"They obviously weren't trying to kill him."
Of course they weren't but he is a 67 year old man who was knocked out cold and dragged off a plane having paid for his seat. As Rosso says, the rule of business is the customer comes first, especially when they've already been allowed to board and take their seat and the airline messed up.
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 7 minutes ago
€500.00, a hooker and a bottle of Paddy and Kneerash would have danced his way off, Fecking alky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could get a bag or two of the white stuff too
"why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?"
They clearly could have but felt it was easier to knock out a 67 year old man who had already been allowed on the plane.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 57 seconds ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had other options they could have selected that would not have compromised the customers on the flight.
Someone or some people at United either considered those options and dismissed them on the grounds of cost, convenience or policy, or couldn't be bothered even considering them.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 58 seconds ago
"why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?"
They clearly could have but felt it was easier to knock out a 67 year old man who had already been allowed on the plane.
..:
It's acceptable though because they had security written on their coats.
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
...especially when said people can't even acknowledge their own hypocrisy when they suggest shooting those perceived to have committed said outrage.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are lots and lots of things I can do legally that would be very morally wrong, represent terrible decision making, poor customer service and poor business sense.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
_____________________
So you freely admit that their assault on a 67year old was solely to avoid having to ask their own staff to spend two hours in a car?
Are you facking kidding me?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I am not, nor have I said that I am outraged by the outrage.
Secondly, I didn't realise that there was actually a subject (namely me) of your seemingly obvious rhetorical question...
For every "social outrage" there is always a large amount of people playing the "i'm too cool to get outraged" card. They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple.... Or take it a step further and never fly to America.
They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
-
Surely, thou doth jest?
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple....
-
Agree entirely. There's an obvious and effective solution...
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 1 second ago
For every "social outrage" there is always a large amount of people playing the "i'm too cool to get outraged" card. They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple.... Or take it a step further and never fly to America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the likes of Adidas, Primark and GAP are still trading is evidence of this.
We *all* know what those three companies have been guilty of and continue to do. Yet all three still record massive turnovers.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the train can do it on th grounds of it being a life safety issue. The airline in this scenario has no such grounds. Trying to cover it up by claiming a legal right does make your point any stronger.
Also what exactly do you mean by the assertion that the passenger was legally supposed to agree to leave the plane at the request of the airline?
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 6 minutes ago
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
_____________________
So you freely admit that their assault on a 67year old was solely to avoid having to ask their own staff to spend two hours in a car?
Are you facking kidding me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the airline's policy is not to assault its passengers.
their policy is to ask for volunteers, then make random choices, assuming that 99% of people when asked to leave a plane do it voluntarily, without making it necessary for them to be forcibly removed.
this whole thing could have been avoided of course by one of the other passengers standing up and, when the heavies came in, offering to take the man's place - in terms of leaving the flight i mean, not in terms of being assaulted.
but of course all the other passengers were shocked/horrified/outraged, but from the comfort of their seats, which they weren't going to give up.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I am not, nor have I said that I am outraged by the outrage.
Secondly, I didn't realise that there was actually a subject (namely me) of your seemingly obvious rhetorical question...
--------------------------
I'm not aware that anyone here specirfically stated that they are "outraged". You inferred this yourself. Just as I inferred your own outrage by your extremely vocal and aggressive stance on this issue.
Secondly, you made yourself the subject of my "seemingly obvious" question by being a gobchite and sneering at anyone who disagrees with your ultra right wing stance.
PS and you still never answered the question...
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 8 minutes ago
Don if you understand anything about business, you will know customer satisfaction is imperative, especially in the airline industry. Building reputations and rapport with customers takes years to do and breaking them takes minitues. The priority is the customer, as they are the main component of a business transaction. This incident is terrible pr for the airline and bad for business. So from a commercial perspective the incident was handled terribly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agree with all that - though no need to patronise me by querying whether i know anything about business.
i also know that airlines operate on very skinny margins - in fact they are an awful, capital intensive, economically sensitive business - so the difference between an airline thriving and one failing can be as small as booking 100 passengers on a 100 seat place and booking 104 passengers (because your database tells you than on average 4% of passengers don't show up for a flight).
i would also guess that they have figured out that passengers are not loyal in the way that fast food/trainers customers are loyal, and that you may have sworn you would never fly with ryanair again (as i once did), but when they are the only carrier flying to your destination/they get you there 2 hours earlier than the competition, you shrug your shoulders and go with the enemy.
anyway, a lot of outrage on here for something that is a bad commercial decision, i never knew we were all so interested in whether companies create or destroy shareholder value!
