions ultimately determines the legitimacy of the fear appeal. A fear appeal can infer that someone will be harmed without making the situation specific to that one person. Essentially if you don’t do (or do this) then harm could happen to you. I think that that ultimately fear appeals could be interpreted as threats also because even if there isn’t any mutual exclusivity. There can be a threat used as a fear appeal and vice versa. The determining questions aren’t; are fear appeals good/bad or do fear appeals work/not, but when are fear appeals justified? Fear appeals generally only work under two conditions. The threat behind the fear appeal must be legitimate and the threat must be easily avoided. A threat without an easy means of deterring makes it easier to justify not acting because you could just accept it as inevitable. At the same time, without a legitimate threat then there is no reason to act and change anything. . In order to see the fear as “legitimate” the individual has to be separated from the ideology that they are immortal. Fear appeals often represent a conflict of interest. In order to meet one fear appeal, sometimes you have to be willing to sacrifice something that we see as fulfilling. The question then becomes is long term pleasure more important than short term pleasure. The best types of fear appeals don’t try to overblow the threat portion of it because it gives the viewer an easier way to create a logical fallacy. Finding a logical fallacy makes the fear appeal not only ineffective, but doesn’t justify its legitimacy either.
A threat must meet three conditions: 1.Preparatory condition: Both the hearer and the speaker believe that without the speakers intervention and discussion, the event will not happen. 2. Sincerity condition: Both the speaker and the hearer believe the hearer will take steps to avoid occurrence because it is not in the hearer’s interest. 3. Essential condition: the speaker makes a commitment to the make sure the event will occur unless the hearer complies. The most effective type of threat occurs when both speaker and hearer realize that a threat is being made but the speaker avoids making a direct threat. Fear appeal is created as a warning that something bad could happen if the hearer doesn’t follow the recommendation of the speaker. Witte states that fear appeals can be effective means of persuasion under two conditions: 1. The threat must be real, credible. 2. The action to prevent the threat must be perceived as easy enough to carry out. Fear appeals work only if the preventative action is perceived to outweigh the threat. Fear appeals are most useful when there is a trade-off between a long term outcome or goal and some daily action that has short term impact. Fear appeals cause the hearer to make a choice between long term safety and short term gratification. If the hearer does not have a grasp of the consequences or does not care the appeal will not be effective. One of the most important things to remember when using a fear appeal is that if the hearer detects any sense of exaggeration the hearer will use that as an avenue to escape the pressure of the argument. Fear appeals used in the form of dialogue where critical questions can be asked by the hearer and answered by the speaker can provide a more effective avenue for the use of fear appeals.
This article attempts to bridge the gap being logical and psychological approaches to fear appeals. Well at least thats what is stated in the opening portion of the paper. The first section of the paper discusses Ad Baculum, which translates to argument to the club or stick. In the section threats are discussed. I found it interesting that some ad companies use this tactic and call it a warning rather than a threat. This approach to fear appeals plays to normative reasoning. The other approach discussed in the paper is the empirical approach which is the psychological approach. This is a situation where maybe the consequences are not stated to the hearer, but instead they are left to the hearer's imagination. They are giving the situation and are then allowed to weigh their options. The final part of this paper looks at some critical questions regarding fear appeals. I thought this section was interesting because it took an example(quitting smoking) and broke down the difficulties involved in actually quitting smoking. Although the hearer is fearful about the harmful effects of smoking, there are still other factors involved in the quitting process. Fear can only go so far.
In this article Douglas N. Walton attempts to identify the underlying relationship between normative (or logical) and empirical (or psychological) literature of argumentation. The article seeks to correlate the effectiveness of an argument with the correctness or fallacious grounds of the argument. Walton goes on to discuss and explain ad baculum arguments. Different scholars have different interpretations of the definition of argumentum ad baculum. Some prefer a more narrow definition that does not include fear appeals that do not involve making a threat, while Walton prefers the inclusive definition that does entail arguments that do not directly make a threat. Another consideration that should be accounted for is the intended audience of the argument. This is done by conducting empirical research on fear appeals. Research showed that in order for fear appeals to be effective, they must follow these two conditions: “the threat must be credible, so that the respondent takes it as a real danger to him or her,” and “the action recommended to deter the threat must be perceived by the respondent as feasible and easy to carry out.” If these conditions are not satisfied, the respondent will most likely rationalize through the threat and take the position that it could never happen to them, therefore causing the fear appeal to lose effectiveness. The rest of the article examines how the structure of the argument can also have an effect on the respondent’s reaction.
