Amazon.com... boy they screwed the pooch on this one

[RD]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/?gt1=43001

Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'
Another book protested in 2002 for advocating adult-child sex is still available on the site

Amazon.com
By Helen A.S. Popkin
msnbc.com staff and news service reports msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 2 hours 47 minutes ago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i do not believe in censorship... but I also do not believe in selling products of such distasteful content where children are able to access said content with just a click of the mouse, from a supposedly reputable site.  how the hell would you explain this to your kid if they stumbled upon it?  i sure in the hell wouldnt want to be forced into explaining just because Amazon.com decided to "go against censorship"

i have never bought from them, so i cannot say I will not in the future.. but right now.. i will continue to avoid them.

[last426]

i do not believe in censorship... but I also do not believe in selling products of such distasteful content where children are able to access said content with just a click of the mouse, from a supposedly reputable site.

You do believe in censorship.  How many more of our freedoms will we sacrifice because of the perceived effect on our children?  The mythical child molester has already molded American males' lives to the point of crippling the big brothers' program and others -- now you want to ban a book?  The effect of a book (let's assume it is the worst) describing physical acts is not as debilitating as a society telling kids to constantly be aware, to trust no adult, especially males, and to go running to the authorities if someone is kind enough to offer them a ride.  I am glad I was a kid in the 60's and not now. Kim

[chargergirl]

I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe in an owners right to not carry such items for sale on their site I consider that their freedom of speech. What to tell the kids tell them that the bad guy doesn't wear a black hat and doesn't look like a freak. They will have a cool car, cool toys, games and there will be something about them that makes your "woobie" go something is VERY wrong here. That's what I told my son growing up and all the ones I later inherited...it works. All people don't mean you harm...some do that's the long and the short of it. Be aware.

[RallyeMike]

How many more of our freedoms will we sacrifice because of the perceived effect on our children?  The mythical child molester has already molded American males' lives to the point of crippling the big brothers' program and others -- now you want to ban a book?  The effect of a book (let's assume it is the worst) describing physical acts is not as debilitating as a society telling kids to constantly be aware, to trust no adult, especially males, and to go running to the authorities if someone is kind enough to offer them a ride.  I am glad I was a kid in the 60's and not now.

Perceived? Mythical? Somehow I think your opinion might be different if you were abused by a pedophile as child.

This book apparently provides tips to persons carrying our serious crimes against children on how to get away with it. Amazon, as a major retailer, is not exercising reasonable judgment in distributing this crap. Freedom of speech is critically important but that doesn't mean anyone, including Amazon, is obliged to help this guy get his seriously perverted, criminal message out. Censorship is when it's illegal to say something. A reputed company choosing not to help people spread a message like this is freedom of making a reasonable choice, not censorship. I'll certainly be exercising my freedom to shop elsewhere for now on.

Freedom without reasonable limits set by reasonable people is nothing but chaos.

[RD]

i do not believe in censorship... but I also do not believe in selling products of such distasteful content where children are able to access said content with just a click of the mouse, from a supposedly reputable site.

You do believe in censorship.  How many more of our freedoms will we sacrifice because of the perceived effect on our children?  The mythical child molester has already molded American males' lives to the point of crippling the big brothers' program and others -- now you want to ban a book?  The effect of a book (let's assume it is the worst) describing physical acts is not as debilitating as a society telling kids to constantly be aware, to trust no adult, especially males, and to go running to the authorities if someone is kind enough to offer them a ride.  I am glad I was a kid in the 60's and not now. Kim

some freedoms were not meant for distribution when our founding fathers wrote the constitution.  Describing physical acts to do to an unwilling minor and then to promote ways to get away with breaking the law, i can safely say, was NOT what the founders had in mind.. i dont give a crap who anyone is.  The constitution also states that those freedoms that we have are only provided when they do not bring harm to others or the commonwealth.  Wait until you find a court case where some pedophile was found to have this on his kindle.

you can fight this fight Kim, I just so hope your impartiality and unbias towards this despicable and socially unacceptable book is able to stomach the repercussions, pain, hurt, and physical/emotional damage that acceptance to this type of behavior is promoting and attempting to protect.

you say protecting his rights, but at what cost?  this guy is no better than those "terrorist for dummies" authors or "white pride" propaganda crap.  Freedom of speech, I get it... chalk this guy up next to Fred Phelps if you ask me.  They are on this earth in order to do one thing.. to demoralize and desensitize people to abhorrent, virulent, and harmful material in order to promote selfish, primal desires over that of the commonwealth.

