Man or woman - if anyone acts like this with you - run and never look back. They will ruin your mentaly and when the relationship is over - they will blame you for everything.
I never found her antics in the series to be "cute." She expects to be professional, she should act more like it and not unwind what her boyfriend worked on all day with destroying property. He works at the White House, its not like she's really getting any traction by cutting him out of communication for 5 minutes. One call to Leo and Josh reverses all the calls and B.S. Amy just did.
Amy was very smart, very hardworking, very knowledgeable about process; but she could not stop herself from plowing head on into Josh, when she feels he is selling out his best self. Josh somehow convinces himself that his compromise is not going to precipitate exactly what happened. Even though, deep down, he knows better.
@@RobynHarris Smart doesnt save you from being naive. Amy persisted in pretending she was in a dream world where everyone will adopt her ideals to the point of stupidity. And then on top of that she never feels the need to toe any kind of line. Everytime she sees what she wants, she full dives in without consideration. That's why she ended up being used by the guy who wanted feminist votes, thats why she got fired, thats why she and Josh couldnt work things out.
The way she is behaving is not cute. The way she is behaving is sociopathic actually. If he had done even a fraction of these things to her, she would have run to a judge and filed for a restraining order and would have gotten it because he would have made her "afraid." Theirs is not a healthy relationship. She needs psychiatric help. He needs to throw her out of the apartment.
I agree with Amy on this, but good God I had forgotten just how irritating the character of Amy is. Smart- yes, and thats great, passionate and articulate- fantastic, love it. But bloody Hell- you put my phone in a bloody stew, you'd better go in after it to fish it out!
It will never cease to frustrate me that people always treat Amy like the harpy and Josh like the hero. Amy and Josh were the same. We just knew Josh better, longer, and saw every aspect of how his job worked. Amy didn’t get the same treatment, so these actions are the things people focus on. …but do we remember how Amy got her job as the First Lady’s Chief of Staff? Let me remind you: Josh used what he knew about Abbey’s previous chief of staff to take money that had already been earmarked for her cause to increase the budget of the project that he deemed more important. When she went to confront him about it, he was condescending and smug. When she pointed out that he was being condescending, he bragged about his win, and made it clear that how he treated her (The FIRST LADY) didn’t bother him because he’d won, and the winner got to jump up and dance around. His suggestion that she get a new Chief of Staff resulted in Amy getting the job, at which point she immediately used what she knew about Josh to get Abbey over three times the amount that she’d originally asked for. They were the same. What that said about their relationship is up for debate, but she was certainly no abusive, man-eating harpy. Josh knew exactly who he was dealing with, and had for years. Remember her first episode? He actually whined in protest when he was instructed to go and see her, because she was formidable and unyielding, and knew just what a pain it would be to try and get her to back down. Kind of like Josh. You know, that guy that never loses?
This is precisely why Josh and Amy would never have worked as a couple. This political sideshow would always take center stage between them no matter where they were. And what's more she must have known that this would piss Josh off and she did it in a second. She didn't care. Amy is hot hot hot, but she comes with too much baggage and need to dominate. Spirit is fine. Spunk is good, too. But this is too much.
Sunnchilde Amy knew what she was doing would cause a rift with Josh. Josh knew what he was doing would cause a rift with Amy. And neither one could stop. They want each other because they see themselves reflected in the other person. But that very nature will never let them be together.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Agree. Josh knew what he was getting into. He forgets that she's someone who's entire life revolves around these principles. Of course she's not going to compromise them.
catandtonic Josh compromises (often to early), so he often gets about a third of what he could get. Amy won’t compromise (until it’s too late), so she often gets 0% of what she could get.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't agree but I can't prove your wrong and neither can you prove that I'm wrong. There is something called politics and sometimes you have to bite the bullet to get something you want. Even if you are correct the worst thing that would happen is the money would be spent and you have no positive results and also no negative results as well and you get the Child Care program the money that is needed..
Destroying your partner’s possessions and preventing them communicating is domestic abuse. This is a smart wonderful show and this should not be in it. Have a political fight sure - not like this.
