Deleted Thread July 11, 2005 9:24 AM Subscribe
What happened to today's Karl Rove thread on the blue? Is there a reason it was deleted?
This is the one from this morning that I saw. There have been 1-2 Karl Rove threads per day lately, most of which are one-off links to news articles and rehash 75% of the same stuff the previous news article did. They get flagged as double posts. I didn't see another one today. If you look at this page, you can see posts that have been pulled from the main page.
posted by jessamyn at 9:35 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 9:35 AM on July 11, 2005
Jess: Maybe you guys should sidebar the Rove thread we're going with with a message along the lines of, "Please take all RoveFilter content to this thread." It's not like it will eliminate the deluge of RoveGate stuff it sounds like you're dealing with, but hopefully it will reduce it.
posted by baphomet at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by baphomet at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2005
I hate pancakes.
posted by loquacious at 10:06 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by loquacious at 10:06 AM on July 11, 2005
What does "." mean?
posted by languagehat at 10:08 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by languagehat at 10:08 AM on July 11, 2005
Are we going to get a new FPP post every time there's a hint of news on this subject?
GOODY!
Here's a Protip: there will be at least 2 new posts on this subject every day for the next month on any one of 1000 poli-blogs. Try Daily Kos, for instance.
(thanks for deleting it, Jessamyn. I thank you and my children's children thank you).
posted by selfnoise at 10:14 AM on July 11, 2005
GOODY!
Here's a Protip: there will be at least 2 new posts on this subject every day for the next month on any one of 1000 poli-blogs. Try Daily Kos, for instance.
(thanks for deleting it, Jessamyn. I thank you and my children's children thank you).
posted by selfnoise at 10:14 AM on July 11, 2005
Anyone heard anything new about Terry Schiavo? We haven't had a new FPP about her in weeks...
posted by mkultra at 10:16 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by mkultra at 10:16 AM on July 11, 2005
I'd like to see more posts about the upcoming presidential election.
posted by sciurus at 10:18 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by sciurus at 10:18 AM on July 11, 2005
quonsar, please tell these people how stupid they are.
fercrissakes.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:32 AM on July 11, 2005
fercrissakes.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:32 AM on July 11, 2005
I would just like to say that I misread "selfnoise" as "selfmouse," which I thought was a pretty good name.
posted by Mid at 11:06 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by Mid at 11:06 AM on July 11, 2005
I hate "."
Pancakes are OK as long as they're done in the slender European style rather than the chubby American.
posted by Decani at 11:07 AM on July 11, 2005
Pancakes are OK as long as they're done in the slender European style rather than the chubby American.
posted by Decani at 11:07 AM on July 11, 2005
What's the difference in pancakes, flap-jacks, griddle cakes, brown bucks, johnny cakes, hot cakes, and gandies? Where do crepes and waffles come in?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:13 AM on July 11, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 11:13 AM on July 11, 2005
I thought Mid was for Midshipman. But it's not.(?)
I liked Quonsar's post and would recommend it to a friend or relative. Then you people had to come in and muck up its perfect, terrible beauty with your filthy words.
posted by selfnoise at 11:17 AM on July 11, 2005
I liked Quonsar's post and would recommend it to a friend or relative. Then you people had to come in and muck up its perfect, terrible beauty with your filthy words.
posted by selfnoise at 11:17 AM on July 11, 2005
But I didn't want to be exposed to McGriddles!
posted by loquacious at 12:19 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by loquacious at 12:19 PM on July 11, 2005
Again: if we could get UpdateFilter, it wouldn't happen (at least not as much).
(that Schiavo crack reminded me)
posted by amberglow at 12:52 PM on July 11, 2005
(that Schiavo crack reminded me)
posted by amberglow at 12:52 PM on July 11, 2005
What's the difference in pancakes, flap-jacks, griddle cakes, brown bucks, johnny cakes, hot cakes, and gandies? Where do crepes and waffles come in?