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 6 minutes ago
They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
-
Surely, thou doth jest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all..... In fact this type of mindset is now creeping into the media itself... For instance, after the London attack, the Daily Mail busy'd themselves with article after article about why we should all keep a stiff upper lip and how vigils, tears and any show of emotion (even from people at the scene) was the action of snowflakes and luvvies.
Social outrage is real and has good and bad points... But the backlash against social outrage is equally real. I guess the upside of it is it might make people question what they are outraged by and dig a bit deeper into it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Man brutally dragged out of a plane
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 11/4/17
"They obviously weren't trying to kill him."
Of course they weren't but he is a 67 year old man who was knocked out cold and dragged off a plane having paid for his seat. As Rosso says, the rule of business is the customer comes first, especially when they've already been allowed to board and take their seat and the airline messed up.
posted on 11/4/17
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
posted on 11/4/17
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 7 minutes ago
€500.00, a hooker and a bottle of Paddy and Kneerash would have danced his way off, Fecking alky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could get a bag or two of the white stuff too
posted on 11/4/17
"why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?"
They clearly could have but felt it was easier to knock out a 67 year old man who had already been allowed on the plane.
posted on 11/4/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 57 seconds ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They had other options they could have selected that would not have compromised the customers on the flight.
Someone or some people at United either considered those options and dismissed them on the grounds of cost, convenience or policy, or couldn't be bothered even considering them.
posted on 11/4/17
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 58 seconds ago
"why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?"
They clearly could have but felt it was easier to knock out a 67 year old man who had already been allowed on the plane.
..:
It's acceptable though because they had security written on their coats.
posted on 11/4/17
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
...especially when said people can't even acknowledge their own hypocrisy when they suggest shooting those perceived to have committed said outrage.
posted on 11/4/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
posted on 11/4/17
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
posted on 11/4/17
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are lots and lots of things I can do legally that would be very morally wrong, represent terrible decision making, poor customer service and poor business sense.
posted on 11/4/17
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
_____________________
So you freely admit that their assault on a 67year old was solely to avoid having to ask their own staff to spend two hours in a car?
Are you facking kidding me?
posted on 11/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/4/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I am not, nor have I said that I am outraged by the outrage.
Secondly, I didn't realise that there was actually a subject (namely me) of your seemingly obvious rhetorical question...
posted on 11/4/17
For every "social outrage" there is always a large amount of people playing the "i'm too cool to get outraged" card. They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple.... Or take it a step further and never fly to America.
posted on 11/4/17
They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
-
Surely, thou doth jest?
posted on 11/4/17
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple....
-
Agree entirely. There's an obvious and effective solution...
posted on 11/4/17
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 1 second ago
For every "social outrage" there is always a large amount of people playing the "i'm too cool to get outraged" card. They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
The one side of social outrage that I do dislike is how quickly it moves on and how little people do... If people are really outraged, don't ever fly with this airline again, simple.... Or take it a step further and never fly to America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the likes of Adidas, Primark and GAP are still trading is evidence of this.
We *all* know what those three companies have been guilty of and continue to do. Yet all three still record massive turnovers.
posted on 11/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/4/17
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
Wasn't that legal as the officer in question has been suspended. So the guy will get a pay out more than the offer of 800 they offered. So the way the airline handled it was terrible from that perspective too.
________________
Exactly.
Legally questionable it seems. Morally deplorable. Commercially a bad decision. Awful public relations.
And I ask again, why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination if it was only a couple hours away?
I'm not going to stop asking this question until it is answered!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because their policy - and every other airline's policy - is to regularly overbook flights, and then offer passengers money to take a different one, and then as a last resort randomly select passengers to go.
and if the passenger had freely agreed and got up and walked away - which legally he was required to do - then there is no story.
