tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post890995704166061953..comments2024-03-28T20:50:49.311-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Sci Fi VisionsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6656355142115798412016-05-26T21:12:36.602-07:002016-05-26T21:12:36.602-07:00@Rob H (this can't be passed up) - "I hav...@Rob H (this can't be passed up) - "I have actually considered writing a novel in which Red Sonya of Rogatino...helps a zombified Conan swims through Cthulhu's "brain" devouring it and keeping Cthulhu from waking fully. I just don't think I could do it justice."<br /><br />You just did. ;-) (OK, sorry, onward indeed)donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54002137641970925962016-05-26T18:54:20.091-07:002016-05-26T18:54:20.091-07:00Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard?
Actuall...Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard?<br /><br />Actually, as a sane human of decent esthetic tastes, naturally, "my favorite is Curly." Um duh?<br /><br />What I don't get is some folks's hatred on poor Shemp, the third Howard brother, and - in my opinion - a terrific comic genius!<br /><br />Under-rated... Larry Fine. A truly great comedian!<br /><br />My respects to the family, Rob. wub- wub- wub- wub- wub- wub- wub-!<br /><br /><br />And onward<br /><br /><br />onward.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64640592396036714572016-05-26T18:54:01.599-07:002016-05-26T18:54:01.599-07:00And as an aside, I have actually considered writin...And as an aside, I have actually considered writing a novel in which Red Sonya of Rogatino is somehow transported back in time and helps a zombified Conan fight cultists seeking to raise the house at R'lyeh to awaken dread Cthulhu... and end the book with H.P. Lovecraft and certain other authors on the boat that smashed into Cthulhu's head, and having him rescue a delirious Sonja while a hideously mutated zombie-Conan swims through Cthulhu's "brain" devouring it and keeping Cthulhu from waking fully.<br /><br />I just don't think I could do it justice.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40193647332254354812016-05-26T18:50:43.355-07:002016-05-26T18:50:43.355-07:00Poor loco. The Consortium against "might make...Poor loco. The Consortium against "might makes right" is so sneaky and unfair, the way they keep winning. Their ways just verify your victimhood.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64374804662565493892016-05-26T18:45:59.703-07:002016-05-26T18:45:59.703-07:00Yes, Dr. Brin. I have survived 110 years and past ...Yes, Dr. Brin. I have survived 110 years and past my "death" by eating the brains of people curious as to if I'm "the" Robert Howard. As to my relation to the Stooges, I'm not sure. I am related (indirectly) to Catherine Anne, who kind of lost her head over Henry VIII. ;)<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10785134358540061262016-05-26T18:38:12.889-07:002016-05-26T18:38:12.889-07:00Treebeard in his sexual mojo theory clearly (and ...Treebeard in his sexual mojo theory clearly (and supported by past evidence) speaks for himself. <br />OTOH Locum has been taking vitamins. Still a bit chilling, but cogently expressed.<br /><br />In fact, I am all for empowering people to supply their own deterrence, not with fists or guns but cameras. All under the umbrella of a looser govt that is still capable of deterring abuse by fists and guns.<br /><br />LarryHart hast post of the day with: “No, my parents taught me to use my powers for good on the farm back in Smallville. Apparently, your parents taught you a different lesson as they lay twitching and bleeding on the streets of Gotham City--that the world only makes sense when you force it to.”<br /><br />MArino, sure, ironies abound. But Alvin & Huck would have no patience with PM theorists.<br /><br />Donzel you leave out that the court then smashes gerrymandering and electoral cheating to bits and THEN the dems take the House.<br /><br />Rob are you seriously the author of Conan? Or a relative of the Stooges?<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69326638608310484002016-05-26T18:14:26.336-07:002016-05-26T18:14:26.336-07:00@Marino: For the short time I considered contribut...@Marino: For the short time I considered contributing in the writing sense to the 1632 farm team, the ideas I had in mind were more analogous to foam than to lasers. The original singularity was described as spherical with high precision, so breaking that would be bad, but the people involved described only the spatial shape. As David’s story exploits, they could not describe the temporal shape. That means there is no reason one can’t have other singularities pop through as the foam’s interior surfaces pass through an observer’s apparent reality. That leaves all sorts of room for fan fiction that isn’t part of the main story line.<br /><br />Since the original 1632 novel did speak briefly about a race (descendants of humans apparently) being miffed at the race responsible, that would leave room for corrective actions from way uptime or across the multiverse. Lots of fun to be had.