Bizarro World, Censorship and Cowards

The ongoing feud between myself and “Ed” has culminated in what appears to be a full block.

He had hid behind the “oh, it’s a spam filter” excuse. But now, it’s is just out and out blocking.

It appears unless someone aligns with Ed’s Bizarro World, you will be -eventually- banned

Sadly, he is also a coward.

I had offered many times to leave, if he found my arguments too disturbing for his zealot horde.

But he doesn’t have the guts to post that.

It would ruin his image as a “tolerant socialist” – as if such a beast ever existed.

Advertisements

74 Responses to “Bizarro World, Censorship and Cowards”

  1. Kent McManigal Says:

    Yeah, well, seeing his comments on this blog, it doesn’t surprise me. He was completely intent on responding to everything with “La la la- I can’t HEAR you!!!”
    He asked for answers, and then when given answers, ignored them and pretended he hadn’t ever been answered.
    I think it’s just the collectivist disease that infects them all, whether “right” or “left”. They can’t even consider that there might not really be any such thing as a “greater good“, or whatever murderous drum they are beating.

  2. Black Flag® Says:

    …and not one… NOT ONE! … ventured even an attempt to answer “the question”…..

    Big salute to you, my netizen friend – I will remember the day I read your post and your definition – I tested it everywhere – it was an enlightenment because no where did it falter nor fail to define the substance of evil.

    It has become the most stern test – and the most defining.

    It sets to clear opposition those that merely preach “good will to all men” and those that act in such manner.

    I’ve said it over and over again – you are clearly a true sage within the realms of freedom.

  3. Ed Darrell Says:

    I don’t know what “question” it is you think is such a killer — perhaps you’re confusing your life with the Monty Python “killer joke” routine.

    BF, if you wanted me to keep pulling your posts out of the spam files, you might consider making it worth my while. Not sure why the spam filters decided you’re so evil, but as you know, Akismet has a fine way to specify what must be spam, but no way to specify what must NOT be spam.

    You knew that, right?

    You claim to be the expert.

    So while I’m working to save your posts, you call me a censor.

    Ingrate.

    Easier just to dump the whole spam list.

    It takes a particular brand of anal orifice to keep insulting people who do them favors.

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Ed,

      As I’ve pointed out endlessly, if you have a problem, ask for help.

      No one else has the problem, so it is you.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        You don’t have enough readers to have the problem. Again, you’ve not got a clue what you’re talking about.

        Begone, thank you.

        • Black Flag® Says:

          Ed,

          I operate on blogs a whole lot larger than yours, without a problem.

          The problem is yours.

          No, you have to tell me to leave on your blog

          This is my blog here – I will dictate who provide content and what is acceptable content here

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Ed,

      don’t know what “question” it is you think is such a killer

      The one that you never answer, no matter how many times it is asked of you.

      ….or is that the answer?… (That is, you have no answer at all?)

      Do you justify violence on non-violent people?

  4. Ed Darrell Says:

    Do you justify violence on non-violent people?

    No.

  5. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    Come to reasonable discussion, please.

    I am, but you are as clueless as James.

    He believes if the law says “this” – it must be true and right, and those that do not hold to such things must be ….how did he put it …. a ‘dumbass’.

    You don’t challenge him (because, of course, he is part of your cabal) – but you turn to me to be ‘reasonable’ when in fact that is exactly my point

    If you and he believe the law must be followed, if such a law dictated the death of innocent people, what would you do?

    Follow the law … or not?

  6. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    a few hundred studies on global warming have been published confirming the fact that warming occurs, and confirming the links to human activity as a cause of unnatural warming

    What a lie.

    You attach a fact (called “INTERGLACIAL” period) with a lie (it is human caused).

    The fact, sir, is your hypothesis has been discredited long ago.

    Only misanthropic zealots still cling to this garbage.

    (PS:
    I laugh at your polar bears – this has been totally discredited to a point that the possibility of criminal charges are being discussed …. but, leave it to Ed to still cling on for dear hope…)

    • Kent McManigal Says:

      Climate change. I had a little to say about it recently.