In his article, Walton discusses the connection he is attempting to make between the normative(logical) and empirical(psychological) aspects of fear appeals. He describes fear appeals as "argumentam ad baculum" and recognizes them as a logical fallacy. Then he describes that a threat has three distinct conditions: the preparatory condition, the sincerity condition, and the essential condition. He makes the clarification that an ad baculum fear appeal will not directly threaten the audience, but rather will make them aware of a consequence that may affect them if they disregard the words of the speaker. Walton then discusses how fear appeal arguments are structured, which usually go along the lines of, "if you do not bring about X, then Y will happen," and Y is generally something terrible. He says this method is best used not in everyday circumstances, but rather when there is enough resistance in the audience that would require the speaker to nudge them towards the desired outcomes. He then goes on to make the case that when we use fear appeals, we are attempting to appeal to the audiences sense of practical reasoning, and in doing so leading them to our desired outcome. In the end, Walton cautions us not to overhype the situation, but rather be factual with the consequences that could occur.
Douglas N. Walton relays the important structural relationships between the normative and empirical aspects of gaining or not gaining compliance through fear appeal. The fear appeal arguments are broken down in a category called argumentum ad baculum, which is an informal fallacy, as well as practical reasoning. Ad baculum arguments are a tactical appeal of fear, and sometimes appear as a threat. To be a threat the fear appeal must meet three conditions. Preparatory condition, sincerity condition. and essential condition. All three of these are important on achieving an accurate and effective fear appeal. There must be an intervention of the speaker, a concerted disagreement of interest, and a commitment to see to it that the event will occur unless the hearer carries out the particular action designated by the speaker. An overt and covert speech must be made, however there is never a condescending threat made. However, the use of as baculum poses a problem for logical reasoning. Because it s a fear appeal we must decide weather or not to approach the appeal in a narrow or broad sense, Walton followed a more inclusive approach. Emperical researchers recognize fear appeals as a distinctive type of research in which an argument threatens a target audience. Research indicates fear appeals are effective but must meet a certain criteria. They must be credible and perceived as feasible., otherwise the audience will deal with the threat emotionally.
After reading the article I found myself agreeing with many different parts that were presented and structured by Walton very well. When I first read what the paper would outline I assumed that the paper would go into detail about threats and how they are preformed on people using indirect speech. The example given by the author of the paper was very easy to understand. The store clerk in the bad neighborhood example portrays a certain threat very well. The specific fear type that the paper discusses is the ad baculum. It claims that it doesn’t offer a threat so much as it does other forms of warnings that can be seen as a threat. I agree with the description of how ad baculum works, but I have been left with some questions. I feel that it can be seen as a type that can exert a threat to not everyone but some people. Those some people would be maybe the victim in the situation who are feeling more threatened than warned. The specific type is not so much left open ended but, to me, questionable to some. Further in the paper, different cases are described in the early years that are related to such fear appeals. I felt that they provided some great knowledge and relation to how fear appeals and different reasoning and examples of how they have been specifically used before in real life examples. For one to realize what is being portrayed to them, either a threat or some sort of warning, I believe gives an overall challenge to researchers of fear appeals and subjective reasoning. Overall, I found this article most amusing than the past three and more in depth in specific areas that I was confused on before.