<br /><br />One thing to note in the current Ring of Fire book is Flint’s estimate of how many words have been written for 1632 universe stories. I hadn’t realized how big that number was getting. Avoiding contradiction isn’t easy anymore.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67727027149922410962016-05-26T17:47:49.326-07:002016-05-26T17:47:49.326-07:00@donzelion: If we have any relevance it is in shif...@donzelion: If we have any relevance it is in shifting the alliances under each umbrella. The minor parties lose, but certain factions win after a realignment. TR represented a progressive wing of the Republicans which Wilson effectively took for the Democrats in some states.<br /><br />Perot was an extra dagger in Bush Sr's back. The economy was the first one and more than enough for the job.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15395357483565831452016-05-26T17:42:41.486-07:002016-05-26T17:42:41.486-07:00@Laurent: Last time I checked, the most tried and ...@Laurent: Last time I checked, the most tried and failed Constitutional amendment is the one for fixing the Electoral College. Everyone has known for 20+ decades that it has problems. We've learned the only way to fix it is to call a Convention and no one wants to open that can of worms except the people who want to burn the nation down.<br /><br />The number of things that need fixing is HUGE just to bring us into line with how we ACTUALLY operate the government. Add on what all the idealists want and we have a feast prepared for a civil war.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38268567621504598672016-05-26T17:40:51.715-07:002016-05-26T17:40:51.715-07:00@Laurent - gosh, I really had no idea I'd be d...@Laurent - gosh, I really had no idea I'd be debating the '92 elections today. If I am mentally masturbating, then you're either voyeuristic or indulgent. ;-) <br /><br />You've convinced me though, so I'll concede: Perot did not cause Bush Sr.'s downfall. Here's <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/" rel="nofollow">another persuasive article on point.</a> I'm still a bit leery of the numbers (50/35 split among voters seems odd - I still think the Perotists jumped aboard the Gingrich "Contract on America" in '94, and look at the states Clinton grabbed in '92 which became Republican-leaners soon after).<br /><br />Reverting to the original premise, on 3rd party candidates. My first observation is that conventional wisdom deems them mostly irrelevant. On presidential elections - MAYBE '00 Nader flipped Florida to Bush Jr. Other than that, it hasn't happened since Taft/Wilson/Roosevelt. donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62230518681102030702016-05-26T17:32:47.662-07:002016-05-26T17:32:47.662-07:00@locumranch: I’m not sure you get it. My liberty e...@locumranch: I’m not sure you get it. My liberty ends when your fist reaches my nose because you are now coercing me. It’s not really about passive and active. It’s about negative and positive definitions of freedom. My liberty is intact if I am not being coerce, thus a punch in the nose demonstrates the problem.<br /><br />OBVIOUSLY, my liberty is defended by my own fists, but I’d much rather coax you into not punching me. Most people avoid coercing me and I try to reciprocate and leave the use of fists implied but unsaid. It’s a good deal since when most of us do it; we get to devote our effort and resources to accomplish other things than defense of our personal liberty. It comes down to trust. I don’t withhold my fists as an act of Prudence. I withhold them as an act of Justice, Love, and a bit of Faith and Hope. Trust.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24255164561869082422016-05-26T17:15:26.998-07:002016-05-26T17:15:26.998-07:00I don't know that they are half of the LP. Fro...I don't know that they are half of the LP. From what I've seen in southern CA, utopians of another variety (Peace always) out-number them. The Randians are the most vocal, but that leads to a measurement selection effect. At least near where I live, you would not be in a minority among them. You are describing a piece of classical liberalism which fits well with many.<br /><br />Even if you are correct, though, going for a minority of a minority party looks to me like a recipe for political irrelevance. I'd rather draw people into the regular LP and out-number the Randians. Let THEM form a pure splinter party or stick with us because they really don't have any better options. Parties that accomplish anything are like umbrellas sheltering people who choose to tolerate each other for a while.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48011178016814875962016-05-26T17:03:53.654-07:002016-05-26T17:03:53.654-07:00Except Social Libertarianism isn't for the maj...Except Social Libertarianism isn't for the majority of libertarians. At this point over half of libertarians are Randians who feel corporations have greater rights than people, that courts can exist without governments, and that their ideals would work if only we abolished that evil thing called government. Just give us a chance guys! Honest! Oh, and just leave all the pre-existing infrastructure since you already made it. You can keep the bill.