      I love nature and the environment. I pick up trash all the time and do all I can to prevent myself from causing pollution or environmental destruction (and have usually vastly cleaned up anywhere I have ever lived). I hate when dumb people propose to give the world’s worst polluter- The State- the power to tell everyone else how they should live.

      • Black Flag® Says:

        That is the essence, Kent.

        “The Greenies” demand mankind must commit suicide because “free men” love pollution!

        Free men do not “love” pollution – indeed, work tirelessly to make the world a better place for mankind ….

  7. Black Flag® Says:

    This is why you are a coward, Ed.

    From WordPress:
    ..any visitors that have had a comment approved on the blog in the past will get a free pass through approval and only comments from new visitors will go into moderation….

    You are censoring me – and all your obfuscation about it shows you a coward – you don’t want to appear as a censor, but you can’t stand to be shown a hypocrite, either.

  8. Black Flag® Says:

    More from the censored replies:
    From “Jim”
    Flag,

    No, only you and your wet-dream hero John Galt see how ridiculous I look.

    Bad government slaughtered millions. Good government (which you clearly oppose, putting you squarely in sympathy with the Nazis, the Fascists, the slave traders and owners and — ironically — the Marxists) saved millions more from being killed.

    But you don’t care — because you believe in magic Anarcho-Libertarian fairy dust. Never mind that it has never once worked in human history. Just keep believing and maybe one day the tooth fairy will show up.

    Meantime, just holler upstairs and Mom can bring another plate of Doritos to your basement bachelor pad, so you don’t have to break from a moment of World of Warlord action. I’m sure you’re leveling right up…

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Jim
      You are blinded by your Statist zealotry.

      Bad government slaughtered millions. Good government (which you clearly oppose, putting you squarely in sympathy with the Nazis, the Fascists, the slave traders and owners and — ironically — the Marxists) saved millions more from being killed.

      (I assume you believe your government is a “good” government):
      ….and it killed millions too – 300,000 innocent people in less than a second, if you’d recall in one episode.

      But you don’t care because you have bought into the belief that if what you support kills, maims and tortures, its “ok” …because the outcome is what you believe is a “good” – an example of your ego-centric world view.

      Besides – what is your definition of a “good” government?

      How do you know yours is a good government and another is not?

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    Every post you’ve ever posted is up. You really need to see a physician about those hallucinations.

  10. Black Flag® Says:

    Fix the problem, Ed – I even told you how.

    Otherwise you are censoring – ‘releasing’ locked posts days later is nearly pointless, and you know it, you coward.

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      You’re the problem, Black Flag.

      Worse, you’re a lying hypocrite. I explained at length the issue here a few hours ago, and you censored the thing.

      An ill-informed, irrational, prevaricating hypocrite. No wonder you get banned at all those other blogs — except mine.

      Watch out: You may get confused and censor yourself!

      • Black Flag® Says:

        Ed,
        I have no censor on this blog – so whatever your problem, it is you – again –

      • Kent McManigal Says:

        The problem, Ed, is that in the case of your word against BF’s you have a severe credibility problem. By your own posts we can all see with our own eyes that you are not exactly honest.

        You claim to not support using violence against the non-violent, yet you obviously do since you support The State- you just don’t want to be honest about your position. That doesn’t help your case.

        On the other hand I have had many dealings with BF, and although on a few issues we have a slight difference of opinion, I have always found him to be totally and completely honest and consistent. That helps his case.

        So, in a case where some things can only be known to the parties involved and bystanders will just have to take their word for it, you have shot yourself in the foot with your earlier behavior. You may not care, and it may please you to continue to blame BF, but until you rid yourself of all the inconsistencies that you have posted here in defense of the indefensible, you won’t get far.

        • Ed Darrell Says:

          I deal with people who have all sorts of delusions. Check out my blog — compare the posts BF has here with those that show at my blog. Where is there any post missing?

          The facts are on the record. BF is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his own set of facts.

          Don’t take my word for it. Come on over and see.