Well that was always their dynamic. She is passionate and interesting but she always set to go. She doesnt think things through and that makes her a problem, a beautiful charming problem.
Lot of people are dunking on Amy and I just want to remind everybody that Josh always seemed to undermine Amy whenever he got the chance politically. They had strong politic differences that usually was just witty banter along with all of their constant flirting, but when it came down to brass tacks Josh was willing to do anything to win, even undermining her position and views. Josh was basically hiding the whole marriage incentives thing because he knew he'd get in trouble for it and assumed he'd just have a good night with "his woman", blah blah blah. It's also important to note that Josh saw beating Ritchie as the ultimate "win" for Amy's agenda, because that was the most important thing in HIS agenda. But in doing so he completely overlooked everything else, making compromises, backroom deals, and under the table agreements on stuff she obviously would fight against because she's protecting woman against EVERYTHING, not just the supposed big bad villain. And let's not forget how this ends. Josh essentially got her fired by beating her on this policy. And while they were arguing about it, Josh's only defense was the same thing he was saying all along: Ritchie winning would be worse. See, that's a problem. Conflating everything under one person or one agenda or one action is pointless. The matter of the fact is Bartlett won...AND the marriage incentives were funded. The "good guy" may have won, but so what? The bad policy was the problem and it went through. But Josh doesn't see that and refuses to accept responsibility for that compromise. Maybe it's because he's always thinking about the big picture and the endless goal of winning every political battle, but it's obvious he doesn't care about the little things, especially if they get in his way. Amy IS annoying, yes, her personality is grating, but she is hardly the bad guy in this situation. Josh is. She was fighting to make life better for women in all regards, not just to have the supposed best guy possible in the White House. See, that does very little good for the real battles, the small battles. You only win the small battles by FIGHTING the small battles, not ignoring them or using them as ammo to win the big battles. Josh didn't hesitate to do so. He used a loss on a "small battle" to win his biggest battle. To him, that was a win, no hesitation. Yet he created a huge problem, not only for Amy but for all the problems that policy would create. But so what? He won. Bartlett would win, the welfare policy went his way, and the only thing they had to sacrifice? Marriage incentives. Yes, Josh is playing politics at the highest level, but that's why it's so cynical. To only care about the votes and not the policies is just pointless.It doesn't MATTER whose in the White House if their agenda doesn't go through. It doesn't MATTER who wins the welfare battle if you sacrifice all your values along the way. And it doesn't MATTER if you win your political fights if you sacrifice your friends and allies to get ahead. At that point, you're not fighting for anything else but yourself and the people you think should win and be in power. That's it. And THAT is the most pointless thing of all. Love Josh, but man he can be a bastard sometimes, ESPECIALLY when it came to Amy.
What a rude character Amy was. Unlikeable in every way. She was a complete turn off as person. Josh wasn’t much better. Mary Louise Parker played the character too well…..let’s hope she isn’t Amy in real life…..
I wish the people grumping about Amy, or making a vomitous suggestion that domestic violence is the answer, would consider this for one millisecond-SHE'S RIGHT! These "incentives" are garbage, and the claim she's screwing the party makes me ill, the party is screwing women, screwing children, screwing the poor. Amy, Toby and (most of the time) CJ are the people who put integrity ahead of politics, we need this in our Party, in our nation. Badly. As for "he was working" newflash--so was she.
The suggestions are made by cavemen who still think of women as their slaves or servants. Them: "Women are there to cook for the man, support the man in all his endeavours, and take care off his spawn". Future outlooks are not optimistic, but hey at least we've moved past public stoning right?.........FML
No, she was throwing a tantrum, destroying property, and sabotaging her own agenda in the process. I despise Amy, and if any of the other characters tried to win an argument by cutting a landline cord and bricking a cell phone, I’d find them equally repugnant. She was immature, unprofessional, and behaved in a way completely contradictory to the smart, savvy political powerhouse that the rest of the characters pretended she was.
Ahhhh Democrats. "Yes you are correct children do better in two parent homes, but here's my subjective emotion based rebuttal and fuck you I'm gonna throw a tantrum."
