Milo Yiannopoulos

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

No, it was not an impossibly high standard to use State Dept. servers instead of her own private one.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Again, you demonstrate the problem in resorting to personal interpretation rather than accurately citing and understanding text. What speech by Milo intended to stoke hatred or promote violence? You might think his words could or would intentionally stoke hatred or violence, even though they don't specifically say to hate or be violent. But if there is no clear and concrete evidence that the speech intended hate or violence, you are fallaciously imposing your interpretation on the text.

And your printing the word "attack" in red and capitalizing it is vastly over-emphasizing some negative, violent connotation of the word. It comes across as a personal reaction which may not accurately describe the nature of what you call an attack. Milo has explained that the particular category of person whom he paints with provocative language is not the object/subject. The provocation is. From what little I've read or heard by him, he has no animosities against your listed categories, nor would he make a point of verbally abusing or "attacking" a categorical attribute. His provocations are against various attitudes and "memes" of what he calls the regressive left.

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Wood Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you got issues

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response.. ^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats then rants on about Importing Muslims how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

ummmmm...the large majority of the violence we've seen recently as a result of politics and speech has been courtesy of the left....who may we hold accountable for encouraging it?

wait...I've got this....

if a republican says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a republican says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

I'm starting to figure out this progressive accountability thing


question...if a republican says something a democrat doesn't like and a democrat yells "get him" and violence ensues....who should be held accountable for the violence ?

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you got issues

Can't answer the question can you. Your the one who has issues with the first amendment and want it changed, not me.
You are the one who wants to silence people not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Spence, did the head of the FBI state that she was "extremely careless", yes or no?

Maybe she didn't break the law. Maybe. But the FBI affirmed that she was extremely careless with sensitive information.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

And the fact that (1) 2 days before the announcement, Bill was on the Attorney General's plane for a private chat , and (2) the day after the announcement, the Hilary campaign said they'd consider keeping Loretta Lunch as AG...those things speak for themselves.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

Speech should not lead to violence in a free society . Yet it does. Just because I don't agree with (or intend to vote for) Trump do I think he should not speak. I also don't think people should violently protest outside his rally - yet they do. Protest - absolutely - violence no.

BLM protest? Sure thing. Violence no. Block a highway? Endanger others or prohibit commerce? No.

In some cultures free speech can get you killed. That should not be here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response..

Actually, I do like your responses. They make Milo's point. They say more about you than about him.

^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats

They were not caveats. They were the substance of his position. That you characterize them as caveats shows either your lack of comprehension or your bigotry.

then rants on about Importing Muslims

Again, another characterization by you--not reasons for his opinion, but just rants. He gives very specific reasons why he thinks Islam is incompatible with Western culture and why it is dangerous to import it to Western society.

Most Americans would think it is dangerous to import Nazis and their culture to our country. Most would once have thought the same about Communists. Why? Aren't those systems antithetical to and destructive of our way of life?

If you think Islam is a compatible system of government (and Islam is not merely a religion, it is a political system), you can passionately give your reasons why you believe that. I don't think you would appreciate your reasons called a rant.

how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

The Left, Progressives included, have been willing and effective agents of chaos. The Left has always required the destruction of free society. The Left is authoritarian not libertarian. It has to impose its authority over any pocket of libertarian culture. Free people are a threat to its notion of an orderly society--to its notions of justice, fairness, equality. Freedom, actually, to authoritarians, IS chaos.

The Left doesn't consider its smashing of cultural liberalism as chaos, even though it creates an ensuing chaos. Because that is merely a necessary step along the way to its version of order and justice.

So, yes, Milo sees himself as an agent of chaos. But it is a libertarian chaos, the chaos of freedom. You have to open-mindedly listen to his serious discussions to understand that. If you just dismiss the idea that he is serious about actual freedom for all, including the categories you've brought up (being "gay,"he is one of those categories) because of his provocative method of stirring up the pot, you will miss that ultimately important point.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership"

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

You downplay everything. You are the only person who will not concede that she lied about coming under sniper fire. I have never, ever heard anyone else deny that she lied. It causes you to lose all credibility, because it's not reasonable to say she didn't lie (unless you think she actually believes that she got shot at, in which case you are saying she is delusional).

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

True. It was a horrible, horrible nomination. See, I can admit that. I can admit flaws, even serious flaws, in my own candidate, when the evidence is clear. And that makes one of us.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.

Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

I have never seen you agree with anyone's criticism of her, not once.

"I've said many times she has flaws "

And your list of said flaws, does not include "lied about coming under sniper fire".

Nor does it include "lied when she said Bill wasn't cheating on her, and compounded that lie by saying that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way".

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
I know you realize this, but you twist what Donald Trump says and does , while accusing others of twisting what Hillary Clinton is .
I keep it wondering what's in it for you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better.

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Originally Posted by spence

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that what the Trump reality organization used to indicat that the person applying for the apartment was Black and to not rent to them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on. His praise of Putin is despicable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on.

Paul, here is the thing...I have said here, many times, that Trump is a morally bankrupt narcissist. I make zero claims that he is morally superior to her. But I'm not making those claims. I don't know that anyone on this forum is making that claim. But some here, are acting as if she's as innocent as a newborn kitten.