<br /><br />Social Libertarianism is for the minority of libertarians who, like myself, realize government regulations are required in some areas - business, environment, national defense, preventing state government overreach, etc. but who still want personal freedoms. It's the "get the government out of my personal affairs" group... which includes some Tea Partiers who are anti-Democrat but hate what the Republicans have done, the Coffee Party and Occupy movements, and other non-political/independents.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78863440206909785002016-05-26T16:51:55.364-07:002016-05-26T16:51:55.364-07:00@Rob H: Regarding your Social Libertarian Party id...@Rob H: Regarding your Social Libertarian Party idea, I’ll respectfully suggest you are philosophically doomed the moment you put an adjective in front of ‘liberty’. The real quagmire shows up when you try to parse your options in terms of Prudence because Liberty is a transcendent concept. Think about it. Some would use the term Sacred. Prudence is at the Profane level of life (the other end), so you’ll have to write many, many volumes before you’ve specified the intricacies. I doubt you’ll get enough people to read it to form a viable party, let alone agree. Look at how small the current Libertarians are.<br /><br />Talk to a lot of libertarians and you’ll hear them speak of liberty as Liberty. It takes the role of Faith or Identity when considering the classic virtues. Even if they are religious, they still might refer to it as Liberty and be at risk of violating Commandment #1. We used to make icons of US coinage, right? 8)<br /><br />The moment you bring things down toward Earth and think in terms of other virtues like Justice or Prudence, you WILL have to pluralize liberty and deal with all of them if you want to deal with market complexities, fists and noses, and dilemmas regarding other transcendent ideas like Democracy, Family, and Progress. Doing so is the fastest way to get libertarians to waste their time attacking each other with the writing and enforcing of purity tests. I’ve seen it. It’s worse than shouting SQUIRREL in the right crowd. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39411524729210560692016-05-26T16:25:28.973-07:002016-05-26T16:25:28.973-07:00@Paul451: My apologies. I didn’t mean to imply the...@Paul451: My apologies. I didn’t mean to imply they were your numbers or statements. I got that you were relaying things. It’s just that they don’t jibe with what I know. Obviously, I could be wrong, so I’ll do the honest thing and go check with my friends. They should have inside information that helps shape their campaign efforts.<br /><br />Maybe those numbers are correct, but I’ll see if I can add something useful instead of my usual offering of opinion. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37444848672667633812016-05-26T15:36:52.223-07:002016-05-26T15:36:52.223-07:00A slightly belated bit of historico-linguistic ped...A slightly belated bit of historico-linguistic pedantry from the Netherlands...<br /><br />A few posts ago, <b>Paul SB said...</b><br /><br /><i>My mother is from Holland, and likes to say that the people of the Low Countries did not have a tradition of using surnames until Roman times. When the Roman tax collectors came along and demanded that everyone tell them their surnames, the locals often came up with very random things like "teakettle." Her own maiden name is just the number four. Perhaps that started with a fourth son who couldn't think of anything better....</i><br /><br />The story is fine, but the dates are off.<br /><br />Until the seventeenth century, proper surnames weren't really used in the Netherlands except among the nobility. If secondary names were needed, they were descriptive -- eg: Jan Willems, or Jan, Willems son -- and both variable and impermanent. Starting in the seventeenth century, they became more common in the larger cities, as more people meant more need to distinguish between them, but even then, "surnames" might change from time to time and generation to generation.<br /><br />It was under the French, in 1811, that surnames were finally formalized, with a law requiring every family to have a standard surname, and that surname to be passed down from father to children. But only in more rural areas did this mean choosing a surname; in the cities and larger towns it mostly just meant formalizing surnames that already existed.<br /><br />As for the 'Vier' (the number four), I wouldn't be surprised if it is a variation on 'Veer', which could come from either 'veer' (feather) or 'veerpont' (ferry). The stories of people choosing silly names are mostly just stories.<br />greg byshenknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31062565923790290902016-05-26T15:14:44.251-07:002016-05-26T15:14:44.251-07:00locumranch:
Larry_H makes a good point:
Oh, I m...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Larry_H makes a good point:<br /></i><br /><br />Oh, I must have been wrong, then.<br /><br /><i><br />Our right to swing our fists at his nose is limited only by his ability (and/or the ability of his proxies) to retaliate & escalate in kind.<br /></i><br /><br />Was that my point?<br /><br />No, my parents taught me to use my powers for good on the farm back in Smallville. Apparently, your parents taught you a different lesson as they lay twitching and bleeding on the streets of Gotham City--that the world only makes sense when you force it to.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82993698302347706952016-05-26T14:53:54.415-07:002016-05-26T14:53:54.415-07:00* "I never met a Perot supporter who'd be...<b>*</b> "<i>I never met a Perot supporter who'd been a Dukakis supporter</i>"<br /><br />No: what you never met is a Dukakis supporter who'd admit to have voted for Perot without the cover of anonymity.<br /><br />***<br /><br /><b>*</b> "<i>But lets assume the numbers are accurate: how do they play out if Perot took 65% from Bush, and 35% from Clinton</i>"<br /><br />It's not 35% for Clinton and 65% for Bush: it's 35% for Clinton, 50% for Bush and 15% not voting: remember that Perot's presence <b>increased</b> the turnout.<br /><br />In that case, Bush would have won Georgia, NH, Ohio, New Jersey, Montana and Nevada with paper-thin leads, while Clinton would have won, -also with paper-thin leads- Kentucky and Wisconsin, with Louisiana and Tennessee coming to Clinton with more comfortable leads, and Colorado being a virtual tie.<br /><br />So you'd have Bush senior loosing the popular vote by three million voices, and coming 34 to 42 electors short to win the electoral college. A closer contest, but one ultimately won by Clinton nonetheless. At most, perhaps some wonks looking at the close state races would have realized that the electoral college was screwed up 8 years before it became obvious.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47709604901436725472016-05-26T14:49:53.630-07:002016-05-26T14:49:53.630-07:00Larry_H makes a good point:
Our right to swing o...<br />Larry_H makes a good point: <br /><br />Our right to swing our fists at his nose is limited only by his ability (and/or the ability of his proxies) to retaliate & escalate in kind.<br /><br />So it goes with surveillance & sousveillance as evidenced by (1) Thiel's ability to score maximum hit points on Gawker & the Fourth Estate, (2) Russia's annexation of Crimea & choice bits of the Ukraine, and (3) France's 'état d'urgence' ability to rescind due process & institute martial law.<br /><br />The Rule-of-Law is representational rather than physical. It is the map whereas Brute Force is the territory; and, we forget this icky detail at our own peril.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83242279628921953812016-05-26T13:46:35.920-07:002016-05-26T13:46:35.920-07:00@Laurent - much as I enjoy mental masturbation, so...@Laurent - much as I enjoy mental masturbation, sometimes I like argumentation better, particularly with some math behind it. I never met a Perot supporter who'd been a Dukakis supporter, and shrug off the exit numbers as improbable since they jar with what I experienced. They're perhaps more plausible than a "40% want to bomb a fictitious country" poll, but not much. <br /><br />But lets assume the numbers are accurate: how do they play out if Perot took 65% from Bush, and 35% from Clinton, so if Perot hadn't existed, those voters would have divided up accordingly to the other two candidates?<br /><br />You only need 270 votes to win, Clinton got 370 and Bush 168. However, absent Perot, and under the margin of victory in the actual elections, Bush would have taken Georgia (13 votes), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (21), New Jersey (15), Montana (3), Nevada (4), Kentucky (8), Colorado (8), Wisconsin (11), Louisiana (9), and Tennessee (11) (Tennessee is the borderline case - Gore brought a bit of power there, and his family was well-connected - it could well have been a hairsplitter in '92). 107 + 168 = win. New Jersey leans Dem, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado are swing states, and the rest are Republican-lean states. This is not a wild fantasy.<br /><br />Point is, even if Clinton stomped all over Bush in California, NY, and several other states, and won 75% of the popular vote, but-for Perot, he might well have lost the election as it actually played out. Which every Democrat and every Republican professional you will ever hear from will vehemently reject as ridiculous.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-431206590572288172016-05-26T13:38:03.874-07:002016-05-26T13:38:03.874-07:00Robert:
People keep stating they have been disapp...Robert:<br /><i><br />People keep stating they have been disappointed with the Obama Presidency.<br /><br />Here is a question: why are you disappointed in it?<br /></i><br /><br />First of all, though my wording may well have been ambiguous, I didn't mean that I personally am disappointed in Obama (well, except for TPP). I mean that there was so much expectation that came with his election that the reality of governing, even the parts that weren't his fault, was dispiriting enough that Democrats pretty much stayed home on election day 2010. That led to disaster, not only in the House, but in many state governments which promptly gerrymandered their districts to lock in Republican victories for a decade. We <b>have</b> to reverse that in 2020 after the next census, and I'd hate to see the same sort of thing follow a Bernie presidency that could face the same opposition Obama did.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7419921397963167832016-05-26T13:28:17.378-07:002016-05-26T13:28:17.378-07:00* "OK, enough Trump for the month. What about...<b>*</b> "<i>OK, enough Trump for the month. What about Thiel?</i>"<br /><br />Gawker is now trying to <a href="http://gawker.com/this-is-why-billionaire-peter-thiel-wants-to-end-gawker-1778734026" rel="nofollow">portray itself as the victim</a>, claiming that Thiel wasn't going after Gawker for outing him as gay to the plebs, but because some of their articles portrayed him as <a href="http://gawker.com/5831434/a-facebook-billionaires-big-dumb-failure" rel="nofollow">less than the hyper-competent whizkid</a> he claims to be and exposed his <a href="http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote" rel="nofollow">fascistic fantasies</a> to the hoi polloi.<br /><br />A lot of it is self-serving spin, obviously, but I wouldn't dismiss the Thiel's vendetta is in part motivated by anger at tabloids not acting like lickspittle easily drafted in his PR department and discreetly sweeping under the carpet his hard-on for feudal parasitism.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71520184885502538112016-05-26T13:14:09.340-07:002016-05-26T13:14:09.340-07:00People keep stating they have been disappointed wi...People keep stating they have been disappointed with the Obama Presidency.<br /><br />Here is a question: why are you disappointed in it?<br /><br />Obama has been stymied by constant opposition from the Republican Party. Despite that, he did manage to push through a number of small measures. Things ARE better under Obama even if we didn't have any huge spectacular successes that can be directly attributed to him. Well, other than a treaty to limit nuclear weapons. ;)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all" rel="nofollow">Here's 50 things that Obama has done</a> though I'm not sure if all of chorse could be considered positives. <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487?o=0" rel="nofollow">This article goes into further depth and is probably a good read to understand what he's accomplished</a>. And unlike some politicians he doesn't beat his drum constantly with each success. He moves on to the next problem.<br /><br />So. Obama has disappointed by doing a damn difficult job with lots of opponents and succeeding despite the obstacles. And of course he disappoints because Republicans insist he's done a horrible job and theirs are the words we hear rather than seeing what is going on.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26293826191848411242016-05-26T13:11:58.734-07:002016-05-26T13:11:58.734-07:00@locumranch
You're deliberately conflating ag...@locumranch<br /><br />You're deliberately conflating aggression and defense. Or conflating the starting of a fight with returning fire.<br /><br />By your "logic", Pearl Harbor was the fault of the US for having a naval base that happened to be under the bombs that the Japanese exercised their right to drop.<br /><br />Your <b>right</b> to swing your fist ends at my nose. Unless my fist has impacted your nose first, in which case the metaphorical gloves are off. Everyone over the age of six knows the difference. Well, mostly everyone.<br /><br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55383207935483623872016-05-26T12:59:09.131-07:002016-05-26T12:59:09.131-07:00Like Rob_H, I was also raised on the dyslexic trop...<br /><br />Like Rob_H, I was also raised on the dyslexic trope that "(Your) Personal Liberty ends when your fist hits my nose", but now I see that this trope suffers from a reversed Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) order because (in truth) it is my personal liberty that ends when your fist impacts my nose.<br /><br />Why is this trope's SVO order important?<br /><br />In its original reversed form, personal liberty appears as a PASSIVE conceit as it is up to the other (you & "your fist") to restrain yourself & protect my liberty (and my nose).<br /><br />For those who know better, however, personal liberty must always be an ACTIVE process because (under MAD principles) it is my swinging fist that protects my nose & ends your personal liberties when your fist infringes on me & mine.<br /><br />It is MY fist, not yours, that protects my personal liberties; hence the Golden Rule; hence the 2nd Amendment; and, it is this truth that Trump understands & demonstrates, but not Hillary.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.com