Douglas N. Walton makes concise and valid points in his article “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeals”. Broken down the article is comprised of five parts: 1) Ad Baculum arguments, 2) Empirical research on fear appeals, 3) Structure of the argument from fear appeal, 4) Practical reasoning and 5) Critical questions in fear appeals. Each of these sections are clearly defined and laid out in depth in the article, but I will present each in brief. Ad Baculum arguments are meant to threaten the audience. This can be through a direct threat or simply conveying a threatening message. Empirical research done on fear appeals led to this conclusion. First “the threat must be credible, so that the respondent takes it as a real danger to him or her, and” second “the action recommended to deter the threat must be perceived by the respondent as feasible and easy to carry out.” Structure of the argument from fear appeal is summed up like this: “(CF) if you (R) do not bring about A, then D [something bad] will occur.” Practical reasoning is made up of two premises, a = agent, G = goal and A = action. (PI) G is a goal for a. (P2) a thinks that bringing about A is a means to bring about G. Therefore, a concludes that bringing about A is a practically reasonable course of action. There are four critical questions that are asked by someone who is dealing with a course of action involving fear appeals.
I think Walton brought about many interesting ideas regarding definitions of fear appeals. The prevalent topic of discussion is the fear type ad baculum. The idea is that this fear type induces a fear in a respondent that something bad or scary will happen if he or she does not carry out a certain action. I agreed with Witt's definition of fear appeal as being a persuasive message that attempts to arouse the emotion of fear by depicting a personally relevant and significant threat...(304). It is true that a persuader will be more likely to produce fear if the use of fear appeal relates to a scary possibility that seems closer in proximity or more relevant to a person's life. I think credibility and feasibility of the fear appeal are necessary as the article points out.I particularly agree with Walton's discussion of practical reasoning. If the we as persuaders are trying to relate to our audience, we have to keep in mind that we need to relate to the audience's practical reasoning. WHen goals of persuader and audience conflict, acceptance of the message becomes harder to attain. Persuaders have to face many obstacles, but Walton makes it clear that it is important not to exaggerate, and to try to get on the same level as your audience.
There is a considerable interest in fear appeal in both the logical and empirical aspects. The question determining are fear appeals good or bad...or do fear appeals work? When can you justify that fear appeals are okay? Fear appeals generally come with two conditions. The fear appeal must be legit and the threat must be easily avoided. Also Article there are 5 parts that are clearly descibed. They are all broken down differently, for example... Ad Baculum arguments-- Is made to literally scare/threaten the audience or individual. In can be in a message or actual Empirical research done on fear appeals-- Pretty much the treat needs to look or be legit, so that the person can take it seriously and feel he/she is in real danger. The danger must be easily carried out.
Structure of the argument from fear appeal - If you dont do this for me then this will happen to you, almost like your everyday events at school. If you dont do this assignment then you will get an F. Practical reasoning is made up of two premises, a : agent, G : goal and A : action.
Fear appeals are decided upon two topics that affect the outcome of the speaker and listener, logic and audience. These are both very key issues that determine how people may react. Both are dependent upon the research and/or proof that is given which can make or break a fear appeal. I like the article because it can clearly be seen that sensible knowledge through logic can legitimately be a fear appeal, or not. Douglas N. Walton analyzes the connection between logical and psychological fear appeals in human reaction. Douglas findings found that the base or structure of a fear appeal is the most important. The structure of a fear appeal is based upon delivery. Who and how the speaker talks are a key issue to understand because tone and, proof and presentation can change ones goal. Goals of a speaker are to achieve persuasion through the audience and when that’s not obtained it fails. It is very important for the audience to be captivated by the speaker to hold the idea and goals of the speaker. During the last part of this article looks at fear appeals these questions analyze between logic and psychological.
