What is Digg?Sponsored by She's Out of My League
Owning A Three Wolf Moon TShirt +2, Wearing It On A Date -5 view!
GetYourRating.com - Paramount is asking fans to "Get Rated" for a chance to be in a movie campaign. What's your score?
197 Comments
- floridiot2, on 10/11/2007, -30/+214deltro: your an retard.
- taron, on 10/11/2007, -13/+123What a bunch of..
Not to mention, the guy'll be a more of a hero now :) - Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -17/+97@deltro:
Only if you have a ridiculous accent. - xerus, on 10/11/2007, -11/+65100% Ebaums original (C) Eric Bauman Inc.
- fatlip, on 10/11/2007, -9/+54@ rabidjade
you're wrong. i love my country and i'm willing to say i love my country more than you. thats why i want to see it NOT go down the *****. - rmad1949, on 10/11/2007, -6/+47You can join for two. You can join for four. But the obligation is for six no matter how long you stay in. The remaining time is in inactive reserves. You can be called back into service anytime during those six years even if you have served your enlistment period. I imagine this is where they are going to screw with the guy with... his inactive reserve period. There would be a criterion for such a move, but I don't know what the rule is.
The Marine Corps is the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. One needs only to look at a bit of Marine Corps history to see that the problem is not the Marine, but the people running the government that send them into hell for the various reasons the commander sees fit.
Here is a Marine from a ways back in history. You can see that nothing much has changed. Outspoken, he was past over by a lessor ranking general for Commandant of the Marine Corps because of what he said. Let me say that again... because of what he said. General Butler was the personna of the Marine Corps.
Major General Smedley Butler (1888 –1940):
War is a racket and it is never what it seems to the majority of the peoples whose countries are at war. Only small inside groups know what a particular war is really about, and usually it is conducted for the very few at the expense of the very many. United States Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler (1888 –1940) who fought in 121 battles and received two Medals of Honor admits in a speech in 1933 that he fought numerous wars in three continents to protect the interest of the few to whom or to which the U.S. government was beholden.
In his 1935 book, War is a Racket, Major General Butler presented a detailed exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are well summarized in the following passage from a 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense — one of Butler's most widely quoted statements:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.”
Smedley Butler died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940. He was buried at West Chester. His doctor had described his illness as an incurable condition of the upper gastro-intestinal tract, probably cancer. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+46Since when was ANYTHING original on ebaums? Eric Bauman is a crook. I bet he even stole the site's template XD.
- StreetPreacher, on 10/11/2007, -10/+43@hdtvdust
Did you even read the article? He has ALREADY been given an honerable discharge. Your analogy about wearing a McDonald's apron would only be accurate if you didn't work for McDonald's anymore, and you had a piece of paper in your hand saying that you were a great employee. The USMC is trying to do this RETROactively; like McDonalds trying to re-hire you just so that they can say you're a bad employee.
Analogies really aren't your thing, eh? - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -23/+56deltro was actually enacting an internet meme (4chan).. "an hero" usually refers to someone who commits suicide for the enjoyment of others..
except this guy didn't commit suicide, deltro is just an *****. - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+37He was in fatigues, but he had no corps patches on. He removed all insignia's. How is that any different from me going to the surplus store and buying fatigues and wearing them. If he still had his Marines patches on, I could understand it, this is just BS "we don't want to be criticized" tactics.
@rubakride,
And no, it is not "an hero" the "h" isn't silent, simple grammar rules. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -18/+48He's not an ex-Marine; he's still in the Ready Reserves. Every enlistment is 8 years, of which 6 may be on active duty and 2 are in the RR; you are not required to report to duty during that time, but you could be recalled at any time, for any reason.
No, you don't have the right to criticize the American government or the military to the press while in uniform and during the period of your contractual obligations, and yes, it is grounds for being dishonorably discharged. I believe it's part of the enlistment contract that you sign, and it's all explained to you. - billybibbit, on 10/11/2007, -11/+40absolutely ridiculous how much the marine corps has changed
- AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -9/+38He was already honorably discharged. They are doing some sort of 'legal-move' where he somehow gets re-enlisted and immediately 'dishonorably discharged'
Thanks for playing without the facts. - scuzzman, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37You don't die for McDonald's.
- bobfoster, on 10/11/2007, -11/+35According to the story, he wore fatigues without insignia. He was most certainly not in uniform, but was wearing what anybody can buy at a surplus store.