From The Oxford Companion to Food:
posted by languagehat at 12:59 PM on July 11, 2005
From The Oxford Companion to Food:
PANCAKE means, to a western European or an American, a flat cake made from a batter of flour, eggs, and milk, and fried in a shallow pan or cooked on a greased griddle. It may be eaten flat, sprinkled with sugar; or rolled around a sweet or savoury filling, for example in many French crêpe dishes. Some pancakes of other regions fall neatly into this category, such as the Russian blini and Hungarian palacsinta. With others the distinction between a pancake and a griddle bread is not so clear.If you go to the book link and "search inside the book" on Schmarren (don't know if this link will work, but try it first), you can click on the Page 571 link and read the whole article. Great stuff.
Most pancakes or crêpes are thin. However, the excellent Scots pancakes and their counterparts in other Celtic areas (all treated under drop scone) are thicker, and so are Schmarren (mentioned below).
posted by languagehat at 12:59 PM on July 11, 2005
mystyk: This isn't the deep end. This is the deep end.
posted by languagehat at 1:01 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by languagehat at 1:01 PM on July 11, 2005
Decani: What's wrong with my American chubby?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:15 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:15 PM on July 11, 2005
Is it just me, or has another Rove post sprung up despite the recent policy?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2005
Have no fear, another Rove post is here!
And the post is by spiderwire who wasn't ignorant of the prior thread, but posted the same thing in that thread. He just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post.
posted by dios at 1:42 PM on July 11, 2005
And the post is by spiderwire who wasn't ignorant of the prior thread, but posted the same thing in that thread. He just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post.
posted by dios at 1:42 PM on July 11, 2005
languagehat: I had no idea the deep end was so deep. I think I got the bends trying to get out of that one.
posted by loquacious at 2:44 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by loquacious at 2:44 PM on July 11, 2005
What happened to the so-called "Downing Street Memo" ?
God, can't you people handle more than one talking point at a time?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2005
God, can't you people handle more than one talking point at a time?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2005
hey, dios, thanks for completely lying about my intent, which i explained explicitly to you in the thread.
does anyone besides me agree that scott mcclellan getting absolutely roasted by the white house press corps for the first time in, well, basically forever, is worthy of a separate discussion? or does karl rove function as an automatic godwin card now?
regardless if whether anyone does, i don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, dios.
posted by spiderwire at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2005
does anyone besides me agree that scott mcclellan getting absolutely roasted by the white house press corps for the first time in, well, basically forever, is worthy of a separate discussion? or does karl rove function as an automatic godwin card now?
regardless if whether anyone does, i don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, dios.
posted by spiderwire at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2005
oh, and the new thread is deleted now, despite a pretty enjoyable discussion that (gasp) had more to do with scotty than rove, so, score one for the wingnuts i guess. glad you guys all showed up.
posted by spiderwire at 3:25 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by spiderwire at 3:25 PM on July 11, 2005
score one for the wingnuts i guess
Or the clearly articulated policy that's being applied across all RoveFilter posts as long as there an open debate. Do you really think that Matt or Jessamyn listens to "wingnuts"?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:42 PM on July 11, 2005
Or the clearly articulated policy that's being applied across all RoveFilter posts as long as there an open debate. Do you really think that Matt or Jessamyn listens to "wingnuts"?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:42 PM on July 11, 2005
I appreciated the update of spiderwire's post and was really disappointed to not see it there anymore. It is a developing story; people attacking the White House spokesman like a bunch of hungry dogs is pretty interesting.
But oh well.
Steve: no. not even a little bit.
posted by blacklite at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2005
But oh well.