[doctor4766]

Well said RD.
I cannot understand how a "how to" guide for pedophiles can even make it to publication, cyber or otherwise.
I only hope that the FBI are allowed access by Amazon to a list of those who download this ebook 

[elacruze]

Refusing to distribute the book does not equate to Censorship. That would merely be a marketing decision, since it would not call for the suppression or destruction of the material, nor would it affect distribution through other channels.
Freedom of the press does not equate to an obligation to distribute.
Amazon should refuse to be associated with this material.

[hemi68charger]

Refusing to distribute the book does not equate to Censorship. That would merely be a marketing decision, since it would not call for the suppression or destruction of the material, nor would it affect distribution through other channels.
Freedom of the press does not equate to an obligation to distribute.
Amazon should refuse to be associated with this material.

I guess Dodge dealerships should sell Chevy's............

[Todd Wilson]

 

[Todd Wilson]

 

[Ponch ®]

 

[nh_mopar_fan]

Refusing to distribute the book does not equate to Censorship. That would merely be a marketing decision, since it would not call for the suppression or destruction of the material, nor would it affect distribution through other channels.
Freedom of the press does not equate to an obligation to distribute.
Amazon should refuse to be associated with this material.

Bingo.

This isn't censorship.

Amazon is well within their rights to market the book. Free speech, however, is not without consequences such as boycotts and protests.

[Ponch ®]

you say protecting his rights, but at what cost?  this guy is no better than those "terrorist for dummies" authors or "white pride" propaganda crap.  

Well, books like The Turner Diaries and Hunter (which have inspired many a domestic terrorist/white supremacist, including McVeigh) have been on Amazon for a long time, but I don't see any similar furor raised over them.

I can see both sides of the argument, but it makes me nervous that Amazon is being vilified for selling the book. Trying to coerce Amazon not to sell the book IS a form of censorship. For a country that values freedom and personal choice, we sure do assume that people are stupid and can't decide for themselves whether something is acceptable or not. The book is not going to create more pedophiles -odds are that if you're inclined to look for such a book, you already have a problem - just like a book about guns is not necessarily going to create another Columbine.

We don't have Freedom of Speech to protect our rights to say "Puppies and Flowers are cute"....we have it to protect stuff like this, even if it's nonsense and most reasonable individuals find it objectionable. But again, I see both sides of the argument here...

[RD]

you say protecting his rights, but at what cost?  this guy is no better than those "terrorist for dummies" authors or "white pride" propaganda crap.  

Well, books like The Turner Diaries and Hunter (which have inspired many a domestic terrorist/white supremacist, including McVeigh) have been on Amazon for a long time, but I don't see any similar furor raised over them.

never knew.. and if i did, i would post about them also.

I can see both sides of the argument, but it makes me nervous that Amazon is being vilified for selling the book. Trying to coerce Amazon not to sell the book IS a form of censorship.

I guess we should let the Yemeni corporation run our security for the ports under this concept.  Who are we to tell a business what they can and cannot do in the U.S.  Oh wait.. we did right?

For a country that values freedom and personal choice, we sure do assume that people are stupid and can't decide for themselves whether something is acceptable or not. The book is not going to create more pedophiles -odds are that if you're inclined to look for such a book, you already have a problem - just like a book about guns is not necessarily going to create another Columbine.

Can you say for sure, without a shadow of a doubt that this book will NOT create more pedophiles?  You mention that those who view this book are most likely inclined to exhibit this type of behavior.. true.. but did you forget to mention that this book provides hints and steps to allow for those who are "inclined" to try and get away with this heinous act?

We don't have Freedom of Speech to protect our rights to say "Puppies and Flowers are cute"....we have it to protect stuff like this, even if it's nonsense and most reasonable individuals find it objectionable. But again, I see both sides of the argument here...

I think in our crusade to achieve a sense of higher being in regards to liberty, this country and its citizens who champion such liberalist views, will find that all their hard work to maintain certain liberties for the "sake of" will only cause, allow, or create even larger problems that go against basic moral principle.  There are times in which political correctness only invigorates and cultivates malevolent behavior.  Complacence in regards to illegal, immoral, and disgusting acts will lead to larger problems in the future.  The moral degradation of our society is in full swing... so in order to maintain a liberalist perspective of freedom of speech, we will continue to strengthen that resolve.

