If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Tiffany: Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that have taken place. Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them. T |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tracy wrote in message news:RAHMb.37605$I06.243364@attbi_s01... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the typical vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was not typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended on the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed outside of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be it - but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide not to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can you imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other people's marriages? (more below) No one can make a promise to that extent. I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice to be married and live up to that promise. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one should expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate the growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their children to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with all people in their lives. Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of divorce, and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the outcome. I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up to a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick. The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit over where they live. The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is all she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on just his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon because he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then there is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they were use to. Do you see where I'm coming from? Tracy ~~~~~~~ Not seeing where this pertains to anything I wrote, other then your opinion on vows. No where was I unsupportive of marriage over all. I stated that the vows are bull**** and you are correct in that, just don't use them. I won't. I am not getting into my religious beliefs here but I will add that due to my beliefs, the vows don't work for me. You state that people are unsupportive of marriage. Are you talking in general, your own life or this NG? As many folks here have congradulated you on your upcoming marriage, I think you mean in general. It must be about who people surround themselves with because in my little world, there are many married people, some not happily but they are trying to work things out. They have lots of support. As for the last couple you mentioned, I am thinking there can be other issues there that might not be coming out yet. If she is trully in love with this man, why would she leave him when, like you suggested, she can visit her family regurlay? But I also believe one must do what they have to do in order to be happy. There are other aspects to think about, like kids so that makes things very complicated. But if 2 people are married and no longer happy, why should they remain in such unhappiness in order to outlive a vow? T |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tracy wrote in message news:RAHMb.37605$I06.243364@attbi_s01... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the typical vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was not typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended on the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed outside of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be it - but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide not to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can you imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other people's marriages? (more below) No one can make a promise to that extent. I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice to be married and live up to that promise. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one should expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate the growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their children to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with all people in their lives. Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of divorce, and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the outcome. I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up to a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick. The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit over where they live. The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is all she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on just his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon because he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then there is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they were use to. Do you see where I'm coming from? Tracy ~~~~~~~ Not seeing where this pertains to anything I wrote, other then your opinion on vows. No where was I unsupportive of marriage over all. I stated that the vows are bull**** and you are correct in that, just don't use them. I won't. I am not getting into my religious beliefs here but I will add that due to my beliefs, the vows don't work for me. You state that people are unsupportive of marriage. Are you talking in general, your own life or this NG? As many folks here have congradulated you on your upcoming marriage, I think you mean in general. It must be about who people surround themselves with because in my little world, there are many married people, some not happily but they are trying to work things out. They have lots of support. As for the last couple you mentioned, I am thinking there can be other issues there that might not be coming out yet. If she is trully in love with this man, why would she leave him when, like you suggested, she can visit her family regurlay? But I also believe one must do what they have to do in order to be happy. There are other aspects to think about, like kids so that makes things very complicated. But if 2 people are married and no longer happy, why should they remain in such unhappiness in order to outlive a vow? T |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Bob Whiteside wrote in message ink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men away from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing apart is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the relationship made without the other partner's input. So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am committed to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide we are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay with you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets with me? So there you assume all women are after money. It always ends with the money. I can not say what would be in a wedding vow. It should be a personal thing. I am not in the process of marriage so its nothing I sit and think about. My view about marriage aren't casual. If I were that casual, I would already been married a few times. I take marriage more seriously and with an honest attitude then most do. T |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Bob Whiteside wrote in message ink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men away from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing apart is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the relationship made without the other partner's input. So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am committed to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide we are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay with you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets with me? So there you assume all women are after money. It always ends with the money. I can not say what would be in a wedding vow. It should be a personal thing. I am not in the process of marriage so its nothing I sit and think about. My view about marriage aren't casual. If I were that casual, I would already been married a few times. I take marriage more seriously and with an honest attitude then most do. T |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's voice or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex of the "perpetrator". If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts to suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of life, I think you underestimate their determination and agenda. You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce. Phil #3 "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... AZ Astrea: Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently 30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage? The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married. However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got started in California under the influence of these groups. The continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that process in turn has produced reactions among men. Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you want, so long as it's black." There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're getting into until it's time for the divorce. Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the undermining of marriage. The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract. AZ Astrea wrote: "Tracy" wrote in message news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53... I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours prior to that time doing the following: more than 11 hours driving about 4 hours at a wedding about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel about an hour eating breakfast this morning and about 6 hours sleeping During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married, and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew" their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those who are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't we, as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's choices of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't have gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone else like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who are non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage. It will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce - heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what they are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others. ------------------- "I think therefore I'm not married". Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has thought it over and will not get married. For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44 and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay. I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly, have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted children, if people would just stop and think.......... ~AZ~ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's voice or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex of the "perpetrator". If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts to suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of life, I think you underestimate their determination and agenda. You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce. Phil #3 "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... AZ Astrea: Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently 30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage? The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married. However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got started in California under the influence of these groups. The continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that process in turn has produced reactions among men. Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you want, so long as it's black." There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're getting into until it's time for the divorce. Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the undermining of marriage. The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract. AZ Astrea wrote: "Tracy" wrote in message news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53... I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours prior to that time doing the following: more than 11 hours driving about 4 hours at a wedding about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel about an hour eating breakfast this morning and about 6 hours sleeping During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married, and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew" their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those who are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't we, as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's choices of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't have gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone else like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who are non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage. It will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce - heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what they are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others. ------------------- "I think therefore I'm not married". Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has thought it over and will not get married. For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44 and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay. I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly, have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted children, if people would just stop and think.......... ~AZ~ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tiffany:
You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting marriage. Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce. That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes, marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the U.S. When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves and in others, they always find ways of doing so. Tiffany wrote: Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Tiffany: Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that have taken place. Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them. T |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tiffany:
You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting marriage. Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce. That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes, marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the U.S. When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves and in others, they always find ways of doing so. Tiffany wrote: Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Tiffany: Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that have taken place. Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them. T |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
So you think everyone who gets married should stay married no matter what? I
don't agree with vows that are apparently unattainable. Apparent by the high divorce rate. Why not make a commitment to stay committed as long as both parties want to? My approach is that of a generation who has watched their parents be miserable, all in the sake of staying married. One that has watched Grandparents die unhappy with the life they had lived with a spouse they didn't love but stayed together for the sake of the vows. I would never suggest someone stay miserable in order to keep to the vow. T Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Tiffany: You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting marriage. Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce. That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes, marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the U.S. When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves and in others, they always find ways of doing so. Tiffany wrote: Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Tiffany: Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that have taken place. Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them. T |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage is under fire!! | Jorkoy | Spanking | 0 | July 29th 04 09:31 PM |
Marriage Tax Bonus Expansion = Singles Tax Penalty Expansion | Jumiee | Single Parents | 0 | June 9th 04 10:49 PM |
Survey to gauge ideas on marriage | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | September 20th 03 05:26 PM |