Walton presents a very concise and well reasoned structure of fear appeals in his article. He presents normative and the empirical side of fear appeals and attempts to join them together. While I never really saw the two sides joined in this paper not so much as presented independently, the unfolding of both paradigms individually is done well. The normative (logical) structure of the fear appeal consists of the speaker telling the hearer to perform an action in order to prevent or mitigate a negative consequence. This example is seen throughout society and is commonplace in nearly all levels. While the structure remains similar, the efficacy of the fear appeal is variable to a number of empirical (psychological) factors. The psychological process that Walton outlines is as follows: The hearer reasons with himself wondering if there are any other solutions, whether it is possible to perform this action, the motive of the speaker and also the consequence of the action. In General, it comes down to whether the action is seen as more difficult and painful than the consequence as the long term vs. short term gratification. Younger people find it hard to focus on the long-term, so long term consequences will be reasoned and thought of as an impossibility. This results from a sense of immortality that younger people have. I'm not worried, I don't think I suffer from this. Nothing like that could ever happen to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at fear appeals there are two very important questions you must answer. The first thing you need to ask is does the fear appeal have a logical fallacy and the second is does the fear appeal work on the targeted audience. The answer to these questions ultimately determines the legitimacy of the fear appeal. A fear appeal can infer that someone will be harmed without making the situation specific to that one person. Essentially if you don’t do (or do this) then harm could happen to you. I think that that ultimately fear appeals could be interpreted as threats also because even if there isn’t any mutual exclusivity. There can be a threat used as a fear appeal and vice versa. The determining questions aren’t; are fear appeals good/bad or do fear appeals work/not, but when are fear appeals justified? Fear appeals generally only work under two conditions. The threat behind the fear appeal must be legitimate and the threat must be easily avoided. A threat without an easy means of deterring makes it easier to justify not acting because you could just accept it as inevitable. At the same time, without a legitimate threat then there is no reason to act and change anything. . In order to see the fear as “legitimate” the individual has to be separated from the ideology that they are immortal. Fear appeals often represent a conflict of interest. In order to meet one fear appeal, sometimes you have to be willing to sacrifice something that we see as fulfilling. The question then becomes is long term pleasure more important than short term pleasure. The best types of fear appeals don’t try to overblow the threat portion of it because it gives the viewer an easier way to create a logical fallacy. Finding a logical fallacy makes the fear appeal not only ineffective, but doesn’t justify its legitimacy either.
DeleteA threat must meet three conditions:
ReplyDelete1.Preparatory condition: Both the hearer and the speaker believe that without the speakers intervention and discussion, the event will not happen.
2. Sincerity condition: Both the speaker and the hearer believe the hearer will take steps to avoid occurrence because it is not in the hearer’s interest.
3. Essential condition: the speaker makes a commitment to the make sure the event will occur unless the hearer complies.
The most effective type of threat occurs when both speaker and hearer realize that a threat is being made but the speaker avoids making a direct threat. Fear appeal is created as a warning that something bad could happen if the hearer doesn’t follow the recommendation of the speaker.
Witte states that fear appeals can be effective means of persuasion under two conditions:
1. The threat must be real, credible.
2. The action to prevent the threat must be perceived as easy enough to carry out.
Fear appeals work only if the preventative action is perceived to outweigh the threat. Fear appeals are most useful when there is a trade-off between a long term outcome or goal and some daily action that has short term impact. Fear appeals cause the hearer to make a choice between long term safety and short term gratification. If the hearer does not have a grasp of the consequences or does not care the appeal will not be effective.
One of the most important things to remember when using a fear appeal is that if the hearer detects any sense of exaggeration the hearer will use that as an avenue to escape the pressure of the argument.
Fear appeals used in the form of dialogue where critical questions can be asked by the hearer and answered by the speaker can provide a more effective avenue for the use of fear appeals.
This article attempts to bridge the gap being logical and psychological approaches to fear appeals. Well at least thats what is stated in the opening portion of the paper. The first section of the paper discusses Ad Baculum, which translates to argument to the club or stick. In the section threats are discussed. I found it interesting that some ad companies use this tactic and call it a warning rather than a threat. This approach to fear appeals plays to normative reasoning. The other approach discussed in the paper is the empirical approach which is the psychological approach. This is a situation where maybe the consequences are not stated to the hearer, but instead they are left to the hearer's imagination. They are giving the situation and are then allowed to weigh their options. The final part of this paper looks at some critical questions regarding fear appeals. I thought this section was interesting because it took an example(quitting smoking) and broke down the difficulties involved in actually quitting smoking. Although the hearer is fearful about the harmful effects of smoking, there are still other factors involved in the quitting process. Fear can only go so far.
