He is accualy what ruined the ending for me... The one thing I didn't need to know was that the reapers where pawns... Ether give me all the answers or give me none. It would have been better if he had been protector of the citadel and had been waiting for some one to reach this point... But now I feel lied to by omision... Hoping the DLC might clear it up.... Honestly I could have handled the multi colored explotions if the kid had been writen better.
Why does Star Child get hate mail?
Débuté par
NM_Che56
, avril 06 2012 11:15
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:43
Pandaman102
-
- Members
- 1 103 messages
I'm sure this point has been brought up before, somewhere on this lightspeed forum, but doesn't the Starchild specifically say the "created" will always rebel against its "creators"? Don't the Reapers and Starchild share this dubious relationship?
Starchild refers to itself in the singular (if I recall correctly), while Sovereign and Harbinger refer to themselves in the plural and as "each a nation" (something confirmed by Legion), therefore the Reapers should possess superior analytical skills over the Starchild.
So... why haven't they destroyed the Citadel and gone on their own merry, genocidal way?
Starchild refers to itself in the singular (if I recall correctly), while Sovereign and Harbinger refer to themselves in the plural and as "each a nation" (something confirmed by Legion), therefore the Reapers should possess superior analytical skills over the Starchild.
So... why haven't they destroyed the Citadel and gone on their own merry, genocidal way?
#53
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:46
Oldbones2
-
- Members
- 1 820 messages
He resets the entire plot in the last 5 minutes of the game. Shifts the protagonist and antagonist dynamic with Shepard and the Reapers with ZERO foreshadowing and invalidates all your previous choices.
#54
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:51
YukiFA
-
- Members
- 295 messages
Then why didn't the Heretic Geth do that during their occupation of the Citadel during the first game (or at any point before that when they had pretty much free roam of Noveria's lab facilities and Feros)? Because it's not as simple as that. During the Hanar Diplomat mission in ME3 the Big Stupid Jellyfish tries to upload a virus to disable their homeworld's defense system but safeguards built into the extranet messaging system delay the upload and Shepard (or Kasumi) is able to prevent it,Joeyv wrote...No I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe the Catalyst
even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of
exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and
AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly
dominate civilisations.
Yet again, you're asking people to prove a negative. And I've already adressed this. Shepard has proven that it can be resolved, peacefully with both sides surviving, without resorting to the Catalysts retarded "solution". So its argument is moot.Again, I'm indeed not saying that it WILL happen, we just can't say that it WON'T happen. And if we believe the Catalyst for a tiny bit and listen to Javik, it is probable it may happen in a time span of let's say a million years.
#55
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:56
GreyLycanTrope
-
- Members
- 12 706 messages
In short it's because we don't have the option of saying "We've beaten you, we can look out for ourselves."
What it come down to for me is that I don't find his reasoning compelling. He says synthetics and organics will never get along but EDI and Legion completely undermine his argument and you don't have to option to call him out on it. Every option presented before us sums up to us agreeing with his logic, we're not given much choice in rejecting his solutions outright. This means that even if you don't agree with his logic you can't just get rid off him and have to accept his intervention whether it is by fusing the two forms of life together, taking control of the reapers, or destroying all synthetics, even when you don't think either option is needed for continued galactic survival.
The biggest problem though is that the catalyst represents only one of the theme's in the Mass Effect universe synthetics vs organics, which is only one of the themes explored through out the games, the other major and most important one is self determinate.
Self determination means that everyone has the option to be a jerk or friendly. You can be paragon or renegade but you don't judge one species, or one kind of life, and the actions of a few or by what statistics show. The Turains and Krogan are supposed to hate each other, yet Wrex and Garrus are friends. The Salarians said the Krogan are too dangerous but you have the option of giving them the chance to redeem themselves. The Geth and Quarians were set on driving each other extinct, but you have to option to create peace and take a chance on coexisting. The catalyst says synthetics will destroy organics, you can only agree.