          On the other hand, anyone who will defend the obvious false claims of Black Flag and then make false accusations against me, or fail to support good government out of a delusional claim that your agreement to follow your word is somehow coerced out of you with violence . . . well, that rather speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

          Good government does not require violence, especially against good citizens. To those who refuse the duties of good citizenship, however, action may be required. Against moral people of good intention, violence is not required and not used.. Moral people of good intention don’t try to set verbal traps and make false claims about others.

          • Kent McManigal Says:

            See Ed, that’s why you have a credibility problem. You say things like “fail to support good government” when I do no such thing. Good government is self government. I am not “anti-government” as I explain in my most recent column. However, no State in history has ever been an example of a “good government”, because it just can’t happen.

            You also show that you believe in the myth of the “social contract” which you assume that everyone agrees to simply because they were born at a particular spot on the planet. That is truly delusional.

            But that isn’t the last of your delusional wackiness. You go on to claim that we believe “… that your agreement to follow your word is somehow coerced out of you with violence“. No I don’t believe that at all. I have given my word and it wasn’t coerced in any way. However, you assume I gave my word to comply with things I never agreed to. Those things will be enforced with violence.

            Every genocide in history has been carried out by “good citizens” like you. I am no one’s “citizen” for no State owns me.

            Morality shifts and changes over time and location. It is based upon delusion/religion. Ethics is constant. It is always wrong to attack and steal, no matter what your job may require of you. Having the silly hat of The State on your head changes nothing. Taxation is theft and is enforced with death. Keeping your own property is not wrong, even if The State says it is “illegal” and will kill you for defending yourself and your property. Your sad loyalty to your religion of Statism changes nothing.

            This is why I don’t believe what you say. You keep crying wolf when we can see there is no wolf, so when you claim there is an invisible wolf I am even less likely to bother to investigate than I otherwise would be.

  11. Ed Darrell Says:

    Hey, where are comments 565 and 566?

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Ed,
      The only comments I have that are not posted are ones regarding either a breast enhancement procedure or a way to earn an extra $1,000 a month at home.

      Are you claiming one or both of these?

      • Kent McManigal Says:

        BF- Check and see if you have any comments awaiting moderation rather than in the spam folder. I have noticed that when I post a comment that includes links it sometimes doesn’t get posted. I posted one at 8:01 AM that went into moderation. Perhaps Ed has some comments waiting there as well.

  12. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    I deal with people who have all sorts of delusions. Check out my blog — compare the posts BF has here with those that show at my blog. Where is there any post missing?

    Delayed.

    If I delayed your responses by – say 1 year – do you think you would be censored or not?

    The facts are on the record. BF is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his own set of facts.

    Facts?

    Or the imaginary cocktail you mix?

    Good government does not require violence, especially against good citizens.

    So, answer Kent’s questions –

    To those who refuse the duties of good citizenship, however, action may be required.

    Ah! So you DO justify violence on non-violent people to enforce your “bizarre” belief in “citizenship”!

    The old “No I don’t but yes I do” theory of violence.

    good intention

    So mere intentions is all that stands as a justification to beat a man to death?

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      Delayed.

      If I delayed your responses by – say 1 year – do you think you would be censored or not?

      Your posts were only delayed by my lack of time to get through the rafts of spam to free them.

      On the other hand, you appear to have deleted by response completely. What happened to comments #565 and #566?

  13. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    So here we are.

    In a direct question of:

    Do you justify violence on non-violent people?

    You answered with:


    No.

    But then, a few short sentences later said:

    To those who refuse the duties of good citizenship, however, action may be required [violence]

    Ah, Ed. The Red-faced magician.

    You agree to no violence, unless of course it interferes with your politics – then, of course upon those that refuse your brand of politics, violence is necessary.

    And, I venture, you do not even know how much you contradict yourself.

    • Kent McManigal Says:

      BF- Ed can’t see his inconsistency. He thinks that if someone doesn’t fulfill his (imaginary) duties of “good citizenship” he is attacking and hurting the poor, innocent State and deserves whatever he gets, including death. Never mind if the “bad citizen” harmed no one and was only suspected of smoking some leaves in the privacy of his home.

      Ed obviously believes in the “greater good”, as defined by collectivists, and other fairy tales. It is hard to reason with the delusional, especially when their delusions make them try to claim that you are delusional. Ed is delusional and displays his sickness with pride, while trying to pretend he is the rational one. It is so sad.