Steve: no. not even a little bit.
posted by blacklite at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2005
tddl: actually, i was talking about you, steve, and dios, who were the ones raising a stink about it over here while everyone else was enjoying the discussion. only one of you posted on the blue thread, and after i responded cogently decided to take it over here to whine. had i known that the subject was still open for debate, i would have come over here as well.
also, i fail to see where in my post i said that either matt or jessmyn was a wingnut -- i was specifically referring to dios lying about my intent in this thread after his single snarky comment in the blue thread. but parse it how you like.
as for the "clearly articulated policy," it does outline a criterion, which is that there shouldn't be any posts "which are one-off links to news articles and rehash 75% of the same stuff the previous news article did." like i explained, i don't think that characterizes my post, and i think that the content of the thread bears that argument out. i respect matt and jess' opinion on the matter, but i do disagree.
posted by spiderwire at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2005
also, i fail to see where in my post i said that either matt or jessmyn was a wingnut -- i was specifically referring to dios lying about my intent in this thread after his single snarky comment in the blue thread. but parse it how you like.
as for the "clearly articulated policy," it does outline a criterion, which is that there shouldn't be any posts "which are one-off links to news articles and rehash 75% of the same stuff the previous news article did." like i explained, i don't think that characterizes my post, and i think that the content of the thread bears that argument out. i respect matt and jess' opinion on the matter, but i do disagree.
posted by spiderwire at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2005
edit -- tddl, i misspoke, i didn't mean to include you in the wingnut group either :)
posted by spiderwire at 4:01 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by spiderwire at 4:01 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by spiderwire at 3:54 PM PST on July 11 [!]
I respect your disagreement with the deletion but I wish you hadn't taken this so personally or made personal attacks on members of this community. I don't think Matt or Jessamyn is even reading this thread, nor do they listen to any of the people you mentioned, so the deletion was probably simply one of them reading the first line of the FPP and realizing that it was about Rove, again, without being aware of the details. Trust me... if they did listen to the people you named then I suspect about 1/2 of each day's FPPs wouldn't still be here.
The discussion is still linked to those who can infer what comes between 410 and 412. I think it fell within the policy, you don't, no need to make it personal.
On preview: edit -- tddl, i misspoke, i didn't mean to include you in the wingnut group either
No worries. I hope that posting a link to the thread without a lot of editorialization from here wasn't "raising a stink". Hopefully the information your FPP disseminated has reached its intended audience and we'll all continue to play nicely.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:05 PM on July 11, 2005
I respect your disagreement with the deletion but I wish you hadn't taken this so personally or made personal attacks on members of this community. I don't think Matt or Jessamyn is even reading this thread, nor do they listen to any of the people you mentioned, so the deletion was probably simply one of them reading the first line of the FPP and realizing that it was about Rove, again, without being aware of the details. Trust me... if they did listen to the people you named then I suspect about 1/2 of each day's FPPs wouldn't still be here.
The discussion is still linked to those who can infer what comes between 410 and 412. I think it fell within the policy, you don't, no need to make it personal.
On preview: edit -- tddl, i misspoke, i didn't mean to include you in the wingnut group either
No worries. I hope that posting a link to the thread without a lot of editorialization from here wasn't "raising a stink". Hopefully the information your FPP disseminated has reached its intended audience and we'll all continue to play nicely.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:05 PM on July 11, 2005
I wish you hadn't taken this so personally or made personal attacks on members of this community
i understand that, but i'm still really insulted by what dios did, especially given that i can recall going out of my way to maintain decorum towards him despite our disgreements. maybe it's not clear, but from my perspective, it looks like:
1. dios goes to the press-gaggle thread -- which i posted in good faith -- and complains that it's a double-post.
2. i respond that the previous thread was actually my thread, hence i was well aware of it, and explain my reasoning for the current thread.
3. rather than responding, he comes directly over here and starts complaining. since i see no response, i figure that the debate is over and so don't bother to check metatalk.