There are some things in life far more important that someone being allowed to have a venue to purport their criminal beliefs and sodomy based sexual desires.... one of those things is the safety of the citizens (e.g the children).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40131445#40127924

[learical1]

I understand that all the hubbub over this book has shot sales through the roof, placing it on back order, and keeping the regular purchasers (priests) from getting their copies! 

[John_Kunkel]

RD's side won, Amazon folded to pressure from the do-gooders.

[chargerboy69]

and keeping the regular purchasers (priests) from getting their copies! 

Nice.   

[Black Charger]

The old adage "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD" applies here.

Sure, Amazon has every right to sell whatever books they want to regardless of whatever message they represent, but is it really a good idea? Do they really want to be associated with pedophilia in any shape or form? THAT is something that Amazon and other book retailers should seriously consider before selling harmful material such as this.

[RD]

RD's side won, Amazon folded to pressure from the do-gooders.

yeah for the do-gooders... I much like that label better than do-badders.

[bull]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

You do believe in censorship.  How many more of our freedoms will we sacrifice because of the perceived effect on our children?  The mythical child molester has already molded American males' lives to the point of crippling the big brothers' program and others -- now you want to ban a book?  The effect of a book (let's assume it is the worst) describing physical acts is not as debilitating as a society telling kids to constantly be aware, to trust no adult, especially males, and to go running to the authorities if someone is kind enough to offer them a ride.  I am glad I was a kid in the 60's and not now. Kim

RD's side won, Amazon folded to pressure from the do-gooders.

[last426]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

Someone has to fight to keep you free.  You see, I make these arguments to maintain your liberties and because words don't hurt. Gee, I have to go get a Kleenex -- I'm tearing up (or maybe I have a fetish for public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films). Kim

[bull]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

Someone has to fight to keep you free.  You see, I make these arguments to maintain your liberties and because words don't hurt. Gee, I have to go get a Kleenex -- I'm tearing up (or maybe I have a fetish for public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films). Kim

Right. You're protecting our freedoms. I think your "genius" is wasted on the wrong causes. Instead of defending pedophilia and selling fridge alarms to protect this faux freedom you're referring to perhaps your oft, self-proclaimed brilliance could be utilized in a more laudable, productive way. Here's a good one that even the most leftist dirtbag would deem worthy: try to convince this nation's federal government to eliminate its $13.7 trillion in national debt, or its $200 billion interest pit on that debt, or its $594 billion trade deficit. Or maybe you could work toward helping Americans eliminate their $2 trillion in consumer debt, or maybe the $802 billion in credit card debt, hmmm? Your status with me would probably elevate to sub-human if you worked toward that end for a year or two. You think anyone in this nation is free with this debt monkey on our backs? Not even close. The ship's going down and you're worried about "saving" the mangy rats on board. What a legacy!

[Todd Wilson]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

I seen that in a movie once!!!!!!


Todd

[last426]

Someone has to fight to keep you free.  You see, I make these arguments to maintain your liberties and because words don't hurt. Gee, I have to go get a Kleenex -- I'm tearing up (or maybe I have a fetish for public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films). Kim

Right. You're protecting our freedoms.

You're welcome.  Kim

[bull]

Someone has to fight to keep you free.  You see, I make these arguments to maintain your liberties and because words don't hurt. Gee, I have to go get a Kleenex -- I'm tearing up (or maybe I have a fetish for public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films). Kim

Right. You're protecting our freedoms.

You're welcome.  Kim

Your laziness only strengthens my argument, and your screwy opinion on the topic makes you sound more foolish than I ever could. I rest my case.

[Ponch ®]

For my final  on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

[bull]

For my final  on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

There are exceptions to every rule and certain lines are drawn in certain places for a reason. This topic is a good example of that.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both."

[learical1]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Voltaire

However, just because someone is talking, that doesn't mean you're required to listen.

[Ponch ®]

For my final   on this:

The thing to keep on mind during these arguments about freedom of speech, constitutionality, etc...is this: It's easy to say "this is the right thing to do" when you agree with it..but someday someone might decide that something you don't agree with is good for you, and use the same arguments about how "freedom of speech doesn't cover this" or "the constitution is a living document" to get their way. And you'll have no way to argue, because you already agreed with those arguments in the past (when it was something you supported).

There are exceptions to every rule and certain lines are drawn in certain places for a reason. This topic is a good example of that.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both."

That's a fine argument...but what I'm leery of is who decides what the limitations and boundaries are? A judge? the community? Whoever is in charge? What if some activist Judge or community one day decides that Glenn Beck or Anne Coulter's books cross those boundaries? Or that owning a gun is a danger to the community and that danger supercedes the 2nd amendment? We've already seen examples of that recently - even the San Fagcisco Happy Meal controversy is an example of that. Sometimes common sense prevails, some times it doesn't, but the fact that it gets to that point worries me some times.

[bull]

That's why this nation's governance was designed to function using checks and balances. It's not perfect, and there are frequent abuses, but it seems to be better than most other ideas humanity has come up with.

[Brock Samson]

 I guess sometimes erring on the side of caution has it's downsides but perhaps not quite as much as living in a totalitarian facist nanny state,.. wait,..  yeah,.. 

[John_Kunkel]

I much like that label better than do-badders.

Depends on the context, you obviously missed the nuance.

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

[Ponch ®]

Ahh, these guys never disappoint do they? I think Kim would defend the production of public incestuous amputee bestiality snuff films if he had the chance.

I seen that in a movie once!!!!!!


Todd

yeah, I think you sent me that email 

[PocketThunder]

I guess sometimes erring on the side of caution has it's downsides but perhaps not quite as much as living in a totalitarian facist nanny state,.. wait,..  yeah,.. 

[bull]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

[RD]

I much like that label better than do-badders.

Depends on the context, you obviously missed the nuance.

no, i just decided to ignore your nuance as it was intended to make your definition of "do-gooders" just as despicable as pedophiles.

you cannot just let things go unchecked.  the freedom of speech protects the burning of the U.S. flag (which i find horrible, distasteful, and about the most unpatriotic thing to do besides being a traitor, of which in my definition you are if you burn the flag), freedom of speech protects fred phelps and his band of hooligans to protest fallen soldiers funerals by calling them names or saying they deserved to die due to the sins of this nation, freedom speech protects this pro-pedosexual author and many other fanatic authors in regards to writing about topics that are taboo, terrorist based, or simply detrimental and totally against the innate and foundational morals in which this society was based on and that I would like to "think" we still live in.

you may think that the censorship of this book (which is not happening because it is allowed to be published) is a stepping stone to the encroachment of government (i.e. big brother) and that it will lead to more censorship and a major travesty's.  But I am sorry, I totally disagree with you.  This type of literary work needs to be kept in check as it leads to a greater demoralization of a society through acceptance and desensitization of illegal and disgusting acts.  You say the author needs his rights, he's got them.. but that will not stop me from exercising my right by putting pressure on any entity that wants to sell this filth to the masses.

The book no longer being able to be purchased through Amazon.com just shows how the majority has ruled.  You cry violation of freedom of speech, I state that you all just saw democracy in its most natural state.

The fact that Kim and John are so willing to side with this pro-pedophile author's rights, just makes me question if your values are so skewed to the left that you are unable to discern or absorb any other possible opinion that does not coincide with your own, no matter how commonsensical it may be?

[RD]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

I am censored on this forum from talking about God, will you fight for me to stop this madness of censorship?

[Brock Samson]

Which God are we talking about?.. 

[RD]

Which God are we talking about?.. 

i cannot say.. i am censored to discuss it.. hence i hoping john will save me from my turmoil

[Vainglory, Esq.]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

I enjoy reading these types of arguments, but too many of them are so jumbled as to be impossible to follow. 

[John_Kunkel]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

I am censored on this forum from talking about God, will you fight for me to stop this madness of censorship?

Consider yourself lucky that Bible-thumping is discouraged here, you DEFINITELY wouldn't want to hear my replies to your religious tirades but, having said that, I disapprove of the "madness" of censoring your madness.

[bull]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far, just as it takes pretty much every concept too far. Common sense says free speech has limits, reality says it has limits, the Supreme Court says it has limits, etc.

[Ponch ®]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far,

Actually it does the opposite most of the time.

[RD]

And I'd be right along side him defending against censorship.

Yup, the PC Gestapo marches on...

Quick question.  How is it PC to defend a book about pedophiles?

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far,

Actually it does the opposite most of the time.

political correctness is a two word phrase that can be summed up as:

fearful to offend others so that the offender may look like a horse's ass

it only hinders free speech because people are so afraid of "how they may be viewed by others" that they allow it to have that power.  you can be "PC" and still promote rational refutation without offense.  they may not like what you say, but you can still do it in a manner that promotes thought and civility.

PC does not hinder free speech, those that are too worried about their image are the ones that hinder their free speech.

[John_Kunkel]

I wonder if anybody else noticed that the individual who initiated this thread, and voiced his indignation at the morality of it all, chose to use the term "screwed the pooch" which is a term that describes beastiality and might be offensive to those with high moral standards.