      • Ed Darrell Says:

        Ed obviously believes in the “greater good”, as defined by collectivists, and other fairy tales.

        I didn’t say that. Obviously you have a problem discussing what others actually say and what you wish to punch as a straw man.

        No wonder you think this blog is a refuge.

        • Kent McManigal Says:

          It isn’t a strawman, it is what you have advocated. You keep saying things like “A citizen’s obeying the law is not violence on anyone’s part.” when it certainly can be. When the “law” he obeys “legalizes” theft or aggression or makes it his job to enforce “laws”, using violent means, against people who are not attacking anyone. A cop (who is a “citizen” if anyone is) kicks in a door as a part of a “drug raid”, he is using violence against a non-violent individual. If he then shoots the resident he has doubled his offense. But the cop is only obeying the “law” since it tells him it is his “job” to do such evil and stupid things.

          Or do you not support the War on (some) Drugs? Or any other State action that is similar?

          If you do support the War on (some) Drugs, or gun prohibition, or anti-liquor “laws”, or seatbelt “laws”, or “taxation”, or an endless list of other “laws”, then by your support (or even by your refusal to object) you are complicit in the violence those “laws” inflict on those who do not deserve to be harmed right now.

          I can’t exactly fault you. You have grown up immersed in statism, and it is hard to rise above things you have been surrounded by since before you could even think. But, you now have an opportunity to rise above it.

          • Ed Darrell Says:

            But the cop is only obeying the “law” since it tells him it is his “job” to do such evil and stupid things.

            Or do you not support the War on (some) Drugs? Or any other State action that is similar?

            There is no law that says, “Cops should break into people’s homes and shoot them, in pursuit of ending drug trafficking.”

            Generally, no, I’m not fond of the “war on drugs.” But I do recognize that no law against drugs says “shoot those who violate the law.” As a pragmatic matter, there are thousands of arrests of drug dealers (and drug users, the greater misfortune for the nation) where there is no violence at all. The cops say, “You’re under arrest,” and the arrestee complies.

            No violence.

            You’re arguing a radical position that is so far out it is, as Pauli once complained of a physics paper that was screwed up, “not even wrong.”

            Your “complete opposition to government violence” conveniently forgets/omits/ignores the fact that those who traffic in controlled and illegal substances often have used weapons against the authorities, and against innocents, to secure their traifficking . Don’t argue that cops shouldn’t use violence against the Al Capones, nor the Medellin Cartel, nor the cartels operating in Mexico.

            Justifications for the war on drugs tend to be quite separate from whether those who protect the public should be armed to protect the public. Surely you do not really mean to advocate government by warlord in America, do you? At a minimum, that would not involve less violence.

            Consequently, I do not take your question seriously. You can’t be serious in offering it.

          • Kent McManigal Says:

            You say “The cops say, ‘You’re under arrest,’ and the arrestee complies. No violence.

            So kidnapping is not violence? Holding someone prisoner is not violence? Or is it only “not violence” as long as it is committed by agents of The State? Or, do you consider the act of taking hostage a person who is not harming anyone or stealing anything to not be kidnapping?

            Victims of kidnapping are justified in resisting, even with deadly force, their attackers. A badge changes nothing. If the cop initiates the violence, then the fact that their target resists with force doesn’t make the subsequent escalation of force by the cops OK. Every “law” is enforced by the threat of death. Every single one. If you resist each time the agents of The State escalate their violence, at some point you will be murdered by them. And everyone has a right to resist being molested- defending their right to live as they see fit as long as they don’t attack or steal with as much force as it takes to resist those who would attempt to violate them.

            …those who traffic in controlled and illegal substances often have used weapons against the authorities, and against innocents, to secure their traifficking

            No s**t, Sherlock. Prohibition has the same results every time it is tried. That is part of why it is always wrong. End the prohibition and let “the public” deal with those who steal and attack no matter what excuse they use.

            …those who protect the public…

            You mean armed individuals like you and me? We protect the public without demanding to be supported by stealing from those we supposedly “serve”.