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
whether they should have offfered the guy $800 + a paid for limo to st louis isn't the issue, the issue is a legal one, and the airline had as much right to kick him off the flight as your train company does to force you to sit on a bus for hours because the line is being repaired (no compensation, no advance notice when you book ticket, but they can legally do it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the train can do it on th grounds of it being a life safety issue. The airline in this scenario has no such grounds. Trying to cover it up by claiming a legal right does make your point any stronger.
Also what exactly do you mean by the assertion that the passenger was legally supposed to agree to leave the plane at the request of the airline?
posted on 11/4/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 6 minutes ago
the airline is a business, they don't want to have to tell employees that there may be times when they have to sit in a car for hours rather than take a flight.
_____________________
So you freely admit that their assault on a 67year old was solely to avoid having to ask their own staff to spend two hours in a car?
Are you facking kidding me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the airline's policy is not to assault its passengers.
their policy is to ask for volunteers, then make random choices, assuming that 99% of people when asked to leave a plane do it voluntarily, without making it necessary for them to be forcibly removed.
this whole thing could have been avoided of course by one of the other passengers standing up and, when the heavies came in, offering to take the man's place - in terms of leaving the flight i mean, not in terms of being assaulted.
but of course all the other passengers were shocked/horrified/outraged, but from the comfort of their seats, which they weren't going to give up.
posted on 11/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/4/17
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 minute ago
I love watching social outrage over trivial matters. Find it absolutely fascinating how people will flutter to the metaphorical light of outrage, over something so insignificant, just to be seen to be doing so...
___________________
What an ironic response considering you seem to be outraged by the outrage!
And I ask you again - for the fourth time now - why could the UA staff not simply have driven to their destination instead of assaulting a passenger?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I am not, nor have I said that I am outraged by the outrage.
Secondly, I didn't realise that there was actually a subject (namely me) of your seemingly obvious rhetorical question...
--------------------------
I'm not aware that anyone here specirfically stated that they are "outraged". You inferred this yourself. Just as I inferred your own outrage by your extremely vocal and aggressive stance on this issue.
Secondly, you made yourself the subject of my "seemingly obvious" question by being a gobchite and sneering at anyone who disagrees with your ultra right wing stance.
posted on 11/4/17
PS and you still never answered the question...
posted on 11/4/17
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 8 minutes ago
Don if you understand anything about business, you will know customer satisfaction is imperative, especially in the airline industry. Building reputations and rapport with customers takes years to do and breaking them takes minitues. The priority is the customer, as they are the main component of a business transaction. This incident is terrible pr for the airline and bad for business. So from a commercial perspective the incident was handled terribly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agree with all that - though no need to patronise me by querying whether i know anything about business.
i also know that airlines operate on very skinny margins - in fact they are an awful, capital intensive, economically sensitive business - so the difference between an airline thriving and one failing can be as small as booking 100 passengers on a 100 seat place and booking 104 passengers (because your database tells you than on average 4% of passengers don't show up for a flight).
i would also guess that they have figured out that passengers are not loyal in the way that fast food/trainers customers are loyal, and that you may have sworn you would never fly with ryanair again (as i once did), but when they are the only carrier flying to your destination/they get you there 2 hours earlier than the competition, you shrug your shoulders and go with the enemy.
anyway, a lot of outrage on here for something that is a bad commercial decision, i never knew we were all so interested in whether companies create or destroy shareholder value!
posted on 11/4/17
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 6 minutes ago
They are generally more needy and vocal than any of the people who were outraged.
-
Surely, thou doth jest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all..... In fact this type of mindset is now creeping into the media itself... For instance, after the London attack, the Daily Mail busy'd themselves with article after article about why we should all keep a stiff upper lip and how vigils, tears and any show of emotion (even from people at the scene) was the action of snowflakes and luvvies.
Social outrage is real and has good and bad points... But the backlash against social outrage is equally real. I guess the upside of it is it might make people question what they are outraged by and dig a bit deeper into it.
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10