Krishna knows the name of each and every cow and calf.
Prayers Requested for Romapada Swami Hospitalized in Atlanta
The following message was released by ISKCON Atlanta:
With a heavy heart, we share that soon after His arrival in Atlanta, His Holiness Romapada Swami Maharaj experienced some unforeseen health challenges and was admitted to Grady Memorial Hospital.
By the causeless mercy of Sri Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, Maharaj is now receiving care and is showing encouraging signs of improvement.
In this moment, Maharaj needs our heartfelt prayers the most. We humbly and earnestly request all devotees to kindly keep Maharaj in your sincere prayers and chant for His complete and speedy recovery.
Let us all pray together for His Holiness Romapad Swami to be quickly restored to good health.
======
AMERICA IS RUNNING OUT OF WEAPONS
PADA: OK pilgrims, the neo-cons never had the resources for another one of their prolonged forever wars. Now they are panicked because they think they might lose the mid-terms -- and no longer have unlimited trillions for their forever wars, some folks might vote against funding that agenda. That will be terrible!
Iran uses decoys to make USA run down its anti-aircraft stock. Which is why Srila Prabhupada says -- Krishna arranges for the asuras to fight -- to drain down and expend their military might and weapons.
The neo-cons said they got into this war "because they had a good feeling about it." OK then, but a feeling does not always produce good results. We are always getting rid of dictators, which might produce even worse dictators. We got rid of Saddam, and that created ISIS and many other similar vicious splinter groups in Iraq. Not sure how that helps?
Now their big plan is to block Iran's banks, but those banks are already trading in BRICS currency and they do not need USA banking. And blocking banking is a very long term attrition issue in any case and will not produce quick results, if any results ever.
So it looks like the USA is draining its weapons, draining its oil reserves, and draining its economy with huge expenses, and for -- what? Iran says they need complete control of the straits to block USA weapons from entering the region, and I think they will eventually get that awarded. Iran also said they are not aware of any new deal being made, they are still waiting for USA people to adhere to the original MOU. Hard to tell with both sides giving mixed messages.
OK this is another neo-con blunder, which is costing the USA on all sorts of levels. The GBC does the same thing, anyone who does not agree with their policy is rough shod pushed out the door. And the neo-cons similarly fire and remove anyone who questions their policy. Get rid of the people asking questions!
And then the more qualified advisors are -- absent, and mistakes are prone to be made. And are. And this botched war is just one of their more glaring examples of being out of touch. I am not a big fan of the USA per se, but I do live here, and so do a lot of devotees and their children, so I am sort of hoping against hope that it does not fail. But to be honest, this is not looking good.
ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com
========JAYAPATAKA UPDATE
PADA: OK so we told Jayapataka there is a child mistreatment problem in 1979. He said -- you get out of ISKCON, and take us to COURT if there is any issue with these kids. So I did, I had his program sued first for $3,000,000 -- and he lost. Then had to sued him again for $400,000,000, and he lost again (both times in Dallas). When he saw me in Los Angeles he ran at me shouting like a mad person. He was not happy I followed his order to take him to court, so I could save these kids?
Then I helped other cases with other documents, costing millions more. After all that, the Jayapataka people wrote to complain to me that I am costing them $100,000,000, and I am more expensive than the TOVP. When did Srila Prabhupada order the GBC gurus to spend $100,000,000 buying Armani suits and Mercedes for lawyers? I thought he said we should print books?
Anyway, as soon as we follow their orders, and stop their child mistreatment program in court, then they complain about the money, without even mentioning the trauma they are causing all these children. But yeah we won both times because their main goal of life is to buy Armani suits and Mercedes for lawyers. That is not the goal of the Krishna religion. The good news also is that when they sent their enforcers to place me in the morgue, the FEDS arrested their enforcers and that too cost them a lot of money, because their properties were then SWAT raided by the FEDS etc. They could just sit down and talk to me, but no, they would rather buy Armani suits for their meat eating lawyers. ys pd
======
IRM (Krishna Kant)
Back To Prabhupada
ISKCON India ("II"), represented by its "scholars" board ("IISB"), recently launched a series of videos trying to refute The Final Order (TFO) and the position it sets forth, which IISB calls "rtvikism". They felt compelled to do this because, like ISKCON GBC gurus HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami, they also recognised the position of TFO as being the "Bible" of accepting Srila Prabhupada's order that he is ISKCON's diksa guru:
"The Final Order on rtvikism, which is considered as the Bible for the rtviks. [...] godfather of rtvik."