ReplyDeleteIn this article Douglas N. Walton attempts to identify the underlying relationship between normative (or logical) and empirical (or psychological) literature of argumentation. The article seeks to correlate the effectiveness of an argument with the correctness or fallacious grounds of the argument. Walton goes on to discuss and explain ad baculum arguments. Different scholars have different interpretations of the definition of argumentum ad baculum. Some prefer a more narrow definition that does not include fear appeals that do not involve making a threat, while Walton prefers the inclusive definition that does entail arguments that do not directly make a threat. Another consideration that should be accounted for is the intended audience of the argument. This is done by conducting empirical research on fear appeals. Research showed that in order for fear appeals to be effective, they must follow these two conditions: “the threat must be credible, so that the respondent takes it as a real danger to him or her,” and “the action recommended to deter the threat must be perceived by the respondent as feasible and easy to carry out.” If these conditions are not satisfied, the respondent will most likely rationalize through the threat and take the position that it could never happen to them, therefore causing the fear appeal to lose effectiveness. The rest of the article examines how the structure of the argument can also have an effect on the respondent’s reaction.
ReplyDeleteIn his article, Walton discusses the connection he is attempting to make between the normative(logical) and empirical(psychological) aspects of fear appeals. He describes fear appeals as "argumentam ad baculum" and recognizes them as a logical fallacy. Then he describes that a threat has three distinct conditions: the preparatory condition, the sincerity condition, and the essential condition. He makes the clarification that an ad baculum fear appeal will not directly threaten the audience, but rather will make them aware of a consequence that may affect them if they disregard the words of the speaker.
ReplyDeleteWalton then discusses how fear appeal arguments are structured, which usually go along the lines of, "if you do not bring about X, then Y will happen," and Y is generally something terrible. He says this method is best used not in everyday circumstances, but rather when there is enough resistance in the audience that would require the speaker to nudge them towards the desired outcomes. He then goes on to make the case that when we use fear appeals, we are attempting to appeal to the audiences sense of practical reasoning, and in doing so leading them to our desired outcome. In the end, Walton cautions us not to overhype the situation, but rather be factual with the consequences that could occur.
Douglas N. Walton relays the important structural relationships between the normative and empirical aspects of gaining or not gaining compliance through fear appeal. The fear appeal arguments are broken down in a category called argumentum ad baculum, which is an informal fallacy, as well as practical reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAd baculum arguments are a tactical appeal of fear, and sometimes appear as a threat. To be a threat the fear appeal must meet three conditions. Preparatory condition, sincerity condition. and essential condition. All three of these are important on achieving an accurate and effective fear appeal. There must be an intervention of the speaker, a concerted disagreement of interest, and a commitment to see to it that the event will occur unless the hearer carries out the particular action designated by the speaker. An overt and covert speech must be made, however there is never a condescending threat made.
However, the use of as baculum poses a problem for logical reasoning. Because it s a fear appeal we must decide weather or not to approach the appeal in a narrow or broad sense, Walton followed a more inclusive approach.
Emperical researchers recognize fear appeals as a distinctive type of research in which an argument threatens a target audience. Research indicates fear appeals are effective but must meet a certain criteria. They must be credible and perceived as feasible., otherwise the audience will deal with the threat emotionally.
After reading the article I found myself agreeing with many different parts that were presented and structured by Walton very well. When I first read what the paper would outline I assumed that the paper would go into detail about threats and how they are preformed on people using indirect speech. The example given by the author of the paper was very easy to understand. The store clerk in the bad neighborhood example portrays a certain threat very well. The specific fear type that the paper discusses is the ad baculum. It claims that it doesn’t offer a threat so much as it does other forms of warnings that can be seen as a threat. I agree with the description of how ad baculum works, but I have been left with some questions. I feel that it can be seen as a type that can exert a threat to not everyone but some people. Those some people would be maybe the victim in the situation who are feeling more threatened than warned. The specific type is not so much left open ended but, to me, questionable to some. Further in the paper, different cases are described in the early years that are related to such fear appeals. I felt that they provided some great knowledge and relation to how fear appeals and different reasoning and examples of how they have been specifically used before in real life examples. For one to realize what is being portrayed to them, either a threat or some sort of warning, I believe gives an overall challenge to researchers of fear appeals and subjective reasoning. Overall, I found this article most amusing than the past three and more in depth in specific areas that I was confused on before.