And hdtvdust, you're just another neocon pussy who talks war but never fought one. Until you've been there and done that, keep your pie hole shut. - s1nister, on 10/11/2007, -12/+36I think most people on Digg are smart enough to realize how far down the ***** hole this administration/government has gone. I'm pretty sure no one is jumping on the government band wagon at this stage in the game.
In other news, that sign is pretty funny. - FortyCaliber, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27I was Honorably Discharged fom Active Service on July, 2002. I had an Inactive Ready Reserve commitment until October, 2005. Until that date, I was still under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.) I had plenty of things to speak out against then... but I kept my mouth shut, even in close company. Once I received that letter, on October 6, 2005, I was all sort of outspoken.
The fact is that he violated several articles of the UCMJ. However, I'm not sure that any of those warrants a felony conviction. There is mention that he brought back a "spoil of war," However, I'm not sure that that is even a felony, and even if it was true, he would have been charged with it prior to being discharged and in this case he got an honorable discharge anyways. For those that are unaware, a Dishonroable Discharge implies a felony.
This means he has to be charged and tried within a General Court Martial. However, neither of the offenses in question fall within the realm of a "capital offense" which means that he could only be tried, at most, under a Special Court Martial, which is a misdemeanor court. Neither this, nor the lower court --the Summary Court Martial-- may award Dishonorable Discharges.
The possible articles he may be charged with:
ART. 116: RIOT OR BREACH OF PEACE
-- "Any person subject to this chapter who causes or participates in any riot or breach of the peace shall be punished as a court- martial may direct."
This article applies because he was assembled against the local law. This is a summary court martial offense.
ART. 134: GENERAL ARTICLE
-- "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
This article applies because he would be found to be "[neglecting]... the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces [and] all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Also, the general article when brought to charge, means that the offense was not a capital offense. If this articel is brought forward... he cannot be awarded a Dishonorable Discharge.
I have good feeling that any charges brought upon him will result in nothing more than an ART. 134 conviction, which won't affect his Honorable Discharge... and chances are, if he petitions to appeal for a new trial per ART. 73 and would most likely win that one.
Either way, the government stands to lose in a PR battle... but they can't really get any worse. That 28% approval is the far-right neo-con christian righties who think Bush is the next embodiment of Christ. - raitchison, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24@bemenaker thew difference is you never signed a military enlistment contract.
For all that I think what they are doing to this guy is out of line the summary of the article is very misleading.
He is bot an 'ex-Marine" he is a Marine in the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserves) he was never "Honorably Discharged" as he was never discharged.
He is not being "re-enlisted" or even recalled to active service he is simply being released from inactive reserve (his contract) early.
He is not facing a "Dishonorable" Discharge he is facing an "Other Than Honorable" Discharge, now an OTH is not a good discharge by any means but it's a lot better than a DD or even a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge), Generally a DD is reserved for people who have committed serious crimes and been convicted in a Court Martial. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honourable_discharge#Military_discharge_in_the_United_States) - snockhockster, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27Actually, he was discharged with honors.
If you had read the first article referenced you would have seen:
"For this, the Marine Corps is now “investigating” Kokesh, even though he’s officially out of the Corps and banished from reenlistment due to bringing home an Iraqi pistol for his war souvenir — that’s against the rules if you get caught!"
They are trying to hold a prosecutorial hearing to re-discharge him, which is unprecedented.
How'd you miss that before commenting? - snockhockster, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24Click the first article referenced in the story and you will see that he was honorably discharged.
"For this, the Marine Corps is now “investigating” Kokesh, even though he’s officially out of the Corps and banished from reenlistment due to bringing home an Iraqi pistol for his war souvenir — that’s against the rules if you get caught!"
Also, he was honorably discharged. This information is in the first paragraph of that article.
The article did not fail; you did by commenting without comprehension of said article. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22it pretty much is. who do you think makes all the planes, guns, bombs, etc? the same private contractors and corporations who bribe our politicians and have an interest in maintaining constant conflict. military industrial complex my friend.
- Ziak, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26@bemenaker
"He was in fatigues, but he had no corps patches on. He removed all insignia's. How is that any different from me going to the surplus store and buying fatigues and wearing them. If he still had his Marines patches on, I could understand it, this is just BS "we don't want to be criticized" tactics."
The Marines have a very very different fatigues or camies as we call them. Under the old order you can wear them if you remove any association with the Marines tag not on them, with the new digital camies that came out back in 2002 there are hundreds and hundreds of tiny USMC symbols imprinted in them making it impossible to remove the association so you MAY not wear them in any leisure.
Not to mention if he was still in contract he is breaking UCMJ article 89 a very well known order by Marines that we are preached at the time in boot camp. I have no sympathy for him he knew what he was doing and I don't want to hear him yelling unfair when he knew the rules. - revka, on 10/11/2007, -18/+35>an hero
I lol'd. that's from that ebaums-world website, right? - voidofmind, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24@fkr3: i don't use reddit. i'm sure many others don't either, so it being posted over there 3 days ago means nothing to me.
also, if it took 3 days to make it's way over here, then that shows nobody simply copied the link over to this site. now, if it popped up here immediately after being submitted at reddit then you'd have a valid complaint (just kidding. it's still not valid) - vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15@Charlotte_Web
Rights are inherently "god given" and cannot be signed away regardless of laws. Legally on the other hand is up for question seeing the supreme court and the federal government have twisted the constitution beyond recognition.
In my eyes he is morally right for doing what he is doing even though it isn't purely legal.
Imagine if you would a WWII German soldier speaking out against the death camps and then someone comes along and say "Oooh! He can't question any evil because he signed away his rights to the military!" - swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19it's always ebaums, those bastards.
- VinceVolker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Good call! NOT! Privatize the military so we can go to war cause Microsoft didn't like the anti-trust court results in the EU. Privatize the military so we can make corporations just a tad bit richer, and not to mention more powerful.
Privatize the military, sounds like words from someone who doesn't know squat. - VinceVolker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Again... IF the "people" aren't paying for wars, and the "private" sector is as you put it, how would this in ANY way benefit the public? Basically, by privatizing the military you are giving even less power to the people, and the decision making.
"If tax payer money was funding something monopolized by government expenditure then it is still public as opposed to private."
Don't know what exactly you are saying by this...
"I am arguing for the elimination of public defended defense. This wouldn't make the corporations richer. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard."
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Let's analyze your conclusions. "I am arguing for the elimination of public defended defense. This wouldn't make the corporations richer." So please, further emphasize who exactly (as in individuals) would be able to completely fund the US Military? No one! Leaving who to fund it? Corporations... All together now! Corporations.
Besides, just the mention of privatizing a country's military is a ludicrous idea, that could ultimately, as i said lead to even more wars for all the wrong reasons. - opiestana, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Where did all this crap about a dishonorable discharge come from? I see Other Than Honorable discharge mentioned on his blog but the dishonorable discharge seems to have been fabricated by all of the comments/blogs/websites reporting this story. Thats not news, thats a lie.
- rthakidn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@snockhockster
in his own blog, Kocker ackownledges being in the IRR. As was commented on several times, the IRR is a way for enlisted's to complete their obligation without being in the "active" military. They are still very much members of the service regardless of any duty papers that might have been issued. So "re-enlisted" is inaccurate, regardless if it appears in the article or not. I am glad you read the article. Everyone should be informed. Just don't assume that everything you read is accurate. Many people, including diggers, like to pick and choose info to make a point. Reading an article is a great place to start, but learn the facts. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16"He was in fatigues, but he had no corps patches on. He removed all insignia's. How is that any different from me going to the surplus store and buying fatigues and wearing them."
If you are in the military and you are wearing ANY part of the uniform, you are in uniform, number one, and number two, you either wear the whole uniform or you don't wear any part of it. The military has very stringent rules regarding how the uniform is to be worn. And third, of course, you don't bad mouth the military while in uniform.
The marine signed a contract agreeing to abide by all of these rules. Therefore, he is in breach of his contract. - mikelieman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@mbradbury,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. - GRTWHT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11"Rights are inherently "god given" and cannot be signed away regardless of laws. Legally on the other hand is up for question seeing the supreme court and the federal government have twisted the constitution beyond recognition."
That is true, but as anyone who has ever been in the US military knows, as soon as you sign on the dotted line, you fall under the UCMJ and you no longer have the rights of citizens (some pro-military types will try to argue that you still have the same rights, but that's simple BS: the UCMJ supersedes citizens' rights and makes many legal things illegal).