I guess "moral standards" are, indeed, in the eye/ear of the beholder.

[RD]

I wonder if anybody else noticed that the individual who initiated this thread, and voiced his indignation at the morality of it all, chose to use the term "screwed the pooch" which is a term that describes beastiality and might be offensive to those with high moral standards.

I guess "moral standards" are, indeed, in the eye/ear of the beholder.

i believe you are just overthinking things and are looking at my words to mean something only to strengthen your liberal agenda.  and you say fox news stretches the truth.. have you looked in a mirror lately?

u should be a campaign manager.. your typical mudslinging approach when all your other attempts at civil discussion has failed is pretty much you, par for the course.

[John_Kunkel]

No stretching of the truth here RD, a simple statement of facts borne out by the original post and your ultra right-wing comments that followed.

You can always tell when a hypocrite has been caught in the act, he tries to make the accuser the bad guy and accuses him of "mudslinging".

[RD]

Um.. humans are all hypocrites. so i guess your definition applies to you also?

~edit~  i wonder sometimes if you try your hardest just to incite things so you can feel better about yourself?

~edit edit~  ultra right-wing?  wow... never been called that before.. i guess it balances out your ultra left-wing?

[John_Kunkel]

Um.. humans are all hypocrites. so i guess your definition applies to you also?

Sure, but I don't make a habit of initiating threads that prove it.

~edit~  i wonder sometimes if you try your hardest just to incite things so you can feel better about yourself?

From the author of so many threads that contain controversial material. Does inciting moral indignation put steps in your stairway to Heaven?

~edit edit~  ultra right-wing?  wow... never been called that before.. i guess it balances out your ultra left-wing?

Mini-minds always confuse disagreement with their views as being the work of a polar opposites.

[Ponch ®]

 

[RD]

Sure, but I don't make a habit of initiating threads that prove it.

you nailed it 

you dont have to reply in my threads you know?  you can keep on thumbing through the other ones. didnt know if you knew that or not, but it is true.

From the author of so many threads that contain controversial material. Does inciting moral indignation put steps in your stairway to Heaven?

nope

Mini-minds always confuse disagreement with their views as being the work of a polar opposites.

u deliberately attempt to demean me with your words.  the mini-minds comment?  totally uncalled for.  in effect, you are saying all those that disagree with you are simpleton's who are incapable of thought at your level.  in essence, you say we are dumb, and you are smart.  totally lacking in fact and proof, purely opinionated and asinine.  you sir, are nothing but an internet bully

[Tilar]

RD's side won, Amazon folded to pressure from the do-gooders.

Gee, All the Michael Jackson wannabes are probably pissed now.

[bull]

Political correction takes the concept of free speech too far,

Actually it does the opposite most of the time.
[/quote]

You're correct but only when it goes against the PC-approved verbiage. So knowing the way these people think (or don't) they will probably approve of pedophile publications as long as the words contained therein adhere to what they see as the correct word usage. In other words, when the pedophile author describes how to go about molesting a black kid the important thing is that he use the term African-American.

Actually, I should have used a less PC term to describe the people I was talking about. How about "cultural Marxists" or "left-wing, socialist zealots?" That's a more honest approach.

[PocketThunder]

Did anyone notice that the two members having the majority of the conversation here happen to both be our resident transmission experts!  What are the chances?   

[John_Kunkel]

you dont have to reply in my threads you know?  you can keep on thumbing through the other ones. didnt know if you knew that or not, but it is true.

Sure I know it but pointing out the hypocricy of the holy is so much fun I can't resist.

u deliberately attempt to demean me with your words. 

Gee, no shit? You think?

the mini-minds comment?  totally uncalled for.

Wrong, totally called for and spot on. Only a mini-mind would accuse an opponent of being a Liberal just because they reject right-wing brainwashing. Labeling me a Liberal is just as, or more of an insult than those you perceive coming from me. Goose/gander. 

in effect, you are saying all those that disagree with you are simpleton's (sic) who are incapable of thought at your level.

Never even remotely hinted that, what I'm saying that those who place labels on opponents based on one narrow range of issues (that describes you) ain't too bright. 

[Ponch ®]

You guys still arguing about this and the condoms? Damn, Cabin Fever is starting early this year.

[Vainglory, Esq.]

Did anyone notice that the two members having the majority of the conversation here happen to both be our resident transmission experts!  What are the chances?   

Are you saying they love the trannies?  Because that would totally change the complexion of this conversation.