What it come down to for me is that I don't find his reasoning compelling. He says synthetics and organics will never get along but EDI and Legion completely undermine his argument and you don't have to option to call him out on it. Every option presented before us sums up to us agreeing with his logic, we're not given much choice in rejecting his solutions outright. This means that even if you don't agree with his logic you can't just get rid off him and have to accept his intervention whether it is by fusing the two forms of life together, taking control of the reapers, or destroying all synthetics, even when you don't think either option is needed for continued galactic survival.
The biggest problem though is that the catalyst represents only one of the theme's in the Mass Effect universe synthetics vs organics, which is only one of the themes explored through out the games, the other major and most important one is self determinate.
Self determination means that everyone has the option to be a jerk or friendly. You can be paragon or renegade but you don't judge one species, or one kind of life, and the actions of a few or by what statistics show. The Turains and Krogan are supposed to hate each other, yet Wrex and Garrus are friends. The Salarians said the Krogan are too dangerous but you have the option of giving them the chance to redeem themselves. The Geth and Quarians were set on driving each other extinct, but you have to option to create peace and take a chance on coexisting. The catalyst says synthetics will destroy organics, you can only agree.
Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 avril 2012 - 12:56 .
#56
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:03
glacier1701
-
- Members
- 870 messages
Because the main tenet of the Star Child's reason to be is based on a LIE. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who plays ME3 regardless of what else they may have done - played or not played ME1 and/or ME2, done a full paragon or full renegade, saved or killed whoever or anything else in between - gets the same statement touted as fact but which in reality is a LIE and cannot call the Star Child on that lie. What is that statement?
THE CREATED WILL ALWAYS REBEL AGAINST THE CREATORS!!
Why is this a lie? The Star Child created the Reapers - they have NOT rebelled thus the statement is a lie. In other words the people who came up with that piece of the ending are using a LIE to end the game one which many people are not happy with yet they cannot be bothered to defend it other than by the use of 'artistic integrity'.
THE CREATED WILL ALWAYS REBEL AGAINST THE CREATORS!!
Why is this a lie? The Star Child created the Reapers - they have NOT rebelled thus the statement is a lie. In other words the people who came up with that piece of the ending are using a LIE to end the game one which many people are not happy with yet they cannot be bothered to defend it other than by the use of 'artistic integrity'.
#57
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:04
Team Value
-
- Members
- 159 messages
Frankly, that the Star Child is the most literal example of Deus Ex Machina I can think of is a pretty big reason to despise him, but there are so many others (which I agree with).
But one reason I haven't seen mentioned as much as some others is that the Star Child is EVIL but Bioware seem to think he is GOOD. No matter what circular logic the Star Child uses--not even if his logic was sound--would that grant him the right to commit genocide on a galactic scale to prevent something that might happen. The Star Child is one of the most evil entities I have ever seen in fiction and Shepard--and by extension the player--is expected to accept its "solutions".
Sorry, not going to happen.
But one reason I haven't seen mentioned as much as some others is that the Star Child is EVIL but Bioware seem to think he is GOOD. No matter what circular logic the Star Child uses--not even if his logic was sound--would that grant him the right to commit genocide on a galactic scale to prevent something that might happen. The Star Child is one of the most evil entities I have ever seen in fiction and Shepard--and by extension the player--is expected to accept its "solutions".
Sorry, not going to happen.
#58
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:04
aj2070
-
- Members
- 1 458 messages
I agree with all of the reasons listed why starchild is a bad character. I have a couple more.
This omniscient entity who is supposedly aware of all and knows that all synthetics will always rebel against their creators cannot fathom that after countless cycles, organics will manage to figure out that first, there is a cycle in progress and second, that said organics would never find a way to preserve information about it somehow. Then there is the idea that star-god-child could never anticipate his lair being penetrated. Since this is a spoilers allowed thread, even the protheans were able to guess that someone from the next cycle could decipher their warning and find Ilos in Mass Effect and the protheans were never portrayed with the same omniscience as starchild.