While the govt apparently has decided that The Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer 'relevant' and can be simply rewritten or ignored, that has no bearing on this situation. - speerross, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@rabidjade
I know this is gonna be far away from the original comment, but this is so ignorant:
"Several good points. Because of that, ignorance diggs you down. People need to learn if they hate this country, they can leave it."
Protesting against stuff isn't hating a country, it's trying to save a country and change it so it does what you think is right. I assume you're right wing, and since the right wing has power you have no reason to protest. It's the leave it thing that is most stupid. Its everyone's damn country, that's the point of democracy. People don't want to leave their homes, the people they know and the country they love because some ***** are ***** it up, they're going to go out and fight for what they believe not just pack up and walk out of THEIR OWN country. Tell you what, when the liberal changes start being made, you pack up and leave yea?
And for the record, there is no better thing you can do with you're life than change the world and protesting is a (mild) form of attempting to do that. - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16rabidjade is right.. displaying profound ignorance gets you buried.
..Which is the reason he is buried. - Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8This story is a duplicate and inaccurate.
He was in the Individual Ready Reserve, therefore part of the Marines. His website: kokesh.blogspot.com - Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Article: "The funeral stunt earned the protesters a coveted “political protest” arrest — apparently it’s now illegal to protest anything for political reasons"
No, no, not at all. There are still free speech cages for political protests in the US!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
... and First Amendment Areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_amendment_area_Muir_Woods.jpg
No, this is not Photoshops, or fake. :-p I wonder what the founding fathers of USA would have thought of this. - Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@ Charlotte_Web, Ziak, and raitchison
TFA now has an addendum with a link to this story:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-military-protest-hearing,0,7471586.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
"Kokesh had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he was photographed at the protest. That honorable discharge cannot be revoked. Monday's hearing was to decide whether he should be discharged from the reserves and, if so, with what type of discharge."
So, yes, he IS an ex-Marine. The hearing is in regards to his discharge status from the Individual Ready Reserve, not the Marine Corps proper. The military may be well within their rights to discipline him based on wearing his uniform at a protest, but it's pretty clear that that's not the real reason they're doing this, that's just the excuse they have. They're really doing this because an outspoken war critic within their own ranks, and with the air of legitimacy born from actually serving in the war he's criticizing, is a huge thorn in their sides, and they're clearly out to make an example of him. - MrZeolite, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I went to boot camp with this guy, he's a rich kid (daddies money) apparently. We were in Platoon 3075 in San Diego the summer of 2000. Good times. Hope he has a great defense because going against the military in matters such as this is a bitch. GL Kokesh!
- digbird, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10There has already been one very recent post about this on Digg. I wrote a comment about why I think Kokesh doesn't have a leg to stand on there. I won't repeat myself here.
I do have a few more comments to make:
1. Nobody is trying to give Kokesh a dishonorable discharge. He is facing an "other than honorable discharge." Here is a link to a page that describes the different kinds of discharge a service member can get. While a "OTH" is bad, a "DD" (dishonorable discharge) is far worse.
http://www.answers.com/topic/military-discharge
2. Kokesh was honorably discharged from active duty service. If he does something wrong during his IRR time, he can be discharged appropriately from the IRR (read the letter the Marines sent him --see link).
http://www.ivaw.org/kokeshletter
3. Kokesh has chosen to appear before the administrative review board. In doing so, he is appearing there as a Marine, not a civilian. This is a LOT different than the Marines recalling him to active duty just to punish him.
4. In response to a polite email that expressed the Marine Corps concern about what it perceived as unlawful behavior by Kokesh, Kokesh wrote a note that suggested a superior officer, "go ***** himself."
Point number four is the reason Kokesh is in trouble. If he had simply contacted the officer who wrote him and listened to a little lecture, apologized, and waited until his honorable discharge from the IRR before engaging in any similar activities, he would have been "okay." Heck, even if he had called the officer on the phone and told him what he told him in the email, he might have skated.
Instead, he sends in writing a response that pretty much dares the Marine Corps to take action against him. Now, he's shocked and upset that it is. Poor him.
I find myself wondering how many people here would be springing to Kokesh's defense if he had appeared in uniform on the steps of the Capitol building and given a speech accusing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (and let's not forget Ron Paul) of cowardice and a monstrous betrayal of the troops in Iraq. Why do I think most people here would be saying that Kokesh should be thrown out?
