Emily Carding Responds

Or presumes anyway.

Well, given the varied reactions she has published, in various places for various audiences, I am still not sure what Emily Carding thinks of my review of her deck, the Transparent Tarot.

She has alternately described my review, or me, in the following terms: witty, venomous, amusing, pre-menstrual (she said that would apply if I were a woman), deranged, furious (the latter two apply if I am a man she says).

On her Facebook group, in response to my linking to my review, she wrote that she found it "witty" and "venomous" but was at least amused by it. She thanked me for assisting in her in generating publicity.

And on her Facebook profile, she said: "Emily is highly amused by Jess Karlin's witty yet venomous review of her Tarot."

However, a couple of hours after writing that, she left my Facebook group, Tarotica.

And, on tarotforum.net, where of course she had been affirmed into thinking her concept was a good (or great) one in the first place, she presented an entirely different reaction:

"If he was a woman, I was [sic] suggest that he was perhaps pre-menstrual, but as that is not the case, I will just presume a permanent state of derangement and fury."

I think the curious thing about that thread is how only one posting out of 43 (so far) even mentions or attempts to discuss the content of my review. The rest are personal attacks on me, and proclamations that anything I should have to say should automatically be dismissed, along with the obligatory love-strokings of poor Emily in her plight of finally having someone criticize her work.

I have mentioned on my group that this thread is an excellent example of the intellectual and topical value of tarotforum.net or Aeclectic Tarot as a site. There is (almost) always a contempt shown there for serious discussion of the topic, especially when views become confrontational, as they easily do about Tarot.

On Emily's own Facebook group, devoted to the promotion of her deck, she had installed the usual group discussion box, although nobody on her group had initiated any discussions of her deck until I posted a link to my review. After a couple of exchanges between Emily and myself, this morning she removed me from her group and eliminated the discussion box altogether. Well, I guess she decided that just any publicity was not necessarily a good thing.

For my part, I would welcome somebody, anybody, who could explain to me precisely what the virtue of her alleged Tarot is supposed to be. I have been accused by her many supporters on ATF of being too stupid to get "it". Well, take pity on me then, and enlighten me! Please!

Finally, I would point out that Emily and her supporters have consistently complained that somehow I was unfair to issue a review—indeed she claimed my review was the first of her deck so far—when I could not have seen it. Of course, I have addressed that question several times. Emily herself supplied numerous images of her deck over the months, encouraging people to examine them and post their opinions of her work. And, when people made positive comments about her Tarot, she effusively thanked them for their opinions. She did not complain these were based upon incomplete information. If no knowledgeable assessment of Emily's deck can occur until people have the full product (in October 2008), then how is it that aecletic.net has a "buy" recommendation of the Transparent Tarot, including a brief review and rating, on its website?

Or is Emily admitting that the aeclectic.net page is simply advertising?

(jk)

Comments

Sidhe-Ra said…
Well, I think ALL those adjectives apply! I found it very funny- mostly I found it funny that you felt the need to be SO venomous. I was rather like reading the review of a play I was once in when I inadvertently hurled a shoe at the reviewer. However, my show hurling skills are not superhuman, so a high heel is unlikely to have reached you in Texas.

You don't like it- I get that. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine about you, too, and it would be deeply hypocrtical for me to keep you as a 'Friend' on Facebook when you are clearly quite the opposite. Perhaps someone else will extol the virtues of my work to you. Hopefully they won't waste the time or effort, as I imagine it would be rather like trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness to convert to Paganism.

EC
jk said…
"mostly I found it funny that you felt the need to be SO venomous."

Well, I did not think my comments venomous. At the least, you needed to hear some balance to the unqualified and absurd level of praise you were getting on ATF.

More than this, I was critiquing your impact on Tarot itself, which in my view is detrimental and degrading (to you as well).

As I pointed out, if people had been courteous on ATF, they would have intervened to implore that you stop what was clearly a presumptuous and ridiculous venture.

But they don't seem to like you or Tarot well enough to tell you unpleasant truths.

"You don't like it- I get that. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine about you, too, and it would be deeply hypocrtical for me to keep you as a 'Friend' on Facebook when you are clearly quite the opposite."

Well, I will remind you that you sought me and my opinion out, not only in June but recently, when you requested I join your group on Facebook.

You did not state at the time that it was required I should be merely a parrot for your advertising.

"You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine about you"

But mine is about your work. Yours is about me.

If you consider work and people the same, then OK. I have some friends who agree with you on that point, and think you are an idiot.

I don't know if that is the case, but I know your work—as Tarot—is quite deficient.

"I imagine it would be rather like trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness to convert to Paganism."

What faith is it that you imagine is keeping me from seeing the virtues of your work?

On the contrary, I am interested in the exchange of opinions. You seem rather interested in the censoring of any opinion that is not chanted in praise at your self-devotional temple.

As you have seen, once you step out of that temple, onto the street, you should expect a more skeptical reception. Certainly you will get one.

(jk)
Kim said…
I had the priveledge of seeing the prototype of this deck as it was about to go to print with the publishers - I bumped into Emily in Glastonbury back in May, and I had a play with the deck in a café.

I can understand some of your criticism, and that the deck's choice of the essential symbols for some of the cards are not for everybody. But isn't that the case with every deck? I'll use the Thoth deck as an example, because you seem to hold it in high esteem (as do I) - the Thoth deck contains a great many symbols that aim to conceptualize a vast array of meanings and concepts in the cards, but as you probably already know from discussing it with others, the Thoth deck is the best deck for some whilst others don't like it - the symbolism doesn't connect with them. Perhaps the symbolism of the Greenwood Tarot does instead, or the symbolism of the Golden Dawn Magickal. A person's reaction to the symbols chosen (arbitarily) for a deck are entirely personal, as are the choices.

You complain that the deck is pointless, and you seem to demand a lot from a new deck. What is it, exactly, that you think qualifies a newly created deck for greatness or usefulness? You fail to state that in your review, leaving me a little confused as to what you want to see in a Tarot deck. Obviously, not every deck that is released can be the complex muddle of symbols that you feel (and I disagree with to some extent) construe a "deep" and "meaningful" Tarot. For every deck to do this would be like flogging a dead horse, and quite frankly, sometimes we need a break from all that esoteric muck.

Now, personally I LOVE as many esoteric symbols crammed into a deck as possible, but after a while of using those kinds of decks I really want something a little simpler - something where I don't need to understand Crowley's entire creation of Thelema, or the Tree of Life's many facets, or how the astrological houses subtly affect each other, to read.

In your review you compared the Empress from the Transparent Tarot and the Rider Waite Tarot, and said that you would be hard-pressed to see the Empress or recognize it in the Transparent Tarot's version. Surely, it is not to recognize the card as the Empress that gives a reader the card interpretation, but instead the image on the card that does so? And here we return to the point of subjectivity in relation to symbolism that I made above: whilst you may prefer the seated woman clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, another person (presumably Emily Carding!) prefers the breast of Mother Nature and the flower of life growing from her very being.

The Transparent Tarot doesn't have to include in it every symbol under the sun, nor does it have to contain within it an entire cosmology or map of the universe like the Thoth deck does. My opinion is that as long as a deck brings something new and interesting to the Tarot world, it is a good deck (as for great decks, that's an entirely different discussion!). Emily Carding's Transparent Tarot does just that. You said that nobody had actually said what was good about the deck but instead had attacked you. Well, for me the "good thing" about the deck is that it reminds us of a very important approach to Tarot: more is not always more. Sometimes, less is more. Sometimes, all those symbols just serve to clutter our mind and confuse us, but a single symbol can allow our minds the freedom to make an in-depth interpretation.

I also think this deck highlights another very important factor that readers (especially new ones) sometimes miss: that each card has a relation with other cards, and the meanings of a Tarot spread are changed by which cards are next to each other. The way the Transparent Tarot clearly demonstrates these links - with a picture created from the joined cards - really highlights this fact and enables a connected story to form from the separate cards.

Regards,
Kim Huggens
jk said…
Kim's comments in bold:

“I had the priveledge of seeing the prototype of this deck as it was about to go to print with the publishers -”

Anyone can have the “priveledge” of seeing Emily’s cards. She has been publishing them online, separately and in suggested combinations, for months now.

“I can understand some of your criticism, and that the deck's choice of the essential symbols for some of the cards are not for everybody.”

Well, that’s interesting in light of the following comments you made about my review, and me:

“Any writer that uses the phrase "Or, you know - NOT!" isn't worth the time to read...I have no doubt this writer's other reviews of decks would be just as childish and missing the point as this review is.”

What point am I supposed to have missed?

“But isn't that the case with every deck?”

I have not seen “every” deck of Tarot. Have you?

I have seen quite a few. And I have seen enough decks to know that when somebody starts out their self-promotion talking about how they have derived Tarot’s “essential symbols”, it would likely be wise to look more deeply into that claim than people are prone to do in an environment like ATF.

In any case, the notion that there are “essential symbols” in ALL Tarot is a provocative suggestion for many people, and they would reject it out of hand. I would not however, and I do think that if one is going to claim they are able to produce these, the evidence of it should be apparent, and the foundation for this evidence should be demonstrable in more ways than the affirmations of the ATF congregation.

“I'll use the Thoth deck as an example, because you seem to hold it in high esteem (as do I) - the Thoth deck contains a great many symbols that aim to conceptualize a vast array of meanings and concepts in the cards, but as you probably already know from discussing it with others, the Thoth deck is the best deck for some whilst others don't like it - the symbolism doesn't connect with them.”

So, allow me to understand your argument here—a great many symbols and “vast array of meanings and concepts”, however dissatisfying that may be to so many people, would likely be inferior or perhaps arguably only equal to a deck whose design necessitated reduction of the symbolism to what the artist claims were the very few essentials?

Why would that be? Or were you attempting to argue something else?

In my experience, the value of a Tarot does not depend upon the quantity of people who find a ready connection to it. The value of any connections or opinions about these that people might have would depend upon their knowledge and appreciation of Tarot. I have encountered people who, for example, imagined blank cards connected to them, and that these should be called Tarot. I would acknowledge that opinion in a statistical survey of all possible opinions about Tarot. I would not count it as of much value in assessing the Tarotic quality of a deck however.

“A person's reaction to the symbols chosen (arbitarily) for a deck are entirely personal, as are the choices.”

Agreed. But that doesn’t mean all opinions are of the same value, either in the choosing, or the viewing.

Examine an admission made by Emily in the email announcement she sent to me:

Major Arcana—“I use the simplest and most evocative single image to sum up the meaning of each card”

Of course, in most Tarots the artist attempts to produce the most complex and coordinated demonstration of their knowledge of Tarot in the Majors. If an artist on the other hand attempts to produce “the simplest and most evocative single image”, she invites a serious inquiry into what that choice should be for each card, and whether or not she has correctly made it, or even come close to suggesting it.

I will deal with your comments about Empress below here, but I would say there is a difference between Tarot cards, and a mere fortunetelling pack. Many decks of cards, including ones obviously based upon Tarots, are designed to be evocative, and suggestive in a divinatory way, but they make no claims to having distilled “the most evocative single image” of Tarot cards.

When you call your deck a Tarot, I think you invite a different level of scrutiny about the symbolic choices you make and you do confine yourself into a genre of expression, which does not dictate forms, but does strongly suggest them. And in every case, in Tarots, the genre of expression is a mixed message, a combination of ideas mixing into archetypes. Decks which mainly depend upon “essentials” usually fail because that isn’t what Tarot is about. A certain minimal level of recognizable symbolic content is necessary to make something really Tarot, but in addition each artist is challenged, unless he is merely a plagiarist, to expand upon the archetype and show us more than we knew before.

Refer here for a discussion of this kind of reductionist-essentialist problem and failing.

"You complain that the deck is pointless, and you seem to demand a lot from a new deck. What is it, exactly, that you think qualifies a newly created deck for greatness or usefulness? You fail to state that in your review, leaving me a little confused as to what you want to see in a Tarot deck."

This is a version of that questionable notion that unless one has a better idea, he shouldn’t complain about a bad one. I am not obliged to preface or otherwise include in my critique an explanation of what would constitute a great Tarot, unless of course you would make this same demand of every other reviewer, which of course you would not do. Of course I have commented at length about what I consider greatness, and certainly badness, in Tarot in many places, most concisely here.

My review is only indirectly about what I want to see in a Tarot deck. Mainly it is aimed at questioning whether or not the Transparent Tarot should even be called a Tarot deck, and if as Tarot it is a worthwhile addition. I conclude of course it is not, and I did detail my reasons in my review, chiefly that it was born out of a ill-considered notion—that more cards make for more clarity—combined with the deficiency that to achieve that benefit transparently, Emily had to start by stripping away an incredible amount of potential content which she does not recover just because now four or five cards have to be combined just to get less than you get in one standard (much less great) Tarot card.

And the benefit of that would be what exactly? Well, of course you attempt to address that at the end, and I will comment below in reply to your view.

"Obviously, not every deck that is released can be the complex muddle of symbols that you feel (and I disagree with to some extent) construe a "deep" and "meaningful" Tarot."

Please quote where I said a complex muddle of symbols are required to make a deep and meaningful Tarot.

“muddle” is precisely what a deep and meaningful Tarot is not. And muddle is precisely what the Transparent Tarot’s combined innocuousness produces.

Even at the level of rorshachs, her cards are just insipid and vain.

"For every deck to do this would be like flogging a dead horse, and quite frankly, sometimes we need a break from all that esoteric muck."

Well, I would say a flogged dead horse pretty much sums up the nature of most modern Tarots, including the Transparent Tarot—save that most other dead horses at least have more plagiarized content to recoil at. The Transparent Tarot might work well as lousy greeting cards, IF Emily hadn't decided they needed to be Tarot cards.

And I would not count the desire for a reprieve (from demands made upon one’s laziness) as justification for a cheeto-Tarot to mindlessly munch on while waiting for an unlikely serious interest to develop.

If on the other hand you are here admitting that the Transparent Tarot is that level of junk food, I would not dispute you, except to say there is more nutritious junk than that already available in Tarotmania.

"Now, personally I LOVE as many esoteric symbols crammed into a deck as possible,"

OK, but esoteria-cramming is also a poor measure of quality in Tarot.

Thoth for example has many cards that are symbolically simple—and yet endlessly more evocative and interesting than anything Emily Carding is likely to produce on her most inspired day.

And maybe that is really the main point. Emily just isn’t a very good artist. Nor is she demonstrably very knowledgeable about Tarot. So, those two failings do not seem to me reasons to welcome her efforts at bettering Tarot. Her work certainly confirms that view.

"In your review you compared the Empress from the Transparent Tarot and the Rider Waite Tarot, and said that you would be hard-pressed to see the Empress or recognize it in the Transparent Tarot's version. Surely, it is not to recognize the card as the Empress that gives a reader the card interpretation, but instead the image on the card that does so?"

Then why call it “Empress”? Or trump III? Or a Tarot card? Or why imagine that recognizability, in any form, is necessary? Indeed, I have heard it argued by the intuitive types that the fascism of form is a Devil from which true readers should seek ready escape.

So why not escape from any link between form or image on the card and an interpretation?

Why not just make all the cards blank and transparent and let people imagine the images they would prefer? Sounds awfully dictatorial expecting people to goose-step to Emily’s idea of essentials.

"And here we return to the point of subjectivity in relation to symbolism that I made above: whilst you may prefer the seated woman clothed with the sun and crowned with stars,"

Where did I say I preferred that?

"another person (presumably Emily Carding!) prefers the breast of Mother Nature and the flower of life growing from her very being."

Great, but why is the latter the most essential and evocative symbol for III-Empress?

Just because Emily prefers it? That’s fine if the deck is just for her, but she seems to think it is good for other people too.

Frankly, I would have thought the breast of Mother Nature could support a more flourishing biosphere than one crappy flower.

"The Transparent Tarot doesn't have to include in it every symbol under the sun, nor does it have to contain within it an entire cosmology or map of the universe like the Thoth deck does."

In fact, as I have said before, it doesn’t have to include anything at all. It could be blank, and some idiots would seriously call it Tarot.

But, between blank and perfectly populated, the symbolic content of cards has a broad range of possible constructions and arrangements, only a few of which can rightly and interestingly be called Tarot. Since the former can be an infinite number, the latter can still be a large number of decks, so there is still room for considerable evolution and innovation in Tarot.

But that room is mainly going to be occupied by people depending on a deep and respectful knowledge of Tarot, not people hoping to convince others to buy into their demonstrably silly concept.

"My opinion is that as long as a deck brings something new and interesting to the Tarot world,"


Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? And I still see no place in your lengthy comments where you make a case for Emily’s deck doing that.

"You said that nobody had actually said what was good about the deck but instead had attacked you. Well, for me the "good thing" about the deck is that it reminds us of a very important approach to Tarot: more is not always more."

But that is precisely the opposite of what Emily claims to be the case.

On the contrary, she explicitly says that the more cards you have piled on one another provides “an enormous amount of clarity to any reading”. She claims this approach used with the Celtic Cross will produce “a more advanced or in depth reading”. So, MORE cards equal MORE clarity and meaning, supposedly.

But again, the problem is that Emily attempts to achieve this effect by doing the opposite of what she claims, which results in the reader getting ONE muddle-card instead of one competently designed Tarot card.

Why should anyone want this, or count it as a “very important approach to Tarot”?

"Sometimes, less is more."

And one less stupid Tarot in the world can only be a good thing.

Sometimes, all those symbols just serve to clutter our mind and confuse us, but a single symbol can allow our minds the freedom to make an in-depth interpretation.

The problem is a “single symbol” isn’t what Emily is peddling, but a combination of what she alleges are essentials, resulting in the very same complex of symbols you claim she is liberating us from.

The difference is that in a good Tarot, like Thoth, the symbolic system is developed with a view of integrating interesting (and sometimes complex) ideas, so that each and every card is a complete universe but also fits into a larger scheme. In the Transparent Tarot on the other hand, the deck arrives with a number of fatal deficiencies, not the least of which is that the necessity of making things literally transparent forces choices made for the sake of a gimmick, not an intelligently designed Tarot.

"I also think this deck highlights another very important factor that readers (especially new ones) sometimes miss: that each card has a relation with other cards, and the meanings of a Tarot spread are changed by which cards are next to each other. The way the Transparent Tarot clearly demonstrates these links -"

Please provide a specific example of how it does this, especially how it does it better or more evocatively than other decks.

(jk)
Kim said…
You seem to have a problem with the ATF. I must ask: is this a review of the Transparent Tarot, or a review/slight of ATF? Why do you insist on being so bitter about the fact that lots of people on ATF actually like the look of the deck? Does it not occue as a possibility that their praise was not mere ego-stroking but genuine liking for the deck?

"In my experience, the value of a Tarot does not depend upon the quantity of people who find a ready connection to it. The value of any connections or opinions about these that people might have would depend upon their knowledge and appreciation of Tarot. I have encountered people who, for example, imagined blank cards connected to them, and that these should be called Tarot. I would acknowledge that opinion in a statistical survey of all possible opinions about Tarot. I would not count it as of much value in assessing the Tarotic quality of a deck however."

To me, the quality of a Tarot deck is subjective, and if I find the deck useful and beautiful then that deck's existence is - IMO - justified. But then I'm a deck collector and reader with a wide variety of tastes. Yes, I like decks such as the Gummi Bear Tarot, as well as decks like the Thoth. There are also many decks I dislike, but I wouldn't say they are "detrimental and degrading to the Tarot world and the author."

"Agreed. But that doesn’t mean all opinions are of the same value, either in the choosing, or the viewing."

Agreed too. But then who is the judge? Surely it is the user of the Tarot deck. And, as I said above, if I find the Transparent Tarot to have a set of symbolism that I find evocative, then so be it. This is in the same way that I really don't gel with the symbolism in the Navigators Tarot of the Mystic Sea - but I know somebody else who does. You obviously don't gel with the Transparent Tarot's symbolism. Stick with another deck. Simple.

"Of course, in most Tarots the artist attempts to produce the most complex and coordinated demonstration of their knowledge of Tarot in the Majors."

I disagree. "Most Tarots"? As you so blatantly shot at me earlier: have you seen most Tarots? I haven't. Frankly, if the artist tries to produce the most complex thing possible, their deck is probably only going to be usable by themselves. And who's to say that Emily producing a "single evocative image" is not her way of trying to produce the most complex and coordinated knowledge of the Majors? Perhaps we should all undertake the exercise of trying to conceptualize and essentialize a card's concept into something simple. The Transparent Tarot does this quite nicely for me.

"When you call your deck a Tarot, I think you invite a different level of scrutiny about the symbolic choices you make and you do confine yourself into a genre of expression, which does not dictate forms, but does strongly suggest them.

I also agree. But you show me the checklist of what makes a Tarot. You'll find that list will be disputed by Tarot readers across the globe. Emily says TT is a Tarot deck. You don't. Who is right? Wanna duke it out? Who's got the most qualification here? And does it matter? Who judges, really?

"A certain minimal level of recognizable symbolic content is necessary to make something really Tarot, but in addition each artist is challenged, unless he is merely a plagiarist, to expand upon the archetype and show us more than we knew before."

And again, I ask, who judges what makes a symbol recognizable? Symbolism is an interesting subject to discuss, since it is so varied, and the serpent that evokes images of kundalini rising for the Hindu will evoke images of original sin and temptation for the Christian. As a Pagan and Vodou practitioner, the symbols I respond to (let's say, in the New Orleans Voodoo Tarot) and those that you respond to (in, for instance, the Thoth) will be very different.

"chiefly that it was born out of a ill-considered notion—that more cards make for more clarity—combined with the deficiency that to achieve that benefit transparently, Emily had to start by stripping away an incredible amount of potential content which she does not recover just because now four or five cards have to be combined just to get less than you get in one standard (much less great) Tarot card."

Having worked with the deck, and discussed it with Emily, I don't think she is subscribing to the "more is more" view. However, advertizing to the general Tarot populus sometimes involves saying certain things to get people hooked into it to explore it further - I think this has happened. Trust me, publishing a deck requires the creator to attempt to sum up their deck in a buyable and attractive manner in the space of about one sentence. Harder than it seems. I invite you to actually purchase the deck and read the companion book that accompanies it, and see if your assumption of Emily's view of Tarot still holds.

"This is a version of that questionable notion that unless one has a better idea, he shouldn’t complain about a bad one."

No, I was simply wondering what it was you were expecting from this deck, because you seem to have been expecting something entirely different to what it was actually advertized as.

"And I would not count the desire for a reprieve (from demands made upon one’s laziness) as justification for a cheeto-Tarot to mindlessly munch on while waiting for an unlikely serious interest to develop."

Saying that to somebody whose been studying Tarot since the age of 9 comes off a little weak, perhaps? I have had a serious interest in Tarot since that age, and have collected many decks, and I truly love the Transparent Tarot - both because it is, indeed, unique as Emily has said, and an interesting idea, a new take on how to use the cards. It isn't about lazy Tarot reading or studying, but about a different perspective. We just happen to like different things in Tarot, apparantly - but why does this mean that the TT (which is obviously not the deck for you) is suddenly "detrimental and degrading" to the Tarot world? How so? What exactly does it do that is so terrible?

You know, anything else I answer will just be us going round in Tarot circles. We agree on some points, and we disagree on others - most notably, what construes a Tarot deck. I still don't see why this addition to the Tarot world degrades the world. I shall respond with one final thing:

"Just because Emily prefers it? That’s fine if the deck is just for her, but she seems to think it is good for other people too."

Yes. And there appear to be a great many people out there who agree that the deck is good for others too. Answer that one, if you can, without recourse to "bad ATF" arguments. A Tarot deck is given to somebody, and they enjoy it and it gives them a little bit more insight into the Tarot and the process of reading. That is what has happened with the TT, certainly from my perspective.

When I teach Tarot to people I let them use any deck they like. Now, sometimes I personally dislike the decks they use - but I'm not going to tell them that it isn't a real Tarot deck and that they can't use it, because I don't know what background they're from or what turns them on spiritually and mentally. And neither do you.

As I said before, I won't reply to anything else as this will quickly become a "'tis - tisn't" argument that I don't have the time to engage in currently. Emily's deck is loved by many people, and not by you, but apparantly this love isn't real because those who have said good things are on ATF and therefore are just stroking Emily's ego. What a terrible view you must have of human nature and of the Tarot world you are so anxious to protect from this deck.
Steven said…
Of course, "deranged and furious" men are animals who should probably be caged for their furious expressions, and "pre-menstral" women are poor victims of their biology whose furious expressions should be met with sympathy and support.

I call deranged and furious women "deranged and furious," not pre-menstrual. The games people play with language are so cute. I would say the reaction to your review has been more "deranged and furious" than your original review by an order of magnitude.
:: rebecca :: said…
This comment has been removed by the author.