He's an absolute clown, a buffoon, a caricature of a man. OK? I can say that out loud. Lots of conservatives are saying that. But for every single moral flaw that you can accurately attribute to him, I can do the same for her. And the hypocrisy, is that while all liberals are calling him out for being morally bankrupt (and he is), almost none of them are capable of the same honesty in evaluating her.

I don't think it's possible to be intellectually honest, and be a liberal. I really think it's impossible. Especially in terms of economics, when the math, and the observable results, tell us with zero ambiguity, that it's a disaster. But almost none of you will concede that you might be wrong, on anything. Ever. It's mind-boggling. And I'm not talking about you, I am talking more about the pundits and politicians.

When the war in Iraq was falling apart, Bush admitted that, and changed course. He implemented The Surge, and it worked.

Here in CT, our capital city of Hartford is a bankrupt, uninhabitable, sh*thole. Yet I have never, not once, heard a liberal say "well, we tried liberalism for 40 years, and clearly it's not working, let's try something else".

Liberals can never admit they are wrong. Ever. About anything.

[PaulS]

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

"Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas"

As I said, not every red state is a utopia. I don't know anyone moving to Kansas. I know a LOT of people moving from CT to the Carolinas, GA, TN, FL, and TX.

"the path to prosperity is a blue state"

That statement is a demonstrably false joke. Say it as many times as you like, post that absurd article as many times as you like. The facts spit in the face of that premise. Look at CT, RI, Mass, IL, Michigan, etc. CT has had unchecked liberalism for 40 years. And we are on the edge of bankruptcy, despite having high incomes (and our high incomes have zip to do with liberalism, and everything to do with proximity to Manhattan).

"You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. "

A better statement would be "the non-poor flee the cities for a variety of reasons". And many of those reasons, are a direct result of liberalism. Liberalism makes it impossibly expensive to live in a city, so people who aren't poor, leave.

You are proving my point, not rejecting it. There is a reason why anyone who isn't poor, flees the city.

And the state of CT isn't one city. It is a state. A state with tons of money. But unable to pay its bails, and a state with insanely high taxes. A state that workers are fleeing. Again, liberalism.

You can't make that wrong, and you can't admit that I have a point. That puts you in a real pickle.

"conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor "

You and I have discussed this, it it also a pathetic, demonstrably false, joke of a statement. We discussed the study "who Really Cares", published in the same New York Times that you cited, which shows that conservatives are actually a bit more charitable, than liberals.

You have seen this study. we have discussed it. Yet you still say "conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor ". Again, you spout the same crap, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, you cannot admit that you are wrong.

Why does the Catholic Church give so much help to the poor? Mother Theresa was just made a saint last week, for her lifelong dedication to the poor. Would you say she has no empathy for the poor? Or are you going to suggest that she (a devout Catholic, rabidly anti-abortion) is a liberal?

You couldn't have done more to perpetuate the liberal stereotype. Rely on inane statements (like 'conservatives have no empathy for the poor') and ignore all facts to the contrary.

Liberals have just done swell in CT, and in Hartford especially. Those policies show all kinds of empathy for the poor. Instead of asking if there's ANYTHING to be gained by adopting conservative principles, you bash conservatives, and keep dumping already-failed liberalism on the poor, knowing that it will only make things worse. If that's a sign of empathy, sorry, I don't see it.

You just got clobbered.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html


.

From the article...

"the key drivers of growth are science, education and innovation, not low taxes, lax regulations or greater exploitation of natural resources."

Yes Paul, science/education/innovation drive growth. No one disputes that. Perfect example, here in CT, we have a lot of science and education, which is another reason why we have high incomes. But when you measure the quality of life in a state, you can't just look at incomes (that would be like estimating the health of a company by only looking at the left side- assets- of the balance sheet). You need to look at debt and taxes, too. Because what good is a better-paying job, if the raise is more than offset by taxes and housing costs?

What CT is turning into, is a place with 2 kinds of residents...those wealthy enough to absorb any tax increase the liberals in Hartford can think of, and urban poor who clean the pools of the first group. is that a good end result?

CT is one of the very few states in the nation that is losing population. And we aren't losing welfare recipients who figured out they can get a better deal in NC. We are losing white collar, middle class workers. As that tax base shrinks, the debt burden for each citizen becomes greater, which exacerbates tax increases, which incentivizes more people to leave, etc...It's a self-perpetuating spiral. And it can all be avoided, with fiscal responsibility. And contrary to what liberals think, being "fiscally responsible" doesn't mean that you watch people starve to death in the street. It means you don't do asinine things that benefit no one. For example, you don't let any public employees retire at age 45, you don't give them fatter pensions that what you can afford, etc...

try all you want to make that sinister or callous. But it's not.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

Can you ever stay on topic? my stance is universal unlike most of yours which seems always to be about black and white

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Can you ever stay on topic? my stance is universal unlike most of yours which seems always to be about black and white

You were the one who said people should be held responsible when their words lead to violence. So I think it's very on topic, to point out that liberals love Al Sharpton and BLM, despite the fact that both have blood on their hands.

If you decry Al Sharpton and BLM, I truly respect that. Most liberals don't. Obama has had Sharpton to the Oval Office dozens of times, so Obama clearly thinks Sharpton is a worthy ally, worthy of respect...rather than the disgusting, vile pig that he is.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

Not to mention the email she sent requesting the "classified "heading be removed from documents before they are sent to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device