The Reward for Marrying The Mother/Father of Your Children is *supposed* to be that You Get to be Married to The Father/Mother of Your Children, and, that your kids aren't going to grow-up needlessly confused, traumatised, deficient or maladjusted. It does raise an interesting and important salient issue, though -- Dowrys are The Norm in Human Culture, across all societies but *this* one. So I'm not against it in principle, in fact, they may actually be *necessary...* I'm just for proportionality in this -- We Should Have Marriage Incentives, Provided that was can *Also* Have Schtupping Deterrents....
When you hear that White House officials and lobbyists are in bed together, you think of the lobbyist getting whatever they want. She does not get whatever she wants. She gets almost nothing she wants, legislatively. Does that mean Josh is incorruptible or that he's a terrible boyfriend?
As much as I love the show and Mary as an actress, its characters like Amy who have and continue to destroy lives by encouraging bad choices and lack of responsibility. Marriage, monogamy and family structure have developed over countless years, through trial and error, as the most efficient method of raising well adjusted, successful children - this is borne out in every study. Now along comes a lefty like Amy, with her utopian vision of a progressive society, who thinks she knows best and promotes policies that subsidize poor choices (e.g. single motherhood, dependency on welfare rather than employment, etc..) and then we wonder why poverty and crime have sky rocketed?! As an example, look at the figures for black american employment and educational achievement before and after the introduction of the liberal welfare state
hmmmmmmmm i like ur point in ur first paragraph but i think in ur 2nd one you're connecting dots of cause and effect because you're looking too narrow in scope. If it were true that the welfare state were harmful, it'd be consistently harmful everywhere in the world. That Thomas Sowell philosophy you mention about poverty and crime skyrocketing after the welfare state does not consider the reality that black communities were targeted by Nixon. John Ehrlichman was in Nixon's inner circle; and was subsequently betrayed by Nixon. After he was betrayed he said this: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." To me, the cause and effect to why there's such problems in these communities now isn't caused so much by the welfare state, it's more likely that the US government targeting black communities would've disrupted them more. One's 'theory' the other is direct intention to disrupt. I think that when disruption occurs, it's more likely that a direct intention to disrupt is the cause of the disruption more than economic theory that isn't entirely consistent around the globe. The welfare state that doesn't see the same level of skyrocketing crime and poverty in other countries. Not to shit on Sowell's idea, he might have some merit, I don't know enough. But what I do know is Nixon lacked integrity and loved power and people like that often do anything they can to keep it, including shitting on communities that threaten your grip on power.
in order to stop the crack/opiod epidemic you need to stop the reason why people are doing those drugs in the first place. u become a crack fiend because ur life fucking sucks and it's the only thing that gives you relief (i assume). it's then becomes a cyclical problem. the parent's are on crack -> they fight agro asf cause theyre on crack -> they split -> they do more crack because they're lonely and poor and hate life -> their children then grow up poor, no role models, way less money (less opportunity) -> they then grow up to sell crack back to their very own communities, keeping the cycle going. Evidence: Tupac. His mum was a 'crack fiend' (his words) growing up. He then gets older and his only way out was to sell crack. Who'd he sell crack to? Anyone he could, including new single mothers, continuing the cycle. If you think that's a 'one off' ur wrong
Man or woman - if anyone acts like this with you - run and never look back. They will ruin your mentaly and when the relationship is over - they will blame you for everything.
This relationship was so toxic
I never found her antics in the series to be "cute." She expects to be professional, she should act more like it and not unwind what her boyfriend worked on all day with destroying property. He works at the White House, its not like she's really getting any traction by cutting him out of communication for 5 minutes. One call to Leo and Josh reverses all the calls and B.S. Amy just did.
Amy was very smart, very hardworking,
very knowledgeable about process;
but she could not stop herself from
plowing head on into Josh, when she
feels he is selling out his best self.
Josh somehow convinces himself
that his compromise is not going
to precipitate exactly what happened.
Even though, deep down, he knows better.