Thus, even 30 years after TFO was requested by, and sent to, the GBC, ISKCON realises the only way to oppose Srila Prabhupada's position as ISKCON's diksa guru today is to try to refute TFO. The quotes in the shaded boxes above and below are taken from these IISB videos released between 16/5 and 2/6, 2025.
PADA: The final order is not "the Bible" on the idea of worshiping a pure devotee as guru, this was already being discussed widely in Vedic Village Review and other places way before TFO was ever put together. TFO copied and pasted many of the citations already in use by us in the 1980s. Of course Krishna Kanta does get some credit for collating our citations and re-packaging them as TFO, which has helped the ritvik argument along in some areas.
Forever wrong about TFO
"The Final Order and basically in a nutshell that book propagated the idea that this letter of July 9th, 1977 was Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiations and suddenly because of that letter Prabhupada continues to be the guru forever and ever."
PADA: This "one letter": idea is also a big mistake. Srila Prabhupada says we have to worship a pure devotee in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of places, not just "in one letter." We were already saying Srila Prabhupada is the acharya in 1978 with no TFO to guide us.
This is a fabrication. TFO does not state that Srila Prabhupada will be the guru "forever". Here is what it actually states:
"Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the Society is extant." (TFO, p. 81)
PADA: Well there is a big problem right there. Most of the official ISKCON properties right now are no longer even in the name of ISKCON, there is a slew of other newly formed charities. All of the official ISKCON has declared bankrupt in the USA.
======
IRM (Krishna Kant)
Back To Prabhupada
ISKCON India ("II"), represented by its "scholars" board ("IISB"), recently launched a series of videos trying to refute The Final Order (TFO) and the position it sets forth, which IISB calls "rtvikism". They felt compelled to do this because, like ISKCON GBC gurus HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami, they also recognised the position of TFO as being the "Bible" of accepting Srila Prabhupada's order that he is ISKCON's diksa guru:
"The Final Order on rtvikism, which is considered as the Bible for the rtviks. [...] godfather of rtvik."
Thus, even 30 years after TFO was requested by, and sent to, the GBC, ISKCON realises the only way to oppose Srila Prabhupada's position as ISKCON's diksa guru today is to try to refute TFO. The quotes in the shaded boxes above and below are taken from these IISB videos released between 16/5 and 2/6, 2025.
PADA: The final order is not "the Bible" on the idea of worshiping a pure devotee as guru, this was already being discussed widely in Vedic Village Review and other places way before TFO was ever put together. TFO copied and pasted many of the citations already in use by us in the 1980s. Of course Krishna Kanta does get some credit for collating our citations and re-packaging them as TFO, which has helped the ritvik argument along in some areas.
Forever wrong about TFO
"The Final Order and basically in a nutshell that book propagated the idea that this letter of July 9th, 1977 was Srila Prabhupada's final order on initiations and suddenly because of that letter Prabhupada continues to be the guru forever and ever."
PADA: This "one letter": idea is also a big mistake. Srila Prabhupada says we have to worship a pure devotee in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of places, not just "in one letter." We were already saying Srila Prabhupada is the acharya in 1978 with no TFO to guide us.
This is a fabrication. TFO does not state that Srila Prabhupada will be the guru "forever". Here is what it actually states:
"Srila Prabhupada will be the initiator within ISKCON for as long as the Society is extant." (TFO, p. 81)
PADA: Well there is a big problem right there. Most of the official ISKCON properties right now are no longer even in the name of ISKCON, there is a slew of other newly formed charities. All of the official ISKCON has declared bankrupt in the USA.
Most of the remainder of what is left of ISKCON has been hijacked. We should say Srila Prabhupada will be worshiped as the acharya -- until or unless another proven self effulgent acharya appears, which may or may not happen. And he will be worshiped in or out of official ISKCON. It is not dependent on the Society being extant -- especially when the existence of the society is in such doubt and bad repair.
Thus, TFO only states that Srila Prabhupada will be the diksa guru for ISKCON, since he will also be the Acarya for ISKCON. Eternally wrong about TFO
"we find that that "henceforward" is not sanctioned to be considered as "into eternity.""
PADA: ISKCON is being dismantled, demolished and disintegrated and cannot be the standard for how long the acharya will be worshiped.
This refers to the fact that the July 9th, 1977 directive on initiations was to begin "henceforward". However, TFO does not claim that "henceforward" means "into eternity". Rather, it states:
"The specific word used, "henceforward", only has one meaning, viz. "from now onwards"." (TFO, p. 3)
Indeed, we even state in regard to the word "henceforward" that: "even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed." (TFO, p. 3)
Thus, as before, IISB has simply addressed something TFO does not even state.