4. after a good discussion, the thread gets deleted, so i naturally come over here to find out what's up and see that *after* i'd explained my reasoning, dios said that in fact, i'd posted because i "just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post."
now, excuse me, but that's low. first, because dios didn't have the cojones to continue the discussion, he just took it to the backchannel without telling me or anyone else. to me, that's the digital equivalent of whining to mommy. weak. second, he felt that it was necessary question my intent -- that i ignored the rules for partisan reasons -- which is insulting to me, because while i can be a firebrand, i do respect the rules around here. third, he did this after i'd explained my reasoning to him, making it willful and malicious in my eyes.
so yes, you're right that i got a little angry, and i'm sorry that my comment could could have been interpreted as targeting a wide swath of the community or matt and jess. i was pissed and got imprecise. but i feel pretty strongly that was dios did was wrong.
posted by spiderwire at 4:24 PM on July 11, 2005
i understand that, but i'm still really insulted by what dios did, especially given that i can recall going out of my way to maintain decorum towards him despite our disgreements. maybe it's not clear, but from my perspective, it looks like:
1. dios goes to the press-gaggle thread -- which i posted in good faith -- and complains that it's a double-post.
2. i respond that the previous thread was actually my thread, hence i was well aware of it, and explain my reasoning for the current thread.
3. rather than responding, he comes directly over here and starts complaining. since i see no response, i figure that the debate is over and so don't bother to check metatalk.
4. after a good discussion, the thread gets deleted, so i naturally come over here to find out what's up and see that *after* i'd explained my reasoning, dios said that in fact, i'd posted because i "just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post."
now, excuse me, but that's low. first, because dios didn't have the cojones to continue the discussion, he just took it to the backchannel without telling me or anyone else. to me, that's the digital equivalent of whining to mommy. weak. second, he felt that it was necessary question my intent -- that i ignored the rules for partisan reasons -- which is insulting to me, because while i can be a firebrand, i do respect the rules around here. third, he did this after i'd explained my reasoning to him, making it willful and malicious in my eyes.
so yes, you're right that i got a little angry, and i'm sorry that my comment could could have been interpreted as targeting a wide swath of the community or matt and jess. i was pissed and got imprecise. but i feel pretty strongly that was dios did was wrong.
posted by spiderwire at 4:24 PM on July 11, 2005
dios is frequently wrong. You'll get used to it.
posted by loquacious at 5:06 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by loquacious at 5:06 PM on July 11, 2005
Whether it be posts or users, I'm not terribly impressed with a site when lots of things start disappearing on a whim.
posted by clevershark at 5:14 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by clevershark at 5:14 PM on July 11, 2005
* reappears at the back of the auditorium, riding a tiger *
Impressive, no?
posted by yhbc at 5:27 PM on July 11, 2005
Impressive, no?
posted by yhbc at 5:27 PM on July 11, 2005
> Impressive, no?
Tadaaaaa.
That's pretty impressive. Can you make Dios dissapear?
posted by NewBornHippy at 6:24 PM on July 11, 2005
Tadaaaaa.
That's pretty impressive. Can you make Dios dissapear?
posted by NewBornHippy at 6:24 PM on July 11, 2005
You have no idea the power of the right side
Rub sticks, make fire. Big talk hard work.
posted by y2karl at 7:56 PM on July 11, 2005
Rub sticks, make fire. Big talk hard work.
posted by y2karl at 7:56 PM on July 11, 2005
I'm logging that y2karl
posted by angry modem at 10:21 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by angry modem at 10:21 PM on July 11, 2005
spiderwire, to quote one of my favorite movies: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
The people who run this site like to pat themselves on the back for looking out for the its best interests, but they are human and occasionally capricious. It's worse than useless to complain about it. Not only is it unsatisfying; all manner of asshats crawl up from the sewers to scoff at you and put words in your mouth.
I sympathize with your frustration.
posted by alumshubby at 5:24 AM on July 12, 2005
The people who run this site like to pat themselves on the back for looking out for the its best interests, but they are human and occasionally capricious. It's worse than useless to complain about it. Not only is it unsatisfying; all manner of asshats crawl up from the sewers to scoff at you and put words in your mouth.
I sympathize with your frustration.
posted by alumshubby at 5:24 AM on July 12, 2005
The people who run this site like to pat themselves on the back for looking out for the its best interests, but they are human and occasionally capricious. It's worse than useless to complain about it. Not only is it unsatisfying; all manner of asshats crawl up from the sewers to scoff at you and put words in your mouth.
No kidding. I totally sympathize. Nothing gets done about him, spiderwire, so your best bet is to ignore or use a killfile.
posted by Rothko at 6:02 AM on July 12, 2005
No kidding. I totally sympathize. Nothing gets done about him, spiderwire, so your best bet is to ignore or use a killfile.
posted by Rothko at 6:02 AM on July 12, 2005
What's wrong with my American chubby?
I think it's the way it sticks to the palate.
posted by Decani at 6:19 AM on July 12, 2005
I think it's the way it sticks to the palate.
posted by Decani at 6:19 AM on July 12, 2005
No kidding. I totally sympathize. Nothing gets done about him
posted by Rothko at 6:02 AM PST on July 12
You just can't control yourself, can you AlexReynolds?
You got banned, but you came back in a sockpuppet and promised to quit your whining and trolling in Metatalk. But here you are, unable to stop yourself. Like a moth to the flame, you cannot keep yourself away from starting drama and personality fights.
___________
spiderwire:
I think you overstate the effectiveness of me mentioning your thread in this one. I mentioned it one time, but that isn't why it got deleted. It got deleted because it was flagged and it violated the rule that was stated clearly on that day.
As for your comment about being deeply offended but what I said here, I think you are over-doing it. You have said yourself you thought people would miss that press conference stuff buried in your previous thread on the topic. You have said that you thought it was important enough to have its own post so that people wouldn't miss it.
Now here is what I wrote:
He just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post.
posted by dios at 1:42 PM PST on July 11
I don't see how my characterization of your motivations in this thread are qualitatively different. Surely not different enough for you to take such umbrage with my comment and act so angry as you are here. But I guess you are just pissed because your thread got deleted and figure you need to take out on me. It's not my fault your post got deleted.
posted by dios at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2005
posted by Rothko at 6:02 AM PST on July 12
You just can't control yourself, can you AlexReynolds?
You got banned, but you came back in a sockpuppet and promised to quit your whining and trolling in Metatalk. But here you are, unable to stop yourself. Like a moth to the flame, you cannot keep yourself away from starting drama and personality fights.
___________
spiderwire:
I think you overstate the effectiveness of me mentioning your thread in this one. I mentioned it one time, but that isn't why it got deleted. It got deleted because it was flagged and it violated the rule that was stated clearly on that day.
As for your comment about being deeply offended but what I said here, I think you are over-doing it. You have said yourself you thought people would miss that press conference stuff buried in your previous thread on the topic. You have said that you thought it was important enough to have its own post so that people wouldn't miss it.
Now here is what I wrote:
He just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post.
posted by dios at 1:42 PM PST on July 11
I don't see how my characterization of your motivations in this thread are qualitatively different. Surely not different enough for you to take such umbrage with my comment and act so angry as you are here. But I guess you are just pissed because your thread got deleted and figure you need to take out on me. It's not my fault your post got deleted.
posted by dios at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2005
but i'm still really insulted by what dios did
FISH ON!
posted by quonsar at 8:10 AM on July 12, 2005
FISH ON!
posted by quonsar at 8:10 AM on July 12, 2005
The people who run this site like to pat themselves on the back for looking out for the its best interests, but they are human and occasionally capricious.
Really? I'm not being snarky here, but I don't think I've ever read anything suggesting that Matt and/or jessamyn were "patting themselves on the back" for their moderation efforts. In fact, my guess is that they'd readily admit that they wish they had more time to weigh the pros and cons of every post, consider past precedents, balance the contributions of various users, formulate formal policies, etc., etc., but since they don't, they do the best they can on the fly. It's a pretty thankless job. If they make a "mistake" (if one can even make a "mistake" when editing one's own web site), big fucking whoop-de-doo. Post the same thing elsewhere -- the internet's a big place.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:27 AM on July 12, 2005
Really? I'm not being snarky here, but I don't think I've ever read anything suggesting that Matt and/or jessamyn were "patting themselves on the back" for their moderation efforts. In fact, my guess is that they'd readily admit that they wish they had more time to weigh the pros and cons of every post, consider past precedents, balance the contributions of various users, formulate formal policies, etc., etc., but since they don't, they do the best they can on the fly. It's a pretty thankless job. If they make a "mistake" (if one can even make a "mistake" when editing one's own web site), big fucking whoop-de-doo. Post the same thing elsewhere -- the internet's a big place.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:27 AM on July 12, 2005
He just thought in case some eyeballs were missing it, it needed to be up on its own post.
