|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The Obama library in Chicago is going to be pretty awesome I bet.
|
United States43785 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:13 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity.
Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself.
|
|
|
I'm glad we could have another of these GH informational sessions. Always entertaining.
Although I did learn quite a bit about Presidential Libraries. Does Ford have one?
|
United States43785 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it? If anything, it would be a museum. If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. Have you gone to the library to confirm this? Gaslight supreme, with that I'm out.
Dude. All people are doing is asking that you provide sources for your claims. You keep doing this vague "well it must be shady" and "you can't be so naive as to think it's above board" while refusing to tell anyone what the fuck you're even talking about. We're now at the point where you're implying that something called the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, which is used for keeping records and books for people to come and see them, isn't really a library. It's not too crazy that people are asking you why you would say something like that and if you have any evidence for it.
You're not being gaslighted, you're being forced to provide reasoning beyond vague assertions. If you replied "I went there and they don't actually have any books or records or anything like that, just lots of paintings of Bill Clinton" then your argument that it's not a library would make a lot of sense. Instead you went with "gaslight supreme".
|
On October 20 2016 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it? If anything, it would be a museum. If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. Have you gone to the library to confirm this? Gaslight supreme, with that I'm out.
I did a bunch of searches and couldn’t find any conclusive evidence that says it is a bad library or gets a poor rating. Did you post something previously that I missed?
Or what Kwark said. Stop being vague and post several sources showing that the library is shit.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:13 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity. Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself.
I never at all suggested "the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF" was for his penthouse. It's this disingenuous stuff that proves the point many others have made.
Just to describe the same scenario. You're going to build a library, you want an apartment in it. You get your deduction and then the rest of the money can be used to add in things like a rooftop garden you can only really see from your penthouse.
So now you avoided taxes on the money, but got to spend it on your new penthouse with rooftop garden. And you get to call it "giving to charity" meanwhile, everyone else payed for the library anyway.
|
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
|
On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
|
United States43785 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:23 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:17 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:13 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity. Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself. Not if you're not using your own money to build it.
At which point why did they put their own money in in the first place? If the basic premise here is "there are a few people with hundreds of millions of dollars and they're scamming for cheap rent" then none of this adds up. If other peoples' donations were paying for the library then why did they put their own money in in the first place? There is no "scamming for cheap rent" narrative that is internally consistent. The optimal situation for them is to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and have other people build them a library with an apartment. The next most optimal is for them to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and then just buy an apartment. The least optimal is for them to give a bunch of money to the CFF, not pay tax on that money (but also not have the money anymore) and then build a library with an apartment in it.
Do apartments in Little Rock even cost $10m?
|
On October 20 2016 04:23 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:17 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:13 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity. Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself. Not if you're not using your own money to build it.
Well, that's a different argument right?
Three possibilities:
1.) Clinton put money in Foundation, foundation used money for library. He escapes taxes but now has to build a library.
2.) Clinton does not put money in foundation, foundation builds library. He escapes having to build the library but now has to pay taxes.
3.) Clinton builds library, then gives library to foundation. (Unsure what the advantage is but I'm just trying to be more complete)
If it's (1), then the tax has to be more than the cost of the library.
If it's (2), then the library has to be cheaper than the tax.
If it's (3), I'm unsure.
|
On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
|
On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
|
I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
|
United States43785 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
|
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
|
On October 20 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
And there you have it.
On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions.
On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
|
On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
Your ideas are dismissing at face value because you keep bringing up vague bullshit without factual proof.
|
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
?????
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ... Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place. Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit? I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it? If anything, it would be a museum. If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
Or you got caught in a claim you can’t back up with documentation and got called out for it. And now you are claiming we are gaslighting, but really you can’t back up your shit.
You notice earlier when found zero evidence of Wikileaks doctoring documents and I admitted I was wrong. You should try that. Embrace sweet release. Or you will continue to be treated like our resident conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