I also wonder how much of Kokesh's current behavior can be linked to his being punished by the Marines for buying that pistol and trying to bring it home. In his email, he seems very upset about that. Kokesh would hardly be the first service person to do a political flip flop because of a perceived injustice (because once again, regarding bringing a weapon home, he doesn't have a leg to stand on).
On a final note, as a veteran of the stabilization of Panama in 1989 (JUST CAUSE), Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1990-1991 (DESERT SHIELD and STORM), and the former Yugoslavia (PROVIDE PROMISE) (which were all in combat zones), I really hate the argument that someone has to have served in a combat zone before he or she can advocate or support the use of military force. I also hate the idea that a Congressman or woman can't support the use of force unless he or she has a loved one in the harm's way. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that any of those things are requirements. Insisting that they are, gives veterans and people with loved ones in combat zones a status above those who aren't. Moreover, people who like flinging epithets like chickenhawk are usually pretty silent if the "chickenhawk" in question is someone who they support (like Clinton was for a lot of people) - BarryMcCawqiner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9As usual, a headline that severely distorts what really happened.
A) He is not being "re-enlisted"... he is still under his initial enlistment which is 4 years active, 4 inactive. Same for all of us.
B) Protesting while you're in the military is not illegal; however, showing up in uniform is against the UCMJ - because it implies the military is backing a political agenda. This reg is well-known to all military.
C) The USMC has stated that they are not seeking a dishonorable (which is actually not very common), but a less-than-honorable. There are big differences between these two type of discharges. - HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8He violated the UCMJ, and he's being held to the same standard as everyone else.
It's no more complicated than that.
You idiots who are upset about it think that people should be able to break the law and get away with it as long as their politics lean left and undermine the United States. Piss on you monkeys. - seehuge, on 10/11/2007, -13/+20yup. ebaums.
- kiiwii, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11"Since many people pronounce 'hero' as 'ero' it makes sense to say 'an hero' if you look at it that way."
I've never run across anyone who says "ero."
And it's a good thing. I'd probably say "Just for that, I have to bury your comment"
Then they'd probably look at me funny. - apachedisco, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12@hdtvdust Do you get punched a lot in RL?
Stop being a Douchebag. - nreisan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14rules 1 & 2
- snockhockster, on 10/11/2007, -11/+16We are one step closer to despotism if Kokesh loses.
- raid517, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9I am probably the biggest living breathing pinko liberal alive and I know I am very likely to get buried for saying this - but even I know this story is complete *****. I am all for veterans being able to freely protest - but this guy hasn't even been officially discharged from the marines yet, since he is still classed as being in reserve.
There are very strict rules on what you can and can't do and what you can and can't say while on reserve from the armed services and dissing your (recent) former employer isn't one of these.
It's a bit like as someone said before a FedEx employee who is still under contract with that company putting on their uniform and then marching up and down outside their head offices with a placard shouting and screaming that 'FedEx suck!'
You can be sure as hell the guy would be disciplined for doing that, so why is this any different?
This is what I hate about politics and about the Internet in that increasingly it seems really, really hard to tell the facts apart from the spin. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story as they say - and no matter how many times this story has been corrected, it has now taken on a life of it's own and has been perpetuated over and over again on countless forums, blogs and web sites across the net.
It is also an example of something I find very disappointing - and that is that while Bush and the Conservatives have on the whole proved to be masters of disinformation and of spin, they clearly aren't alone in that regard - and with stories like this it is clear that the Liberals are every bit as capable and every bit as effective at creating lies and spin and propoganda as they are - and there are plenty of people out there who are clearly wholly incapable of thinking for themselves who are only to ready to buy into it. - MariusAgricola, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@rmad1949
The military service obligation (MSO) is 6-8 years, although in most cases you end up with a total 8 year commitment. The actual wording within 10 USC can be found at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000651----000-.html
So my commitment was 6 years active and 2 years inactive, although stop-loss extended the active portion by about 3 months. I was pretty happy to finally get my full discharge paperwork.
I am pretty sure that, had I done something very seriously bad during the inactive time, I could have had my discharge status changed. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Apparently, a few people don't realize that when one enlists in the military, one enlists for a total of 8 years in the inactive reserves, with a portion of those 8 years on active duty. That means they can activate you back to active duty for 8 years after you sign the contract.
Sucks to be you if you didn't read the contract. -
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