posted by dios at 1:42 PM PST on July 11
For once, I actually agree with dios. And he's someone whose conduct pisses me off repeatedly. I think people are so used to his trolling that they don't know how to react when he actually says something meaningful. I'm no stranger to this, either, as I've been correctly called out for being an asshole over double-posts. That all said, the later comment was pretty much flame bait.
posted by mystyk at 9:05 AM on July 12, 2005
posted by dios at 1:42 PM PST on July 11
For once, I actually agree with dios. And he's someone whose conduct pisses me off repeatedly. I think people are so used to his trolling that they don't know how to react when he actually says something meaningful. I'm no stranger to this, either, as I've been correctly called out for being an asshole over double-posts. That all said, the later comment was pretty much flame bait.
posted by mystyk at 9:05 AM on July 12, 2005
dios seems to have been getting less combative and more informative lately, just FYI.
posted by languagehat at 10:34 AM on July 12, 2005
posted by languagehat at 10:34 AM on July 12, 2005
Sooooo....
Great to see that the whole thing was resolved by putting a link in the sidebar.
Not so great that that link has now disappeared. What gives?
posted by soyjoy at 1:36 PM on July 12, 2005
Great to see that the whole thing was resolved by putting a link in the sidebar.
Not so great that that link has now disappeared. What gives?
posted by soyjoy at 1:36 PM on July 12, 2005
Not so great that that link has now disappeared. What gives?
Matt and I were talking and thought that it might be okay to lift the Rove moratorium, especially if someone could come up with a post that was more than a one-off news link. I wasn't sure how to say "okay, you can try again!" with that same link up there, so figured we'd start that way.
posted by jessamyn at 2:28 PM on July 12, 2005
Matt and I were talking and thought that it might be okay to lift the Rove moratorium, especially if someone could come up with a post that was more than a one-off news link. I wasn't sure how to say "okay, you can try again!" with that same link up there, so figured we'd start that way.
posted by jessamyn at 2:28 PM on July 12, 2005
I'm confused by the deleted threads, the first one's gone off the main page and now the sidebar link is gone too.
How does that say "okay you can try again"? It seems to say much more strongly "Find something else to talk about".
posted by fenriq at 2:35 PM on July 12, 2005
How does that say "okay you can try again"? It seems to say much more strongly "Find something else to talk about".
posted by fenriq at 2:35 PM on July 12, 2005
The Mothers of Prevention ride again...
Here's a suggestion: If you want to encourage posting, don't attempt to do it by deleting every damn thing you can get your hands on!
posted by alumshubby at 4:28 PM on July 12, 2005
Here's a suggestion: If you want to encourage posting, don't attempt to do it by deleting every damn thing you can get your hands on!
posted by alumshubby at 4:28 PM on July 12, 2005
If you want to encourage posting, don't attempt to do it by deleting every damn thing you can get your hands on!
worth repeating.
posted by quonsar at 6:57 PM on July 12, 2005
worth repeating.
posted by quonsar at 6:57 PM on July 12, 2005
Thanks for adding the Rove post back to the sidebar, much easier to follow again without making big stinking piles all over the front page.
posted by fenriq at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2005
posted by fenriq at 10:23 AM on July 13, 2005
« Older Was there a post deleted off the blue that... | Posting an FPP results in "robust exception"... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by zardoz at 9:27 AM on July 11, 2005