@@RobynHarris Smart doesnt save you from being naive. Amy persisted in pretending she was in a dream world where everyone will adopt her ideals to the point of stupidity. And then on top of that she never feels the need to toe any kind of line. Everytime she sees what she wants, she full dives in without consideration. That's why she ended up being used by the guy who wanted feminist votes, thats why she got fired, thats why she and Josh couldnt work things out.
@@RobynHarris hahahahaha holy fuck 10/10
The way she is behaving is not cute. The way she is behaving is sociopathic actually. If he had done even a fraction of these things to her, she would have run to a judge and filed for a restraining order and would have gotten it because he would have made her "afraid." Theirs is not a healthy relationship. She needs psychiatric help. He needs to throw her out of the apartment.
@@paulcolburn3855 I always wanted him to Oscar Madison the shit out of her and fling that pot of stew against the wall.
Josh outsmarted her(as usual) and she got fired. They broke up. The end.
I agree with Amy on this, but good God I had forgotten just how irritating the character of Amy is. Smart- yes, and thats great, passionate and articulate- fantastic, love it. But bloody Hell- you put my phone in a bloody stew, you'd better go in after it to fish it out!
David Bennett It’s Gumbo. You can really toss in anything you happen to find lying around the kitchen.
Should've dumped the pot over her laptop.
She fed him for info.. but didn't feed him.. He should never discuss work at home..
It will never cease to frustrate me that people always treat Amy like the harpy and Josh like the hero. Amy and Josh were the same. We just knew Josh better, longer, and saw every aspect of how his job worked. Amy didn’t get the same treatment, so these actions are the things people focus on.
…but do we remember how Amy got her job as the First Lady’s Chief of Staff? Let me remind you:
Josh used what he knew about Abbey’s previous chief of staff to take money that had already been earmarked for her cause to increase the budget of the project that he deemed more important. When she went to confront him about it, he was condescending and smug. When she pointed out that he was being condescending, he bragged about his win, and made it clear that how he treated her (The FIRST LADY) didn’t bother him because he’d won, and the winner got to jump up and dance around.
His suggestion that she get a new Chief of Staff resulted in Amy getting the job, at which point she immediately used what she knew about Josh to get Abbey over three times the amount that she’d originally asked for.
They were the same. What that said about their relationship is up for debate, but she was certainly no abusive, man-eating harpy. Josh knew exactly who he was dealing with, and had for years. Remember her first episode? He actually whined in protest when he was instructed to go and see her, because she was formidable and unyielding, and knew just what a pain it would be to try and get her to back down.
Kind of like Josh. You know, that guy that never loses?
great music in the background
lol very observant respect
This is precisely why Josh and Amy would never have worked as a couple. This political sideshow would always take center stage between them no matter where they were. And what's more she must have known that this would piss Josh off and she did it in a second. She didn't care.
Amy is hot hot hot, but she comes with too much baggage and need to dominate. Spirit is fine. Spunk is good, too. But this is too much.
Sunnchilde
Amy knew what she was doing would cause a rift with Josh.
Josh knew what he was doing would cause a rift with Amy.
And neither one could stop.
They want each other because they see themselves reflected
in the other person. But that very nature will never let them be
together.
@@RobynHarris (they're not real people)
This scene shows how much class and style Josh had and how she was just pettty and self centered.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Agree. Josh knew what he was getting into. He forgets that she's someone who's entire life revolves around these principles. Of course she's not going to compromise them.
catandtonic Josh compromises (often to early),
so he often gets about a third of what he could get.
Amy won’t compromise (until it’s too late),
so she often gets 0% of what she could get.
What is the clip with the resolution of the episode?
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't agree but I can't prove your wrong and neither can you prove that I'm wrong.
There is something called politics and sometimes you have to bite the bullet to get something you want.
Even if you are correct the worst thing that would happen is the money would be spent and you have no positive results and also no negative results as well and you get the Child Care program the money that is needed..
and we don't want the big man of the house to go cordless...
Destroying your partner’s possessions and preventing them communicating is domestic abuse. This is a smart wonderful show and this should not be in it. Have a political fight sure - not like this.
That's why he left like he did. Wordlessly. Everything said with a contemptuous look.
Well that was always their dynamic. She is passionate and interesting but she always set to go. She doesnt think things through and that makes her a problem, a beautiful charming problem.
Lot of people are dunking on Amy and I just want to remind everybody that Josh always seemed to undermine Amy whenever he got the chance politically. They had strong politic differences that usually was just witty banter along with all of their constant flirting, but when it came down to brass tacks Josh was willing to do anything to win, even undermining her position and views. Josh was basically hiding the whole marriage incentives thing because he knew he'd get in trouble for it and assumed he'd just have a good night with "his woman", blah blah blah.
It's also important to note that Josh saw beating Ritchie as the ultimate "win" for Amy's agenda, because that was the most important thing in HIS agenda. But in doing so he completely overlooked everything else, making compromises, backroom deals, and under the table agreements on stuff she obviously would fight against because she's protecting woman against EVERYTHING, not just the supposed big bad villain.
And let's not forget how this ends. Josh essentially got her fired by beating her on this policy. And while they were arguing about it, Josh's only defense was the same thing he was saying all along: Ritchie winning would be worse. See, that's a problem. Conflating everything under one person or one agenda or one action is pointless. The matter of the fact is Bartlett won...AND the marriage incentives were funded. The "good guy" may have won, but so what? The bad policy was the problem and it went through. But Josh doesn't see that and refuses to accept responsibility for that compromise. Maybe it's because he's always thinking about the big picture and the endless goal of winning every political battle, but it's obvious he doesn't care about the little things, especially if they get in his way.
Amy IS annoying, yes, her personality is grating, but she is hardly the bad guy in this situation. Josh is. She was fighting to make life better for women in all regards, not just to have the supposed best guy possible in the White House. See, that does very little good for the real battles, the small battles. You only win the small battles by FIGHTING the small battles, not ignoring them or using them as ammo to win the big battles. Josh didn't hesitate to do so. He used a loss on a "small battle" to win his biggest battle. To him, that was a win, no hesitation. Yet he created a huge problem, not only for Amy but for all the problems that policy would create. But so what? He won. Bartlett would win, the welfare policy went his way, and the only thing they had to sacrifice? Marriage incentives.
Yes, Josh is playing politics at the highest level, but that's why it's so cynical. To only care about the votes and not the policies is just pointless.It doesn't MATTER whose in the White House if their agenda doesn't go through. It doesn't MATTER who wins the welfare battle if you sacrifice all your values along the way. And it doesn't MATTER if you win your political fights if you sacrifice your friends and allies to get ahead. At that point, you're not fighting for anything else but yourself and the people you think should win and be in power. That's it. And THAT is the most pointless thing of all.
Love Josh, but man he can be a bastard sometimes, ESPECIALLY when it came to Amy.
I love her!!!!!!!
What a rude character Amy was. Unlikeable in every way. She was a complete turn off as person. Josh wasn’t much better. Mary Louise Parker played the character too well…..let’s hope she isn’t Amy in real life…..
I wish the people grumping about Amy, or making a vomitous suggestion that domestic violence is the answer, would consider this for one millisecond-SHE'S RIGHT! These "incentives" are garbage, and the claim she's screwing the party makes me ill, the party is screwing women, screwing children, screwing the poor. Amy, Toby and (most of the time) CJ are the people who put integrity ahead of politics, we need this in our Party, in our nation. Badly. As for "he was working" newflash--so was she.
The suggestions are made by cavemen who still think of women as their slaves or servants. Them: "Women are there to cook for the man, support the man in all his endeavours, and take care off his spawn". Future outlooks are not optimistic, but hey at least we've moved past public stoning right?.........FML
No, she was throwing a tantrum, destroying property, and sabotaging her own agenda in the process.
I despise Amy, and if any of the other characters tried to win an argument by cutting a landline cord and bricking a cell phone, I’d find them equally repugnant. She was immature, unprofessional, and behaved in a way completely contradictory to the smart, savvy political powerhouse that the rest of the characters pretended she was.
Am I the only one who found it comical when she cut the cord?
if guy did she yell batter wife or rape ok for them she dont love him she used him
You're not alone, but pretty damn close. On your side and it's sad to see the majority of comments here.
He literally got her fired in the show.
@@jbar3762 not directly though. It wasn't his intention, just the obvious outcome.
Amy was so arrogant.....good to see her fall!
If I were Josh, I would have dumped her sauce all over the floor to get my phone back (or at least to make a point, if the phone stopped working).
You are soft.
Ahhhh Democrats. "Yes you are correct children do better in two parent homes, but here's my subjective emotion based rebuttal and fuck you I'm gonna throw a tantrum."
The Reward for Marrying The Mother/Father of Your Children is *supposed* to be that You Get to be Married to The Father/Mother of Your Children, and, that your kids aren't going to grow-up needlessly confused, traumatised, deficient or maladjusted.
It does raise an interesting and important salient issue, though -- Dowrys are The Norm in Human Culture, across all societies but *this* one. So I'm not against it in principle, in fact, they may actually be *necessary...*
I'm just for proportionality in this -- We Should Have Marriage Incentives, Provided that was can *Also* Have Schtupping Deterrents....
When you hear that White House officials and lobbyists are in bed together, you think of the lobbyist getting whatever they want.
She does not get whatever she wants. She gets almost nothing she wants, legislatively. Does that mean Josh is incorruptible or that he's a terrible boyfriend?
It means her character was bad at playing politics. If you go all or nothing all the time. Most of the time you get nothing.
Maybe she sucks in bed...or she doesn't.
@fjnjn Your argument would be a lot better if she didn't happen to be right about the issue.
As much as I love the show and Mary as an actress, its characters like Amy who have and continue to destroy lives by encouraging bad choices and lack of responsibility. Marriage, monogamy and family structure have developed over countless years, through trial and error, as the most efficient method of raising well adjusted, successful children - this is borne out in every study.
Now along comes a lefty like Amy, with her utopian vision of a progressive society, who thinks she knows best and promotes policies that subsidize poor choices (e.g. single motherhood, dependency on welfare rather than employment, etc..) and then we wonder why poverty and crime have sky rocketed?! As an example, look at the figures for black american employment and educational achievement before and after the introduction of the liberal welfare state
hmmmmmmmm i like ur point in ur first paragraph but i think in ur 2nd one you're connecting dots of cause and effect because you're looking too narrow in scope. If it were true that the welfare state were harmful, it'd be consistently harmful everywhere in the world.
That Thomas Sowell philosophy you mention about poverty and crime skyrocketing after the welfare state does not consider the reality that black communities were targeted by Nixon. John Ehrlichman was in Nixon's inner circle; and was subsequently betrayed by Nixon. After he was betrayed he said this:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
To me, the cause and effect to why there's such problems in these communities now isn't caused so much by the welfare state, it's more likely that the US government targeting black communities would've disrupted them more. One's 'theory' the other is direct intention to disrupt. I think that when disruption occurs, it's more likely that a direct intention to disrupt is the cause of the disruption more than economic theory that isn't entirely consistent around the globe. The welfare state that doesn't see the same level of skyrocketing crime and poverty in other countries.
Not to shit on Sowell's idea, he might have some merit, I don't know enough. But what I do know is Nixon lacked integrity and loved power and people like that often do anything they can to keep it, including shitting on communities that threaten your grip on power.
in order to stop the crack/opiod epidemic you need to stop the reason why people are doing those drugs in the first place. u become a crack fiend because ur life fucking sucks and it's the only thing that gives you relief (i assume).
it's then becomes a cyclical problem. the parent's are on crack -> they fight agro asf cause theyre on crack -> they split -> they do more crack because they're lonely and poor and hate life -> their children then grow up poor, no role models, way less money (less opportunity) -> they then grow up to sell crack back to their very own communities, keeping the cycle going.
Evidence: Tupac. His mum was a 'crack fiend' (his words) growing up. He then gets older and his only way out was to sell crack. Who'd he sell crack to? Anyone he could, including new single mothers, continuing the cycle. If you think that's a 'one off' ur wrong
If you give me your address, I'll send you Band-Aids for your knuckles.