            If you don’t believe that all government is at its core “government by warlord” you seriously need help. It’s the “worst case scenario” delusion. It’s the “Eeek! Scary anarchy! We must have a gang (supported through theft and coercion) to protect us from being molested and robbed by some other gang!”

        • Kent McManigal Says:

          If you don’t believe in “the greater good” how do you justify the War on (some) Drugs?

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      A citizen’s obeying the law is not violence on anyone’s part.

      Maybe you should read up on Gandhi and King, and non-violent protest. You seem unclear on the concepts of violence and not violence.

      • Kent McManigal Says:

        Somehow my response to this was posted above. See my 11:32 reply.

      • Black Flag® Says:

        Ed,

        A citizen’s obeying the law is not violence on anyone’s part.

        A citizen -in of himself- choosing to obey another man is his choice

        But to confuse your agreement to obey to require me to equally obey is irrational.

        • Ed Darrell Says:

          So the question really is, “Why does Black Flag insist that he will comply with the law only when violence is employed against him?”

          It’s a loser of question, a silly game. The only way to win is not to play.

          • Kent McManigal Says:

            Some “laws” are wrong to obey.

            I will do what is right whether there is a “law” ordering me to do it or not.

            The vast majority of life involves things that are neither right nor wrong, but just are- like walking across the room. In those cases I may comply with a “law” ordering me to do something as long as I feel the cost is not too high or when there is a bad guy with a badge watching me. Otherwise I will ignore the “law”.

            The “laws” that are wrong I ignore until forced, by that ever-present threat to kill me, to comply. But forcing me to comply (or supporting those who would force me to comply) just makes those on the side of the “law” the bad guys.

  14. Kent McManigal Says:

    I left a long reply to Ed, but I included a lot of links so it is awaiting moderation.

  15. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    fail to support good government out of a delusional claim that your agreement to follow your word is somehow coerced out of you with violence . . . well, that rather speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

    Explain why you need to use violence on a man who merely lied to you?

    How much of a lie is necessary for you to justify beating him?

    • Ed Darrell Says:

      As soon as you provide evidence that you’ve stopped beating your wife, children, and kicking your dog and cat, I’ll take your question with a bit more gravity. Never have I advocated violence for mere falsehoods. You and I have never had any discussion about penalties for falsehoods, and you prevaricate in your insinuation that such a discussion has occurred.

      So, absent the evidence that you’ve stopped beating your wife and other women, for good, I see no point in this discussion at all.

      None of your posts were deleted, in stark contrast to this blog, where comments #565 and #566 were completely “disappeared.”

      I don’t advocate violence against hypocrisy, either, you’ll be relieved to know. Vote the bastards out, I say. Vote the legitimate malperformers out, too. (That’s a legal, probate joke.)

      But then, you’ve never been voted in. Moot point.

      • Black Flag® Says:

        Ed,

        As soon as you provide evidence that you’ve stopped beating your wife, children, and kicking your dog and cat, I’ll take your question with a bit more gravity.

        You are very confused.

        The question does not come with an inference, as does the “wife beat” question, since the question I asked does not start with the world “When…”

        My question is specific.

        You stated that you demand force on men who lie to you, so to make them comply to their promise.

        I asked what degree of lie is worthy of your violence? I mean you must have some measure to judge this, right?

        Never have I advocated violence for mere falsehoods.

        That is why I asked the question, Ed – because you have made such a statement – read your own words above.

        I agree you hold some sort of difference of measure between one set of lies and another set of lies.

        I do not know how you judge this to know that for one set, you justify a man’s beating, and another set you do not.

        None of your posts were deleted, in stark contrast to this blog, where comments #565 and #566 were completely “disappeared.”

        There is nothing in spam nor in moderation.

  16. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    There is no law that says, “Cops should break into people’s homes and shoot them, in pursuit of ending drug trafficking.”

    The law permits the cop to break into other people’s homes and shoot them, in pursuit of ending drug trafficking.

    Agree or disagree?

    As a pragmatic matter, there are thousands of arrests of drug dealers (and drug users, the greater misfortune for the nation) where there is no violence at all. The cops say, “You’re under arrest,” and the arrestee complies.

