{"article":{"id":12335,"heading":"Guided evolution of e-culture","author":"Vigdor Schreibman","created":"2001-10-26 08:31:54","modified":"2005-08-15 00:42:11","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:42:11","article":"<p>!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-\/\/W3C\/\/DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional\/\/EN\"&gt;\r\n\r\n\r\nCC REPORT:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<br>\r\nGuided evolution of e-culture: pursuit of \"total world\r\ndomination\"      \r\n\r\nOctober 24, 2001\r\n\r\nGuided evolution of e-culture: pursuit of \"total world\r\ndomination\"\r\n\r\nBy Vigdor Schreibman\r\n\r\nIt is difficult these days to tell the difference between\r\nfiction and reality, especially over claims of the enemy seeking\r\n\"total world domination.\" In an account of the commercial\r\naircraft, as cruise missiles, attack against the World Trade\r\nCenter and the Pentagon on 11 September, written by Donn de Grand\r\nPr&eacute;, The enemy is inside\r\nthe gates, the auther observes:\r\n\r\n\r\nThe so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly\r\nexecuted military operation against the United States, requiring\r\nthe utmost professional military skill in command, communications\r\nand control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected\r\naircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated\r\ndelivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.\r\n\r\n\r\nLooking at a graphic illustration of the \r\nFinal flight paths published by USAToday, it is plausible to\r\nsuspect, as Donn de Grand Pr&eacute; suggests, that only an\r\ninsider group that has great power and control could have carried\r\nout that coordinated attack. Beyond the obvious marks of mutual\r\nanimosity the \"trail of evidence\" connecting this attack with \r\nOsama bin Laden, the immediate target of public vengence, is\r\na broad network of prior terrorist conduct and a wise respect for\r\nthe ability of that adversary, together with admittedly tenuous\r\nconjecture or gilt by association, certainly not what is needed\r\nfor judgment in a court, according to <i>FRONTLINE<\/i> news\r\nsources who have been covering the story for some time. Of more\r\nintriguing interest is the suggested insider explanation -\r\narising from the evident need for utmost skills, command and\r\ncontrol - offered by Donn de Grand Pr&eacute;, to grab the\r\nawesome prize: \"destruction of all national sovereignty and\r\nestablishment of a global government\" but the fundamental\r\nquestions still persists: \"Who is the enemy?\" and \"What Would\r\nDrive Them to Such Acts of Desperation?\"\r\n\r\nThe story of multinational globalization, not a blue sky story\r\nbut one with the looks, feeling, and smell right on the dirty\r\ngrounds on which it is played, raises similar concerns of an\r\nemerging evolution toward \"Total World Domination\"! I first\r\npicked up the story of multinational globalization in my News\r\nColumn February 24, 1997, entitled, GII:\r\nGlobal Power Grab, which discussed the trillion dollar deal\r\nfor the takeover of the global information infrastructure for\r\ntelecommunications. In the following News Column March 10, 1997,\r\nentitled, Evolution\r\nin a Technological Civilization, I wrote, \"The next\r\nevolutionary stage that is likely to come about projected from\r\npresent trends, is world corporate governance emerging, perhaps,\r\nwithin the span of a single decade or earlier.\" \r\n\r\nOf course, the game of globalization can be played both by\r\ncapitalists and by \"the People,\" and after the US Congress\r\ndelivered a knockout\r\ndefeating a new legislative \"fast track\" for globalization, my\r\nnext critical News Column on this topic was written in November\r\n24, 1997, when I proposed, Building\r\na \"Sustainable Fast Track\". The idea was to reorient the\r\n\"fast track\" legislative process sought by capitalist advocates\r\nof globalization, into a \"fast track\" sustaining goals for \"the\r\nPeople.\" I reasoned \"A Sustainable Fast Track could advance\r\neconomic prosperity, social equity, and ecological integrity, as\r\ninterdependent, mutually reinforcing goals.\" Just as finance\r\ncapital could organize global systems to serve the few, \"the\r\nPeople\" could organize global systems to serve \"the will of the\r\nwhole\"!\r\n\r\nThat suggestion was made two years before the \r\nProtest of the Century over globalization really broke into\r\nworld consciousness at the World\r\nTrade Organization (WTO), Third Ministerial Meeting, at\r\nSeattle, Washington, November 29 to December 3, 1999. At that\r\nevent the first Independent Media Center (IMC) was organized. Now\r\nthere are many IMCs around which tens\r\nof millions of citizens throughout the world have been organized\r\nin opposition to capitalism and globalization. The line taken by\r\n\"the People\" was precisely what I anticipated in my \"Sustainable\r\nFast Track\" column; indeed, President Clinton surprised everyone\r\nwhen he released news at Seattle99 of his package of NEW DREAMS\r\nAND PROMISES, including the following items: &gt;\/h4&gt;\r\n\r\n<\/p><ul>\r\n<li>White House Executive Order, Environmental Review of Trade\r\nAgreements (Nov 1999)<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>White House Fact Sheet on Trade and Ensuring a Healthy\r\nEnvironment (Nov 1999), and<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>White House Fact Sheet on Policy Declaration on Environment\r\nand Trade (Nov 1999)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\nThis surprise package promised to rewrite the global trade\r\nregulations and sustainable development policies of the American\r\ngovernment, accompanied by this declaration: \"Economic growth\r\nmust be pursued in the broader context of sustainable\r\ndevelopment, which integrates economic, social, and environmental\r\npolicies.\" \r\n\r\nPresident Clinton's revolutionary proposal was not serious,\r\nas I wrote in a News Column November 24, 1999, The\r\nMissing Core of Clinton's Proposed Revolution; nevertheless,\r\nthe idea of a public trade and environment policy that would\r\nserve the goals of \"the People\" was gaining ground in the public\r\nsector. Before the end of the 20th-century, A Better World For All,\r\nwas proposed by Kofi A. Annan Secretary-General of the United\r\nNations in a Report by the United Nations, OECD, World Bank, and\r\nIMF, setting goals to reduce global poverty (and implicitly\r\nadmitting that globalization did not bring prosperity to any but\r\nthe wealthy nations). This was followed by The Global Compact, an\r\nagreement under sponsorship of the United Nations upon 9\r\nprinciples between big business, labor, and civil society to\r\nunite the power of markets with the authority of universal\r\nideals. These plans evidence clear recognition by dominant\r\ngovernmental forces in the world of the need to move public\r\npolicy beyond the <i>laissez faire<\/i> capitalist ideology toward\r\na post-capitalist, responsible civilization.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, within the paramount realities of the elite business\r\norganizations, a massive expansion was getting under way to\r\nfurther develop their \"collaborative\" powers <i>via<\/i> Internet,\r\nas documented in a large body of research data produced by\r\nHarvard Professor of Business Administration, Rosabeth Moss\r\nKanter, for her book <i>Evolve!<\/i> (2001). The primary source of\r\ndata used for the global e-culture survey was drawn from the\r\nJanuary 2000 meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos,\r\nSwitzerland. That research project and the text of the book as\r\nwell as the conduct of the business organizations described\r\nthere, largely disregard the goals of social equity and\r\necological integrity in all but amusing pretence. For example,\r\nthe World Economic Forum Task Force\r\non the Global Digital Divide Initiative, seeking specifically\r\nto put a progressive face on the topic in its recommendations to\r\nthe G-8 Kyushu- Okinawa Summit 2000, offered this statement of\r\nprinciple <i>inter alia<\/i> : \"The digital empowerment of civil\r\nsociety is a key foundation of development in the information\r\nage.\" Nevertheless, no mention is made of the WEF Task Force\r\nprinciple on digital empowerment of civil society in the text of\r\n<i>Evolve!<\/i>, which otherwise highlights \"the truth\" that the\r\nbuildup of the e-culture has been generated in \"superficial\"\r\nforms, offering the fast and cryptic over the deep and intimate,\r\nas the dominant mode of communications in the e-culture. \r\n\r\nA similar scenario of the current situation pertaining to\r\nAmerica's educated elite was also documented by David Brooks in\r\nhis social comedy, <i>BOBOS* in Paradise : The New Upper Class\r\nand How They Got There<\/i> (2000). \"BOBOS\" means \"Bourgeois\r\nBohemians,\" and as Brooks explains, infra at pp. 61-70, radical\r\nchanges in the behavior of the most educated American class have\r\nemerged by integration of the life styles of the Bourgeois and\r\nBohemian, the historical roots of which began in the early\r\n18th-century with the first glimmerings of the industrial age.\r\nBOBOS recognize a movement in thought away from <i>laissez\r\nfaire<\/i> capitalism, but as Brooks reveals, these changes in\r\nlife styles of wealthy Americans, are hilarious pretensions of\r\nsensitivity without serious commitment to civil and ecological\r\nresponsibility.\r\n\r\n\"Total World Domination\" appears as a dramatic theme over and\r\nover again in the text of <i>Evolve!<\/i> adding only style but\r\nnot substance to the story. There is no grand plot there, just a\r\nbit of melodrama for a youthful audience of computer hackers.\r\nRecommendations offered to the G-8 Summit by the World Economic\r\nForum Task Force were framed to avoid recognition of the severe\r\nGlobal Digital Divide problems in favor of highlighting the\r\nopportunities offered by global trade liberalization principles\r\nof the World Trade Organization telecommunications regime. What\r\nseems altogether foreign to the e-culture described in\r\n<i>Evolve!<\/i> or the life styles of the educated elite described\r\nin <i>BOBOS<\/i> are the kind of widely publicized public policy\r\nprinciples and plans announced by the United Nations and other\r\nglobal leaders: <i>A Better World For All<\/i>, and <i>The Global\r\nCompact<\/i>. Those two sets of institutions involving private\r\nbusiness conduct and public policy determninations, are now\r\nmoving in mutually exclusive directions. The public position will\r\nalmost certainly expire without strong civil support. \r\n\r\nThe capstone of the private business strategy has paralyzed\r\nthe real potential effectiveness of the Internet, which is\r\nunnecessarily trapped in superficiality and resulting Babel,\r\ninstead of serving as an effective instrument in the pursuit of\r\nsocial equity, ecological integrity, and economic prosperity as\r\nmutually reinforcing goals. While the e-culture has the\r\npropensity to develop an ethic of cooperation to maximize the\r\neconomic utility of the global information infrastructure, these\r\ndevelopments are without a sound social foundation raising the\r\npossibilities for unanticipated suprises yet to come. The same\r\ne-culture largely disregards \"The digital empowerment of civil\r\nsociety,\" which was ironically identified by the World Economic\r\nForum, as the \"key foundation of development in the information\r\nage.\" Civil society cannot be empowered by an infrastructure that\r\nis limited by an inherent superficiality, precluding the pursuit\r\nof meaning and wisdom and the social, ecological, and economic\r\ngoals that are derived from the larger values of a sustainable\r\ncivilization.\r\n\r\nProfessor Kanter places her class pointer right on the problem\r\nwith this statement about the e-culture while drawing a\r\npeculiarly wicked conclusion:\r\n\r\n\r\n<i>E-culture is superficial--in good ways<\/i>. Communications\r\nis the core of e-culture. Internet time requires fast, cryptic,\r\ncommunications among strangers who cannot take the time to\r\ninterpret subtleties or build a deep relationship based on\r\nintimate knowledge.\r\n\r\n\r\nOf course, some communications will always be of the\r\nsuperficial kind in a business and social environment with many\r\npurely ministerial functions but this can be interpreted as a\r\n\"good\" norm of guidance for the e-culture only for those who\r\nwould benefit from a community structure without the capacity for\r\ndeep social bonds and highly vulnerable to exploitation. Who\r\nwants that? Broad limitation of communications to superficiality\r\nis obviously not a \"good\" derived from any inherent need or\r\ndesire of mass users of Internet communications.\r\n\r\nCorporate guidance of the e-culture by preclusive limitations of\r\nthe possibilities of Internet technology have trapped mass users\r\nin the ethic of superficiality imposed by the new medium. The\r\noutcome is a disaster thriving on chaos instead of advancing the\r\npossibilities of democratic coherence. An e-culture that is\r\nlimited to superficiality cannot survive the complexities that it\r\npromotes, without having the capacity to rise above the limited\r\nconcerns of strangers, to contemplate the needs of communities\r\nthat give life to the medium and to facilitate users in their\r\nessential interpretation of subtleties or to build deep\r\nrelationships based on intimate knowledge of the situations they\r\nmust face together. Indeed, virtual communications can work as a\r\nmarvel of illusion that offers powerful attractions between men\r\nand women, between producers and consumers, between rich and poor\r\nclasses, but deprived of the capacity to examine deeper, more\r\ncomplex relationships these extraordinary attractions can pose\r\nsevere dangers to everyone impacted by such unnatural conditions.\r\n\r\n\r\nMoreover, the trap of unnnecessary superficiality has been\r\nlocked in place by design and business management practitioners\r\nwho possess the critical knowledge and experience for advancement\r\nof \"meaningful dialogue.\" They have failed and continue to refuse\r\nto provide the necessary leadership support for enhancement of\r\nInternet communications, as my paper on \r\nCivilizations of opportunism clearly reveals.\r\n\r\nSubsequent to the publication of that paper the Dialogue Game\r\nof AN Christakis, with a set of new simplified instructions, was\r\ndesignated as a \"public domain\" property by Dr Christakis, at my\r\nrequest, in an email message sent to me dated October 14. This\r\nwas a welcome gesture but in order for \"the People\" to pursue\r\nmeaning and wisdom with the \"Dialogue Game\" or, more importantly,\r\nto facilitate \"meaningful dialogue\" about the global\r\nprobl&eacute;matique they must be able to secure the competent\r\nuse of systems methodologies <i>via<\/i> Internet where the broad\r\nmass of \"the People\" may obtain affordable access. But no\r\nsignificant ongoing leadership support for enhancement of\r\nInternet communications beyond the superficial mode identified by\r\nProfessor Kanter has yet been offered that I am aware of.\r\nExamples of systems methodologies in electronic mode are rare,\r\nand attempts by this writer to expand upon those rare examples\r\nhave been rejected by the insult of silence. This situation is\r\nnot the result of any insurmountable difficulty in adapting\r\navailable systems methodologies to electronic format, as my paper\r\non cyberspace\r\ncapital suggests. On the contrary, this conduct is a means of\r\nlimiting access to advanced techniques that can facilitate\r\n\"meaningful dialogue,\" thereby, exacerbating the \"digital divide\"\r\nand strengthening the ability of elite institutions to guide the\r\ne-culture by a brutal philosophy of greed, as the story of\r\n<i>Evolve!<\/i>! further suggests. \r\n\r\nHarvard University Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter wisely\r\nincludes this observation in the final chapter of\r\n<i>Evolve!<\/i>:\r\n\r\n<i>Our next step in human evolution is not to become\r\ncyborgs attached to our machines. It is to become more fully\r\nhuman, attached to each other, with our machines on our toolbelts\r\nfor use when we need them. The challenge is social evolution: to\r\ndevelop shared consciousness of the human\r\ncommunity.<\/i>\r\n\r\nNevertheless, Professor Kanter admits that her massive\r\nresearch project on corporate development of the global e-culture\r\nfailed to collect the necessary knowledge to engage in \"social\r\nevolution: to develop shared consciousness of the human\r\ncommunity.\" Kanter claims \"We don't know enought\"! Others may ask\r\n\"Why not?\" The channels of corporate information were wide open\r\nto her research team at Harvard Business School but the set of\r\nsurvey questions produced by Professor Kanter, who is described\r\non the jacket of her book as \"THE WORLD RENOWN EXPERT ON CHANGE\"\r\nsimply did not probe for any response to these critical issues.\r\nNone of the key issues included in her final appraisal appeared\r\nin any of the six sections of the survey questionnaire! Indeed,\r\nby declaring \"E-culture is superficial-- in good ways\" without\r\nany exploration of available alternatives, Kanter wickedly\r\npromotes the mode of superficial relationships over the deep and\r\ncomplex e-culture relationships, which are at the very core of\r\nthe challenge of social evolution.\r\n\r\nOne must draw the conclusion that the real challenges of the\r\ne-culture that are essential to a better future are obviously not\r\nthe driving ideas that concern either big business or the elite\r\neducational institutions that inspire and guide their conduct. We\r\nhave seen it all before. In an analogous situation this same\r\npattern of critical ommissions and distortions guided another\r\nelite panel of experts at Harvard University, John F. Kennedy\r\nSchool of Government when they facilitated a set of political\r\nplanning sessions for corporate lobbying of Congress to promote\r\nthe <i>Telecommunications Act of 1996<\/i>. That group of elite\r\neducators produced a public policy that affects the widest\r\npossible scope of economic activity, guided by an Orwellian logic,\r\nas bluntly described by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), in an Op-ed\r\npiece published by \"The Hill\" Newspaper (October 20, 1999). \r\n\r\nThe practical lesson of large scale systems changes reported\r\nby the world's leading scholar on integrative systems, Dr. John\r\nN. Warfield, is that citizens must expect the most \"despicable\r\noutcomes\" from their \"expert\" leadership institutions.\r\n\r\nThe next great political movement must be to secure the \"digital\r\nempowerment of civil society\" and to deepen the civil society's\r\norganizational efforts in complex, disciplined, and democratic\r\nforms. Citizens are the only true \"experts\" of what is happening\r\non the ground in global civilizations. The way to build upon\r\nstreet protest in a movement toward real democratic\r\ntransformation is with the use of systems methodologies, which\r\ncan help overcome the debilitating limitations of human\r\nincapacities in group decision making concerning complex issues,\r\nas my paper on cyberspace capital\r\nexplains. Design science and systems methodologies have worked a\r\nreal revolution during the past few decades in the process of\r\nface-to-face dialogue. Real-world applications of this technology\r\nin a large variety of designs in many diverse fields,\r\nparticularly during the past 15-years, have confirmed the\r\nreliability of this revolutionary process. This includes the\r\nfollowing examples <i>inter alia<\/i>: \r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>\r\nNational Association of Mental Health, Mental Health\r\nInternet Leadership Summit (Feb 2001) (Discussion paper,\r\nSummit Proceedings, Clarification of Principles).\r\n<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>\r\nJeffrey, <i>Disarmament and Demobilization<\/i>, (Interactive\r\nManagement Workshop hosted by the European Commission, Monrovia,\r\nLiberia 1996) (design of a plan of disarmament and demobilization\r\nby the \"Warlords and Warriors\" engaged in a civil war in\r\nLiberia).\r\n<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>\r\nCenter for Interactive Management, George Mason University,\r\n<i>Report on the Issues Identification and Structuring Session of\r\nthe Alliance for Nursing Organizations<\/i> (1986) (Interactive\r\nManagement seminar to identify significant issues in Nursing in\r\nVirginia in the next 5 years, organize these issues for\r\nappropriate action, and develop preliminary strategies for the\r\nAlliance in addressing these issues).\r\n<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>\r\nChristakis, <i>The National Forum on Nonindustrial Private\r\nForest Lands<\/i>, 2 SYSTEMS RESEARCH 189 (1985) (Interactive\r\nManagement forum sponsored by the US Department of Agriculture\r\n1984, examining national issues, options, and responsibilities\r\nfaced by representative national assembly of stakeholders).\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\nBy adapting the use of such methodologies to the Internet,\r\nand by using community computers as a portal to even broader\r\ncommunity dialogue as demonstrated, for example, in the\r\nsuccessful Electronic Town\r\nHall <i>via<\/i> Internet Relay Chat, people all over the\r\nworld can obtain access on affordable terms to collaborate with\r\neach other in realizing the goals of democratic sustainability.\r\nPower will not be ceded by the elite without a great struggle but\r\nthose who are likely to be robbed of their minds and their lives\r\nby the elite unless they are allowed to participate fairly in the\r\nstructures of decisions that affect their lives must have an\r\nadequate forum for development of a democratic counterculture.\r\nWhen \"the People\" take the power to engage in meaningful dialogue\r\nwith each other and with the elite their authenticity will be\r\nauthenticated and their genuine unity and true individuality\r\nstrengthened to realize the ideals of democracy.\r\n\r\nThe political stakes in opening the e-culture to \"meaningful\r\ndialogue\" could not be greater, but the great complexity of the\r\npolitics should not be confused with the specific functions of\r\ngroup decision making, which must be adapted to the electronic\r\nformat. It is my impression after more than 25 years of concern\r\nfor these issues that the complexity in achieving this latter\r\ngoal is rather of the elemetary kind and not terribly complex at\r\nall. This may come as something of a surprise to those who\r\nsuggest that a great team of extraordinary genius is needed to\r\nproduce the required computer programs. I say, it's just not that\r\nway. \r\n\r\nThere are several basic functions of the key systems\r\nmethodologies involved in support of group decision making such\r\nas, for example, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) [Delbecq, Van\r\nde Ven, Gustafson, <i>Group Techniques For Program Planning: A\r\nGuide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes<\/i> (1975)]. These\r\nfunctions are comprehensively described and illustrated at the\r\nlinked site for NGT. One can\r\nalso see how the process flows in the below illustration.<br>\r\n<br>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe basic set of functions involved in using NGT includes the\r\nfollowing :\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>formulating and transmitting a concise trigger question to a\r\nparticipant group of from 10 to 100 participants;<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>receiving, organizing, and displaying sets of participant\r\nideas about an issue or problem;<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>receiving, organizing, and displaying group clarifications of\r\nparticipant responses so that an agreed upon, integrated\r\ndescription of the issue or problem can be found; and<\/li>\r\n\r\n<li>tallying participant ranking and voting of preferences in the\r\nstructure of relations between the collected sets of ideas<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\nThe computer program should be developed under the \"Open\r\nSource\" licensing process for free computer software [e.g., OS, or GNU]. This will assure wide\r\navailability of the software on affordable terms. Any well\r\nexperienced computer professional or information sciences\r\ndepartment of a competent school should be able to handle this\r\ncomputer design problem, in my opinion.\r\n\r\nFunding for this purpose may be obtained from the National\r\nScience Foundation (NSF), under the Directorate for Computer and\r\nInformation Science and Engineering, mandated by this goal:\r\n\"To contribute to universal, transparent and affordable\r\nparticipation in an information-based society.\" CC will be\r\npleased to administer a grant application and coordinate work on\r\nthe project for any competent professional or group that is\r\nseriously interested in collaborating with CC in this very\r\nimportant public service initiative.\r\n\r\n<hr size=\"4\">\r\n\r\nCYBERSPACE CAPITAL AND DEMOCRATIC SUSTAINABILITY<br>\r\n<i>VIA<\/i> INTERNET\r\n\r\n<hr size=\"2\">\r\n\r\nFederal\r\nInformation News Syndicate (FINS),<br>\r\n Vigdor Schreibman, Editor &amp; Publisher,<br>\r\n18 - 9th Street NE #206, On Capitol Hill, Washington, DC\r\n20002-6042. Copyright 2001 FINS.<br>\r\nIntegrated Phone\/Fax\/Voice Mail: (202) 547-8715;<br>\r\n Email: fins2000@mindspring.com<br>\r\nBrowse Fins Information Age Library at URL:\r\nhttp:\/\/sunsite.utk.edu\/FINS\/<br>\r\nRepublication authorized for nonprofit use only, provided message\r\nis kept intact.\r\n\r\n\r\n<hr size=\"2\">\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"Vigdor@cyberspacecapital.org","link":"http:\/\/cyberspacecapital.org","address":"18 - 9th Street NE Apt #206, Washington, DC 20002-6042","phone":"1-202-547-8715","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Americans have no clear account of the commercial aircraft attack 11 Sept, struggling over the official explanation and intriguing alternatives but \"Who is the enemy?\" The evolution of e-culture offers solid evidence of where we are going with surprising disclosure of the troublemakers and the next great political movement.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/10\/guided_evo.html","filesize":"26.2 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/10\/12335.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}