ReplyDeleteDouglas N. Walton makes concise and valid points in his article “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeals”. Broken down the article is comprised of five parts: 1) Ad Baculum arguments, 2) Empirical research on fear appeals, 3) Structure of the argument from fear appeal, 4) Practical reasoning and 5) Critical questions in fear appeals.
ReplyDeleteEach of these sections are clearly defined and laid out in depth in the article, but I will present each in brief.
Ad Baculum arguments are meant to threaten the audience. This can be through a direct threat or simply conveying a threatening message.
Empirical research done on fear appeals led to this conclusion. First “the threat must be credible, so that the respondent takes it as a real danger to him or her, and” second “the action recommended to deter the threat must be perceived by the respondent as feasible and easy to carry out.”
Structure of the argument from fear appeal is summed up like this: “(CF) if you (R) do not bring about A, then D [something bad] will occur.”
Practical reasoning is made up of two premises, a = agent, G = goal and A = action.
(PI) G is a goal for a.
(P2) a thinks that bringing about A is a means to bring about G.
Therefore, a concludes that bringing about A is a practically reasonable course of action.
There are four critical questions that are asked by someone who is dealing with a course of action involving fear appeals.
I think Walton brought about many interesting ideas regarding definitions of fear appeals. The prevalent topic of discussion is the fear type ad baculum. The idea is that this fear type induces a fear in a respondent that something bad or scary will happen if he or she does not carry out a certain action. I agreed with Witt's definition of fear appeal as being a persuasive message that attempts to arouse the emotion of fear by depicting a personally relevant and significant threat...(304). It is true that a persuader will be more likely to produce fear if the use of fear appeal relates to a scary possibility that seems closer in proximity or more relevant to a person's life. I think credibility and feasibility of the fear appeal are necessary as the article points out.I particularly agree with Walton's discussion of practical reasoning. If the we as persuaders are trying to relate to our audience, we have to keep in mind that we need to relate to the audience's practical reasoning. WHen goals of persuader and audience conflict, acceptance of the message becomes harder to attain. Persuaders have to face many obstacles, but Walton makes it clear that it is important not to exaggerate, and to try to get on the same level as your audience.
ReplyDeleteThere is a considerable interest in fear appeal in both the logical and empirical aspects. The question determining are fear appeals good or bad...or do fear appeals work? When can you justify that fear appeals are okay? Fear appeals generally come with two conditions. The fear appeal must be legit and the threat must be easily avoided. Also Article there are 5 parts that are clearly descibed. They are all broken down differently, for example...
ReplyDeleteAd Baculum arguments-- Is made to literally scare/threaten the audience or individual. In can be in a message or actual
Empirical research done on fear appeals-- Pretty much the treat needs to look or be legit, so that the person can take it seriously and feel he/she is in real danger. The danger must be easily carried out.
Structure of the argument from fear appeal - If you dont do this for me then this will happen to you, almost like your everyday events at school. If you dont do this assignment then you will get an F.
Practical reasoning is made up of two premises, a : agent, G : goal and A : action.
Fear appeals are decided upon two topics that affect the outcome of the speaker and listener, logic and audience. These are both very key issues that determine how people may react. Both are dependent upon the research and/or proof that is given which can make or break a fear appeal. I like the article because it can clearly be seen that sensible knowledge through logic can legitimately be a fear appeal, or not. Douglas N. Walton analyzes the connection between logical and psychological fear appeals in human reaction. Douglas findings found that the base or structure of a fear appeal is the most important. The structure of a fear appeal is based upon delivery. Who and how the speaker talks are a key issue to understand because tone and, proof and presentation can change ones goal. Goals of a speaker are to achieve persuasion through the audience and when that’s not obtained it fails. It is very important for the audience to be captivated by the speaker to hold the idea and goals of the speaker. During the last part of this article looks at fear appeals these questions analyze between logic and psychological.
ReplyDelete