This reason just came to mind; The starchild says that synthetic organic conflict is inevitable. It had been argued through the history of Mass Effect that if the krogan were allowed reproduce naturally, they would always be at war with the galaxy. Mordin even follows this logic through all of Mass Effect 2 as justification as to why the Genophage had to be modified to keep krogan birth rates low and stable. Even with this logic, Mordin flatly objected to genocide; saying that the race as a whole may be violent but they are worth saving because of outlyers. Mordin decides to cure the Genophage because he wiping out a species because of potential violence is not right. Yet the starchild uses potential violence as reason to keep wiping out organics.
In short, starchild (at face value as the game currently ends) invalidates all decisions made up to this point.
This omniscient entity who is supposedly aware of all and knows that all synthetics will always rebel against their creators cannot fathom that after countless cycles, organics will manage to figure out that first, there is a cycle in progress and second, that said organics would never find a way to preserve information about it somehow. Then there is the idea that star-god-child could never anticipate his lair being penetrated. Since this is a spoilers allowed thread, even the protheans were able to guess that someone from the next cycle could decipher their warning and find Ilos in Mass Effect and the protheans were never portrayed with the same omniscience as starchild.
This reason just came to mind; The starchild says that synthetic organic conflict is inevitable. It had been argued through the history of Mass Effect that if the krogan were allowed reproduce naturally, they would always be at war with the galaxy. Mordin even follows this logic through all of Mass Effect 2 as justification as to why the Genophage had to be modified to keep krogan birth rates low and stable. Even with this logic, Mordin flatly objected to genocide; saying that the race as a whole may be violent but they are worth saving because of outlyers. Mordin decides to cure the Genophage because he wiping out a species because of potential violence is not right. Yet the starchild uses potential violence as reason to keep wiping out organics.
In short, starchild (at face value as the game currently ends) invalidates all decisions made up to this point.
Modifié par aj2070, 06 avril 2012 - 01:15 .
#59
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:05
Joeyv
-
- Members
- 62 messages
YukiFA wrote...
Then why didn't the Heretic Geth do that during their occupation of the Citadel during the first game (or at any point before that when they had pretty much free roam of Noveria's lab facilities and Feros)? Because it's not as simple as that. During the Hanar Diplomat mission in ME3 the Big Stupid Jellyfish tries to upload a virus to disable their homeworld's defense system but safeguards built into the extranet messaging system delay the upload and Shepard (or Kasumi) is able to prevent it,Joeyv wrote...No I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe the Catalyst
even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of
exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and
AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly
dominate civilisations.Yet again, you're asking people to prove a negative. And I've already adressed this. Shepard has proven that it can be resolved, peacefully with both sides surviving, without resorting to the Catalysts retarded "solution". So its argument is moot.Again, I'm indeed not saying that it WILL happen, we just can't say that it WON'T happen. And if we believe the Catalyst for a tiny bit and listen to Javik, it is probable it may happen in a time span of let's say a million years.
The geth not doing that would probably be a plot hole, atleast to me. In Overlord it was stated that an rogue AI on the extranet would be catastrophic.
And wrong, if it was not for our hero the hanar would have succeeded. That 'fail safe' of yours is just a technical delay and it would'nt have prevented the sabotage.
And you really don't get it do you? I agree that the Catalyst's solution is retarded, but the argument of saying an AI uprise WON'T happen in a million years is unconstructed, which means we can't dismiss the purpose of the godkid for being there.
#60
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:07
Joeyv
-
- Members
- 62 messages
glacier1701 wrote...
Because the main tenet of the Star Child's reason to be is based on a LIE. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who plays ME3 regardless of what else they may have done - played or not played ME1 and/or ME2, done a full paragon or full renegade, saved or killed whoever or anything else in between - gets the same statement touted as fact but which in reality is a LIE and cannot call the Star Child on that lie. What is that statement?
THE CREATED WILL ALWAYS REBEL AGAINST THE CREATORS!!
Why is this a lie? The Star Child created the Reapers - they have NOT rebelled thus the statement is a lie. In other words the people who came up with that piece of the ending are using a LIE to end the game one which many people are not happy with yet they cannot be bothered to defend it other than by the use of 'artistic integrity'.
One simple thing. The reapers are not true AI. They originate from organics, and thus they indirectly don't know how they came to be. The game states the risk of uprising AI's is there because AI's know how and by who they were created. I agree it's a stretch, but the game states it this way.
#61
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:07
AtlasMickey
-
- Members
- 1 137 messages
I don't know. The Catalyst will stand and watch as you destroy or enslave him. You'd think so many people who hate him would be satisfied with those options, lol.
Modifié par AtlasMickey, 06 avril 2012 - 01:08 .
#62
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:13
Maimh
-
- Members
- 38 messages
Joeyv wrote...
YukiFA wrote...
Then why didn't the Heretic Geth do that during their occupation of the Citadel during the first game (or at any point before that when they had pretty much free roam of Noveria's lab facilities and Feros)? Because it's not as simple as that. During the Hanar Diplomat mission in ME3 the Big Stupid Jellyfish tries to upload a virus to disable their homeworld's defense system but safeguards built into the extranet messaging system delay the upload and Shepard (or Kasumi) is able to prevent it,Joeyv wrote...No I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe the Catalyst
even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of
exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and
AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly
dominate civilisations.Yet again, you're asking people to prove a negative. And I've already adressed this. Shepard has proven that it can be resolved, peacefully with both sides surviving, without resorting to the Catalysts retarded "solution". So its argument is moot.Again, I'm indeed not saying that it WILL happen, we just can't say that it WON'T happen. And if we believe the Catalyst for a tiny bit and listen to Javik, it is probable it may happen in a time span of let's say a million years.
The geth not doing that would probably be a plot hole, atleast to me. In Overlord it was stated that an rogue AI on the extranet would be catastrophic.
And wrong, if it was not for our hero the hanar would have succeeded. That 'fail safe' of yours is just a technical delay and it would'nt have prevented the sabotage.
And you really don't get it do you? I agree that the Catalyst's solution is retarded, but the argument of saying an AI uprise WON'T happen in a million years is unconstructed, which means we can't dismiss the purpose of the godkid for being there.
In a million years the Raloi could decide to kill everyone, does that mean we should kill them now?
Or, tomorrow my neighbor could decided to kill all children in the city, so should I go over and kill him now?
Just because something *might* happen, it does not make it right to commit genocide - yet that is what the Catalyst is claiming.
#63
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:16
Joeyv
-
- Members
- 62 messages
Maimh wrote...
Joeyv wrote...
YukiFA wrote...
Then why didn't the Heretic Geth do that during their occupation of the Citadel during the first game (or at any point before that when they had pretty much free roam of Noveria's lab facilities and Feros)? Because it's not as simple as that. During the Hanar Diplomat mission in ME3 the Big Stupid Jellyfish tries to upload a virus to disable their homeworld's defense system but safeguards built into the extranet messaging system delay the upload and Shepard (or Kasumi) is able to prevent it,Joeyv wrote...No I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe the Catalyst
even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of
exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and
AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly
dominate civilisations.Yet again, you're asking people to prove a negative. And I've already adressed this. Shepard has proven that it can be resolved, peacefully with both sides surviving, without resorting to the Catalysts retarded "solution". So its argument is moot.Again, I'm indeed not saying that it WILL happen, we just can't say that it WON'T happen. And if we believe the Catalyst for a tiny bit and listen to Javik, it is probable it may happen in a time span of let's say a million years.
The geth not doing that would probably be a plot hole, atleast to me. In Overlord it was stated that an rogue AI on the extranet would be catastrophic.
And wrong, if it was not for our hero the hanar would have succeeded. That 'fail safe' of yours is just a technical delay and it would'nt have prevented the sabotage.
And you really don't get it do you? I agree that the Catalyst's solution is retarded, but the argument of saying an AI uprise WON'T happen in a million years is unconstructed, which means we can't dismiss the purpose of the godkid for being there.
In a million years the Raloi could decide to kill everyone, does that mean we should kill them now?
Or, tomorrow my neighbor could decided to kill all children in the city, so should I go over and kill him now?
Just because something *might* happen, it does not make it right to commit genocide - yet that is what the Catalyst is claiming.
I completely agree with you. It is just that I'm trying to say that people who say the Catalyst is wrong becáuse synthetics won't rebel and if they do it can always be resolved, are wrong according to my opinion.
Edit: and according to the game, it WILL eventually happen.
Modifié par Joeyv, 06 avril 2012 - 01:18 .
#64
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:21
Maimh
-
- Members
- 38 messages
[quote]Joeyv wrote...
[quote]Maimh wrote...
[quote]Joeyv wrote...
[quote]YukiFA wrote...
I completely agree with you. It is just that I'm trying to say that people who say the Catalyst is wrong becáuse synthetics won't rebel and if they do it can always be resolved, are wrong according to my opinion.
[/quote]
I think that is a simplifying of what most people say:
Catalyst say: AI will always rebel - FACT
Fans say: AI will Not always rebel - UNCERTAIN - Geth/EDI proves it
[quote]Maimh wrote...
[quote]Joeyv wrote...
[quote]YukiFA wrote...
I completely agree with you. It is just that I'm trying to say that people who say the Catalyst is wrong becáuse synthetics won't rebel and if they do it can always be resolved, are wrong according to my opinion.
[/quote]
I think that is a simplifying of what most people say:
Catalyst say: AI will always rebel - FACT
Fans say: AI will Not always rebel - UNCERTAIN - Geth/EDI proves it
#65
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:39
Canis_Major
-
- Members
- 100 messages
Because he brings LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE !!!11!!1!
#66
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:42
Fruit of the Doom
-
- Members
- 1 204 messages
Hatemail?
I didn't know his email address was known... please post it so we can spam him with hate!
I didn't know his email address was known... please post it so we can spam him with hate!
Modifié par Fruit of the Doom, 06 avril 2012 - 01:43 .
#67
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:46
NM_Che56
-
- Members
- 6 739 messages
EDI was the Luna AI. That blew my mind!
Ok. Here's why I don't have a problem with him:
1) He was alluded to earlier in the game. So when I saw him I wasn't shocked. Also, SOMETHING built the reapers. This begins to answer who and why.
2) him taking the form of that child was a manipulation. My Shepard showed concern for those who couldn't protect themselves; renegade Shep did so begrudgingly.
3) I don't care about the academics behind "bad writing". It's not science so it's subjective, therefore it comes down to personal tastes.
4) the option to destroy the reapers is still there.
5) if you read the comics then you'll see why TIM is the better antagonist. He's Mephistopheles to our Faustus.
6) I don't care that the reapers are now just demons and not the devil himself. I see an opportunity to peel back a layer of history and learning about their creators and what lead to the cycle.
7) I didn't care about skynets logic in terminator. I just chalk up star kids logic as broken and evidence that AI's aren't God.
8) Shepard is fatigued and injured. He actually seemed like "I just want this to end".
I'm not saying that people don't have a right to not like this, but I just see a lot of one liners..
Ok. Here's why I don't have a problem with him:
1) He was alluded to earlier in the game. So when I saw him I wasn't shocked. Also, SOMETHING built the reapers. This begins to answer who and why.
2) him taking the form of that child was a manipulation. My Shepard showed concern for those who couldn't protect themselves; renegade Shep did so begrudgingly.
3) I don't care about the academics behind "bad writing". It's not science so it's subjective, therefore it comes down to personal tastes.
4) the option to destroy the reapers is still there.
5) if you read the comics then you'll see why TIM is the better antagonist. He's Mephistopheles to our Faustus.
6) I don't care that the reapers are now just demons and not the devil himself. I see an opportunity to peel back a layer of history and learning about their creators and what lead to the cycle.
7) I didn't care about skynets logic in terminator. I just chalk up star kids logic as broken and evidence that AI's aren't God.
8) Shepard is fatigued and injured. He actually seemed like "I just want this to end".
I'm not saying that people don't have a right to not like this, but I just see a lot of one liners..
#68
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 01:53
Vortex13
-
- Members
- 4 186 messages
Team Value wrote...
But one reason I haven't seen mentioned as much as some others is that the Star Child is EVIL but Bioware seem to think he is GOOD. No matter what circular logic the Star Child uses--not even if his logic was sound--would that grant him the right to commit genocide on a galactic scale to prevent something that might happen. The Star Child is one of the most evil entities I have ever seen in fiction and Shepard--and by extension the player--is expected to accept its "solutions".
Sorry, not going to happen.
^ This
You have a character that, ignoring the fact he is introduced in the last five minutes, willingly commits genocide and suddenly he is the GOOD GUY.
Even if the rise of synthetics was inevitable, the ending of the game pretty much boils down to you, the player, being forced to accept one of the choices of a mass murderer.
Basically its like Hitler coming up to you and saying that the Holocaust was a good thing because if all of those people had lived and had children then there would be less food available for the rest of the world today....
And then you agreeing with him.
#69
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 03:11
NM_Che56
-
- Members
- 6 739 messages
I don't think Bioware, per se, is making him out to be a good guy. But what does it benefit the story to put star child in a red suit with horns and give him a pitch fork? If star child doesn't think itself to be evil then why would it present itself as evil? Wouldn't that make the choice for Shepard too obvious?
#70
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 03:19
NM_Che56
-
- Members
- 6 739 messages
The Geth did rebel.
"Once the now-sentient geth realized what the quarians were doing, they retaliated. Initially only some geth began to take up arms in order to protect other units that could not defend themselves".
-http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morning_War
That's not rebellion?
Definition of REBELLION
1: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
"Once the now-sentient geth realized what the quarians were doing, they retaliated. Initially only some geth began to take up arms in order to protect other units that could not defend themselves".
-http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morning_War
That's not rebellion?
Definition of REBELLION
1: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
#71
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 03:31
YukiFA
-
- Members
- 295 messages
That's a wiki. The Geth Fighter Base missions establishes that the Geth only began to fight AFTER the Quarian authorities started KILLING THEM and Quarians who wanted to save them. The Geth were willing to leave the Quarians alone after they were no longer a threat to them.
My earlier point stands. The Morning War was started by the Quarians, not the Geth.
My earlier point stands. The Morning War was started by the Quarians, not the Geth.
#73
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 03:47
NM_Che56
-
- Members
- 6 739 messages
YukiFA wrote...
That's a wiki. The Geth Fighter Base missions establishes that the Geth only began to fight AFTER the Quarian authorities started KILLING THEM and Quarians who wanted to save them. The Geth were willing to leave the Quarians alone after they were no longer a threat to them.
My earlier point stands. The Morning War was started by the Quarians, not the Geth.
But the Geth did not accept genocide, thus they rebelled, did they not?
Rebellion does not require the rebel to create the reason. Only to oppose.
Modifié par Master Che, 06 avril 2012 - 03:49 .
#75
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 03:57
YukiFA
-
- Members
- 295 messages
Yes they rebelled, after the Quarians attempted to exterminate them. Are you going to blame them for not laying down and accepting death?
This still does not validate the Catalyst's reasoning nor its assertion that the created will always rebel against the creator. The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. And the Geth were perfectly willing to let the Quarians return to their homeworld once peace was made between them. Hell, they even helped them reacclimate to their native environment.
This still does not validate the Catalyst's reasoning nor its assertion that the created will always rebel against the creator. The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. And the Geth were perfectly willing to let the Quarians return to their homeworld once peace was made between them. Hell, they even helped them reacclimate to their native environment.
Modifié par YukiFA, 06 avril 2012 - 04:00 .