    Of course there is violence, Ed!

    It’s called “kidnapping”. A man with a gun takes you by force.

    You’re arguing a radical position that is so far out it is, as Pauli once complained of a physics paper that was screwed up, “not even wrong.”

    It is “radical” – which means “going to the root of something” – the root is violence on the non-violent.

    You avoid the root of the matter because it shows hypocrisy.

    Your “complete opposition to government violence” conveniently forgets/omits/ignores the fact that those who traffic in controlled and illegal substances often have used weapons against the authorities, and against innocents, to secure their traifficking .

    There are many bad men – no question.
    But because bad men wear badges does not make them good men.

    Why do you judge Al Capone a “bad man”? Probably because he hurt people and killed people.

    Yet, you do not judge government agents by the same measure – you skew your yardstick for them.

    Don’t argue that cops shouldn’t use violence against the Al Capones, nor the Medellin Cartel, nor the cartels operating in Mexico.

    They should not use violence on non-violent men, no matter where the men live.

    At a minimum, that would not involve less violence.

    There will always be bad men, Ed.

    The question asked is why do you believe centralizing and organizing violence into a massive institution is better the the decentralized and disorganized violence of a street gang?

    Yet – your centralized and organized institution of violence has been proven incapable of ending violence of the street gang!

    So, now you have both evils – the massive organized violence and the decentralized violence – and you think this is good.

  17. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    So the question really is, “Why does Black Flag insist that he will comply with the law only when violence is employed against him?”

    No, Black Flag does not comply with any law that overrules human rights – period.

  18. Ed Darrell Says:

    BF said:

    You stated that you demand force on men who lie to you, so to make them comply to their promise.

    Seriously, your hallucinations are getting much the better of you.

    Take a break. Go get a good walk. Get some fresh air. Call your physician and get your blood pressure checked.

    I have never said anything like that. I’ll assume you’re hallucinating big time. That’s the only morally defensible position for you on this one.

    Good bye.

  19. Black Flag® Says:

    Ed,

    As the question become too tough and you can no longer avoid appearing the hypocrite, you abandon the dialogue.

    No surprise here.

    Your words;
    “…fail to support good government out of a delusional claim that your agreement to follow your word is somehow coerced out of you with violence…”

    Ed would therefore deny the existence of most civil law and criminal law…..

  20. Jacob Says:

    Useful info. Fortunate me I discovered your web site accidentally,
    and I’m stunned why this accident did not came about in advance! I bookmarked it.

  21. Ed Darrell Says:

    Best wishes for the holidays. Hope you’re well and not posting, as opposed to something else.

    Will 2012 be the hottest year in history?

  22. Pizza Stone Says:

    With a ceramic stone base with surrounding elements
    that provide even heating, the Pete Evans Signature Edition Pizza
    Maker by Breville is the best choice. You might need to dust your rolling pin with flour too, if the crust sticks to it too much while you are rolling.
    There is also the question about whether to use a pizza stone,
    ceramic tile, or the pizza screen.

  23. http://Ugadmin.blogspot.fr Says:

    I am curious to find out what blog platform you’re working with? I’m having some minor security problems
    with my latest

    blog and I’d like to find something more safe. Do you have any

    suggestions?

  24. www.philspector.com Says:

    My brother recommended I might like this website. He used
    to be totally right. This submit truly made my day. You cann’t

    consider just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

  25. Senaida Says:

    You made various nice points there. I did a search
    on the

    issue and found the majority of

    persons will have the same opinion with your blog.

  26. teofilamills1980 Says:

    Usually I don’t read article on blogs, but I would like to

    say that this write-up very compelled me to take a look at and do it! Your

    writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great article.

  27. Lashawn Says:

    Hi my family member! I wish to say that this post is amazing,

    great written and include almost all important infos.
    I would

    like to look more posts like this .

  28. Ed Darrell Says:

    No, 2012 will not be the hottest year in history. 2015 is.

    How long will 2015 hold that distinction?

    Global warming hasn’t gone away. It’s gotten worse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: