Comments by "Lewis Smith" (@lewissmith350) on "andrew gold | heretics." channel.

  1. 28
  2. 9
  3. 7
  4. 6
  5. 6
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. NoBut why do folk like Caitlyn Jenner, and Eddie izzard, who identified as trans but were born biological male, behave more like the stereotype of a quite macho man, specially before they transitioned, remember Caitlin jenner after transitioning threatening ben Shapiro in a debate, hardly a dainty feminine act. And Izzard was always running marathons, and dominating panel shows with a strong persona. Great person,, but what about their behaviour indicates they are more feminine than most men, which surely would occur, if there was such a thing as female brains. If men are from Mars and women from Venus as the book claims in a joke, what about them seems venusian. And both are still attracted to women, I mean can you tell me, in what ways they behave like a typical woman. And the typical extreme trans rights activist often is a biological male, arguing and debating like a aggressive domineering biological male debates, indeed often in a more mansplaining way, than most cis males. Please explain how that is so. Please inform me, as I love to learn. So as of that I think the gender critical idea makes sense, that biological sex exists, there is much variation in personality, sexuality etc in each gender, there are tougher men weaker men, homosexuals and heterosexuals and all sorts, and even biological males who identify as women, but that does not stop biological sex existing, and vice versa for women, females, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are as normal as eachother, but it does not stop sex existence.
    3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. ​​​​​ @ProfessorChaos1349 it's not misleading, intersex is not a sex, it's a perfectly normal, nothing to be ashamed about deviation from the regular wonder of the universe that is binary biological sex. Think how amazing it is that biological sex occurred from evolution, but as has been said multiple times, intersex in most cases it's just a deviation from the regular biologigy, and in a super small number of cases, harder to define, not that we have to, but it's not some brand new sex. I have nothing against you supporting trans rights, but the term woman, referred to biological women since the Neanderthals and before, the idea that a bunch of political activists can appropriate this term, is just not a goer, it's the most important terms in the lexicon in this field, whether youb are using the french, german or japanese equivalent, so in that way it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to use it in the way he uses it, he does not have to tow a political line, of using language in the way a particular trans rights activist demands, more so as some even want to ban the term biological sex, and especially when so many sorts of things, on womens rights, and society would be affected if we just take the trans rights activist position, as paramount, and ignore every other aspect of society being affected by these issues. So no, Dawkins is right to use the words he uses, not obey the Orwellian newspeak of the more aggressive trans rights activists. He can use the term woman, in the way he intends. Ps you have the right to use the term woman in the way you wish, but don't have a right to impose your definition of the word on Dawkins, but feel free to use it in whatever way you wish. Why do trans rights activists feel it is their right to impose vast swathes of vocabulary and radically new definitions of extremely important words on society, I think they have a right to use words how they like, but it is obviously political and domineering to expect everybody else to accept new definitions of the word woman, or use terms like assigned at birth, when it's observed.
    2
  42. ​​​ @ProfessorChaos1349 nuanced, that's a word that's being misused here, in the sense that fox news or pro Highland clearances people start their sentences with the words, no it's more nuanced than you think, then proceed to say what they think, that expelling crofters was perfectly ok, or trump's mean remarks on a issue should be forgotten. It's the same here, you say it's nuanced, but just say the inaccurate idea that sex is not binary as of intersex, when intersex is clearly not a sex. Also to appropriate the term woman, a term that has existed since the Neanderthals, and to not massively caveat the consequences of this, is either deliberately spin doctor style wrong, or super naive, . The way you use the word nuanced, is like someone at a party saying to the twenty other guests, well may I in a more nuanced way have all the birthday cake for myself. Clearly the trans activist position is to claim biological sex is a impossible to understand muddied thing, that is meaningless, so the only definition we should use to define gender is self id, or a version of that, when on reality, biological sex clearly exists and for well over ninety nine percent of people is a prime detail of them, so to deny it's importance is extremist and naive. And what about when biological males have gender affirming care, to be more like biological women, a sex change operation, and such, all this proves the whole idea of a woman is based on the proven reality of biological sex existence, and to deny it's importance is just a denial of rational observations.
    2
  43. I think trans rights at its most extreme is nothing to do with feminism, in fact its quite the opposite, its people were assigned at birth male, expecting everybody to see them and their world view as what matters most, if anything its quite a pompous macho assertiveness. Also i think it actually descended off lgb rights activism, for 2 main reasons, what happened was, just like heterosexuals have various ways of being hetero, so do gay men, and some gay men see a varied gender spectrum element as important to their sexualities, so they see trans rights as integral to their sexuality, and identity, they are such a strong element of the lgb community, that this became a gay rights issue, then even though many gay men have a version of homosexuality, which is different, and sees the biological divides in sex as being fundemental to their, sexuality, these gays are ignored by what have become lgbt groups, then of course some lesbians care even more so seeing, the fundemental divides of biological sex as wholly important to them, then they were the free core of fighting intelectually against extreme trans rights in britain. They allied to a rump element of the right on this issue, and some free thinking figures on the intellectual left. The reason extreme trans rights did so well in the 2010s, was as gay rights was a massive left right political issue on the west till then, but then in the left wing Victory on gay marriage ,i believe the right surrendered, like iraqis to the Americans in the gulf war, or germans to the allies in 1945, and what had been a hard fought war of attrition became total abject absolute total surrender, so even right wing institutions surrendered totally on trans rights with no debate. The debate was picked up, and now even the centre left agree with much of the gender critical line, even after having voted aspects of trans rights through with no debate whatsoever. I mean we should have a world for all, that loves everyone, whoever they are, but most agree biological sex exists.
    2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. Listen well my kin, reality does not yield to wishes, nor does proof bend to the tides of opinion, biological sex exists, it is not a shadow not a fleeting Notion, but an enduring fact of life, male and female are not identities plucked from the air, they are the result of millenia of adapting written into a very being guiding the essence of Life itself. But now my brothers and sisters we see an alarming tale and folding. The words of women biological woman who speak with courage and clarity are being met not with dialogue but with venom they are called hateful for daring to speak the truth they are branded with vile names accused of cruelty when all they seek his fairness and protecting for themselves and their daughters so we stand by their voices are drowned out. What madness has gripped this land when the safety of women in space is meant for them their shelters their sports their private places is considered expendable in the name of a distorted ideology. Compassion does not mean ignoring reality kindness does not mean ignoring reality..to call this truth hateful if to deny reason itself even have saved us all yes but biology is not a trivial detail women's rights have been hard one fought with blood sweat and tears and we dishonor their struggles by turning away their concerns protecting the rates and dignity of women is not an attack on anyone it is an act of Justice. We must not be cowed by the search of those who demand complaints at the cost of reason to stand for truth is not cruelty to protect the rights of women is not hatred it is strength it is fairness and it is a very foundation of the society that values both reality and kindness we must support Richard Dawkins JK Rowling Graham Lincoln and all the others.😮
    2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. ​​​​​​​​​ @denzellmovies good correction, it was someone called Zoey tur, who made that threat to shapiro. i am not saying running a marathon is masculine, but running 50 of them, to great acclaim, is not a famously effeminate activity. The whole idea of the word feminine is based on the idea biological women exist, and things they do are classed as feminine, things biological men do are classed as masculine, if a biological male behaves very masculine, and macho, but his brain waves are similar to a woman's usual brain waves, and maybe some of these such folk believe they are women, and some believe they are men, what should society do. I say we still accept biological sex exists, and is very important, and it's ok to accept it's important in policy making.the problem with your argument is that plenty of biological males who identify as women, who are actually as macho as most other biological males, so whats the big deal about the brain waves, why does that mean anything. Are you agreeing that if a biological male identifies as a woman, and his brain waves and patterns are similar to a woman's, then it certainly does not mean that he will be more inclined to statistically feminine traits in personality, of on average being much less aggressive, and certainly won't be the case he shall automatically a kind of shrinking violet, dainty feminine jane austen character lady, stuck in a biological males body. I am not being mean there, but if you look a trans rights campaigners and their aggressiveness, it's often far more macho than feminine, correct me if i am wrong. I mean I like izzard who is a great comedian, and labourite, but I remember one of izzards shows had a bit, where izzard was rightly proud of fighting back some thugs who made some homophobic bullying remarks towards said izzard,, while look at Riley gaines, when she had some aggressive bullies surrounding and intimidate her she did a normal feminine thing of seeking safety. I mean look at all these let women speak events where a bunch of middle aged female professors stand at a street corner just making a speech, and then tra activists make threats and come looking for a physical fight,, and have banners making terrible threats about what they dismissively and macho and dehumanisingly call terfs. Surely the brain waves or pattern thing does not change the reality, that biological sex exists.
    2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. Andrew gold considers himself centrist and mainstream. He does not call himself right wing. You claimed wright is a paid influencer of the right, , you put in doubt his credentials, claim.ing he lacks mentions of intersex, even though if you watch his video, with Stephen knight, he talks about intersex the whole time. He knows this subject very well, and is honestly putting forwsrd a intelligent clear cut persuasive case. It is a very common thing for trans rights activists to try and bully and undermine people who criticize gender ideology beliefs, by claiming the person dies not know about intersex , when the person,whether it is Colin wright or Richard Dawkins knows more about intersex than the commenter does. I would definitely believe that trying to undermine someone by pretending they a expert on the field, don't know about something they do know about, is demeaning and bullying behavior. It is absolutely the case that trans rights activists do always try to undermine those who criticize gender ideology, by calling them far right, right wing or some such term, and they often try to undermine critics of gender idealogy, by lying about what they believe or calling I to question their credentials, often by lies about what the, the Richard Dawkins has never heard of intersex, is a common trans rights extremists lie, so sorry I have a antenna for knowing that a trans rights activist trope. All I am saying is don't bully, don't name call, just as people dont agree with you. He knows his stuff, and does not deserve bullying attempts to demean him. We all know trans rights activists often bully women who don't fall into line, saying the most atrocious sexist vile rubbish about them, sickening shameful stuff. This guy may wear glasses, but that don't make him a wimp, just like jk Rowling, he will stand up to orwellian bullies. Ps I am not saying trans people are bullies, I am saying that most trans activists and their supporters do bully, and that is proven, they try to drive out alternative options, and pile on guff, claiming anybody who does not agree with gender idealogy is a evil right winger,who should be quarantined as of they are terrible far right people. The jaw dropping reality, is gender critical people are treated by some media worse than actual far right people. Look at Wikipedia it bans the mention of biological sex, and it's definition of gender critical feminism is a hit job, filled with multiple mentions of the words, far right, right wing, hate, terf and all such. But it's arrticke on the most evil man in history, a h, of 1930s Germany mention s far right just once in reference to where he is in a photo. Shockingly it gives far right and racist views more freedom, than gender critical views. It disgracefully has a article on the n word, it describes far right peoples views in their own language, having quotations from a h, in the articles. It gives both sides of the view on the highland clearances, the proper view and the far right pro clearance view. But for gender critical feminism, it refuses to accept the language feminists use. So making their views unheard and utterly censored. The BBC and CNN allow extremists language, like assigned male at birth, as if it's some wild guess from a doctor what sex you are. If you search Google for biological sex, it lists condescending confused articles based on extreme gender idealogy, of denying the firmness of their being sex. There are even high up articles like titled myth of biological sex. You are wrong to ignore the arrogance of this orwellian idealogy, that denies glaring realitirs, all for the sake of a puritan style zealotry of the unthinking mantra of trans women are women, which is ok fir you to believe, but not fir you to have as the national slogan and devotion, the idealogical Puritanicalness of this neo quasi religious movement should be opposed like any other orwellian rubbish. Truth to power
    2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. But I dont think it was just that, I mean Ronson is great, and has done some fine stuff, fab fellow. But he kind of on this issue, some people critisise him for making a documentary on this issue, where the trans right activists were painted as all sweetness and light, and the concerns of the gender critical women, were not really given equal weight, it was kind of all, hey lets all come together on the angle the trans rights activists want. Which was quite typical of the current debate and way laws are enacted by centrist and centre left and even centre right parrties at the moment, (well untill the right and in Britain the left, realised its a vote winner, as GC ideas have credance and are right). And bizarely this was a place where there had been a murder by a extreme very untypical trans rights activist of a gender critical campaigner. I think it was the Dana Rivers case, it would be like doing a video on the troubles in Northern Ireland, and acting ;like only side had people who comnitted violence oir unfair acts, and that the othger side is all sweetness and light, which even many Sinn Fein or DUP supporters would kind of be a bit perplexed about. I mean I wish some kind of compromoise could be made, that accepts everybody, including gc requests, but I think even Ronson feels he has to apologise a bit, for missing the Rivers case from his documentary, so its understandable people are perplxed he made such a untypical Ronsson video, and probably media should be told, hey hang on here whats all this about when it misses major things. It would be like doing a documentary on World War Two, and painting the Americans as pure baddies, by just ignoring Pearl Harbour, and saying America declared war on Japan for no reason what so ever. Or a documentary on JFK visit to Dallas, that utterly ignores the assassination. The same here, I mean GC people have some concerns and certain people totally ignore their reasonings and act like they are just horrible bigots and even call them Nazis and bigots just for querying anything to do with this issue.
    2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. No, he is right. He is not half way to being wrong, he is just right. The problem with the sapolsky idea. Is that even if you believe that a biological male who identifies as a woman, identifies as a woman because they're brain tells them they are a woman. Maybe because their neurons are the same as a woman's neurons. Even then, the reality is, biological sex still exists. So in all sorts of statistics, biological males who identify as women offer the same risks as biological males who identify as males. So, yes a biological male may believe that he is a woman, but because of his instincts and so many things about him, then he has the same level of threat towards women as other biological males. Look at crime stats, trans women are closer to cis males, at many important crimes, per population. Whether it is certain violent crimes, or s🤒x offences, I I am not saying they are more of a threat. They are not more of a threat. Also in sports they have those advantages as well, and the rest of the population can see they have those advantages and certain personality traits, that biological males, who identify as men also have. Look at the debate here. Gender critical women debate like, by writing eight thousand page tomes, and sit at tables speaking like a jane Austin character, about why they want trans people to be respected, but biological sex exists, and has consequences on biological women and biological men, so biological women exist, while trans rights campaigners have Hamas style slogans, with threats against their opponents on banners, which also use dismissive terms about what they call the terfs we ho they are threatening. Then they try and ban people from having gender critical views, and label them in a dismissive macho way, like only really powerful aggressive biological males can do. Surely the reality is gender disphoria exists, but it does not stop biological sex and it's instincts existence.
    1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. ​​​​ @stevel9914 he killed millions, caused a war that killed 40 million, I mean come off it. I oppose crazy ridiculous extreme trans rights ideas, but it's not as bad as AH. Ah regime did murderous experiments on live twins, and killed children as of their race. It was a million times worse than even gender idealogy. They put opposing nations soldiers in camps, and slave labour, of which many died, they bombed cities from Guernica to Coventry. They invaded over a dozen countries in Europe in just a few years. They fired Jewish people from their jobs to such a crazy extent, that some of those Jews were genius level people who sided Oppenheimer. And are you now saying ah was pro christian, I thought most feel he was a typical mid Century agnostic. The swastika was a kind of pre Christian symbol, they were not Christians. Also in the end the wars ah caused saw russia run riot over Germany. So it was not even a good thing for his ideas. I mean as of ah crazy ideas, and foolish decision to invade Russia, by a few years Germans were brutally expelled from lands where they had lived for centuries. All because of ah macho dream of lebensraum. His wat loving, imperialist ideas were appalling. And weirdly ironically some of ah people actually did forced experiments on people against their will, even worse than the worst of gender idealogy. And going on about porn, well he was not that great a figure in terms of Christian sexual norms. He had a affair with a relative of his, geli raubal, has sex before marriage, and three of his lovers killed themselves. I mean that's hardly normal. Also what's your view on ah friend rohm. Here is a weird fact, the ussr banned homosexuality in 1933 as they associated it with German millitarism, what a weird fact. Anyway, I don't think banning gay porn, is a good excuse for the nazis. Also mainstream anti trump GOP guys like Kemp have cut down gender idealogy. And ps there were lots of Germans on the good side on the war, fighting with the US army, like Eisenhower.
    1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. Putin invaded Ukraine, and you can't blame them for the Israeli Palestine war, what do you think they should have done, just surrender to Russia and Iran. I mean you can believe that if you wish, but surely they are just following post war policy on Ukraine, and us policy on Israel, it's not their fault Hamas did October the 7th, or that Israel was recognized by the USA decades ago. I mean they are not war mongers, they never invaded anywhere, and looks like Iran and the Palestinians fear trump more which is why they gave up the hostages just before he arrived, before he gave Israel even bigger weapons and the green light to be even tougher. I mean Biden has almost let the taleban and Yemen do what they like, gnd has not been invading them either. I think the only place you have a argument is Israel , but even there if USA did not give Israel weapons, it would probably see some mass invasion the other way around, and horrific expulsions , so it's difficult to say what to do there. The thing I find annoying is Iran and Russia supposedly launched their attacks as they thought Biden is a weakling, when he showed that he was not prepared to just let allies be walked all over. Then when Trump comes to power, threatening a madman tactic, all these horrible dictators say, ok boss, we will free the hostages, and give you what you like sir. Even Yemen, they never attacked Israel, Biden makes the Saudis stop attacking it, and lifts sanctions on Iran, so Iran and Israel decides well that's the time to attack. I mean what's the point, so on that case, internationalism and being nice is not rewarded, only horrible psycho brinkmanship is seen as acceptable by these anti Western powers. But surely the problem with that, is either you always surrender, like trump did in Afghanistan, or you act bellicose and cause a war, like Germany in world war one. I think internationalism is right, but you can't just lay down to invaders surely.
    1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. ​ @Cardinal_Hordriss that was a very long essay, and I have not the time to answer all. It's too tiring. But gender critical people do not want to oppress trans people. Dawkins and Rowling are not calling them freaks, they would treat them politely and as human beings,. Like he did to Jan Morris, All they are saying is biological sex exists, and has consequences, and law should therefore be structured with that reality in mind. A biological male who identifies as a female is much a threat to women, as a biological male who identifies as a man. Also I would say be who you want to be, but also accept biological sex exists. I condemn anybody who bullies people for being trans, but gender critical feminists have a problem with trans biological males who identify as women in women's sport as of them being biological males, not as they are trans. Also to be honest I would say the people at the bottom of society in many ways, below trans, in terms of their treatment are the homeless, the severely mentally challenged, the severely disabled, some criminals, some victims of crimes even after the crimes , afghan women, thelidimdide sufferers and the like, i mean look on the bright side. On some things trans are actually quite elite, like there were three trans roman emperors, so let's not pretend you are like pathetic creatures, your not treated like jennifer Lawrence or arnie in their prime, but few of us are. I get called horrible names as well, but I don't twist this into reasons to blame nice people like jk Rowling.
    1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. ​​​​​​​ @CarlLo-mein-k3i all the evidence indicates that racists usually have low iqs, while anti racism people like Oppenheimer or Dawkins or such like have high iqs. Have you ever talked to people from various races, there is no way in a million years that IQs are substantially different for different races. I have lived a long time, and talked to people of different races, and there is not one , that to me stands out as all are mostly super intelligent, and there is not one that stands out as particularly stupid. I think IQs are remarkably similar worldwide, other than educational systems. Ps bringing in the chip on your shoulder rubbish, does not wash with me, it's just boring and the fact that the huge chip on your shoulder poor me stuff you trot out is your main obsession indicates that. Just talk to people of different races, and you will find your theory on IQ has no semblance in day to day reality. You can believe there were colonial injustices, and historical effects, without believing that certain groups need to be classed as evil. I don't think white people or East Asians are evil, but do realise, that history has effects on some places being richer or poorer. All you have to do is talk to people of other races, and it's clear. Also in the modern globalized world most advances are by globally sourced egg heads in top universities. A d you misunderstood what the word equality means, like in 1984, when ingsoc try to ban the word, and make it mean the same as same. It does not mean that, it means respecting all as equal citizens in certain situations, with certain caveats like law, or some such. Which most would want for them self. If you talk to people of different races, you will see there is not the huge difference you want to believe in. It's not me being politically correct, it's just what I have experienced in life, your theory that different races have naturally different levels of IQ, does not hold up to every day experience, and life. The reason most clever people dont agree with you, is the opposite of what you believed was proven to be true, by reality.
    1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1