More fabrication: Srila Prabhupada stated the "law of disciplic succession" in a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa on 2/12/75 as follows:
"But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession." It is claimed by the IISB videos that we claim in TFO that this law was:
"somehow reversed by this July 9th letter." And that such a claim by us would be absurd because: "How is it possible? Why would Prabhupada write one thing and contradict himself?"
But we do not state the letter "reverses" the law. We do not state this because the law and the July 9th letter are not incompatible, as we will explain later on. For now, we can note how IISB, rather than answer TFO, has instead yet again just engaged in another fabrication about TFO.
In this way, large sections of the videos do not even attempt to address what TFO actually states, and therefore are completely irrelevant and thus useless in refuting TFO. There are only two times where the IISB videos directly quote and attempt to deal with what TFO states, and we address them next.
Illness doctrine defeated
"July 9th letter actually has list of 11, you know, rtviks assigned by Prabhupada who could do initiation when Prabhupada was not well." This "illness" argument addresses this quote from TFO given by the video: "the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON" (TFO, p. xiv)
PADA: It is odd that the GBC people like Rupanuga and the India scholars board said that worship of the acharya is temporary -- only while he is ill. And then we should worship their assorted deviants, crooks, drunks, homosexuals, pedophiles and deviants as our acharyas.
Thus, IISB is trying to show that the July 9th directive giving the final system for initiations within ISKCON was not issued as a general directive on initiation for ISKCON, even though that is what the directive states. But that rather it was a temporary, one-off measure, instituted only to address Srila Prabhupada's inability to perform initiations due to being ill.
Thus, TFO only states that Srila Prabhupada will be the diksa guru for ISKCON, since he will also be the Acarya for ISKCON. Eternally wrong about TFO
"we find that that "henceforward" is not sanctioned to be considered as "into eternity.""
PADA: ISKCON is being dismantled, demolished and disintegrated and cannot be the standard for how long the acharya will be worshiped.
This refers to the fact that the July 9th, 1977 directive on initiations was to begin "henceforward". However, TFO does not claim that "henceforward" means "into eternity". Rather, it states:
"The specific word used, "henceforward", only has one meaning, viz. "from now onwards"." (TFO, p. 3)
Indeed, we even state in regard to the word "henceforward" that: "even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed." (TFO, p. 3)
Thus, as before, IISB has simply addressed something TFO does not even state.
More fabrication: Srila Prabhupada stated the "law of disciplic succession" in a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa on 2/12/75 as follows:
"But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession." It is claimed by the IISB videos that we claim in TFO that this law was:
"somehow reversed by this July 9th letter." And that such a claim by us would be absurd because: "How is it possible? Why would Prabhupada write one thing and contradict himself?"
But we do not state the letter "reverses" the law. We do not state this because the law and the July 9th letter are not incompatible, as we will explain later on. For now, we can note how IISB, rather than answer TFO, has instead yet again just engaged in another fabrication about TFO.
In this way, large sections of the videos do not even attempt to address what TFO actually states, and therefore are completely irrelevant and thus useless in refuting TFO. There are only two times where the IISB videos directly quote and attempt to deal with what TFO states, and we address them next.
Illness doctrine defeated
"July 9th letter actually has list of 11, you know, rtviks assigned by Prabhupada who could do initiation when Prabhupada was not well." This "illness" argument addresses this quote from TFO given by the video: "the July 9th letter really is the final instruction on initiation within ISKCON" (TFO, p. xiv)
PADA: It is odd that the GBC people like Rupanuga and the India scholars board said that worship of the acharya is temporary -- only while he is ill. And then we should worship their assorted deviants, crooks, drunks, homosexuals, pedophiles and deviants as our acharyas.
Thus, IISB is trying to show that the July 9th directive giving the final system for initiations within ISKCON was not issued as a general directive on initiation for ISKCON, even though that is what the directive states. But that rather it was a temporary, one-off measure, instituted only to address Srila Prabhupada's inability to perform initiations due to being ill.
Hence, the temporary nature of the July 9th directive would be established by this "illness" doctrine ("ID"). However, this ID has already been defeated many times by us in previous BTPs, and again on page 4 of this issue. We will now show how it has also been defeated by IISB themselves. The Bureau is the governing body of ISKCON India, and they stated as part of a resolution, communicated on 25/11/19, that:
"ritvik (guru – as per the July 9 letter)".
ISKCON India Scholars Board
Thus, they state that the appointment of a rtvik in the July 9th letter was also the appointment of "guru". Which means that II believes the July 9th letter was not issued temporarily to deal with Srila Prabhupada's illness, but that it was issued to permanently appoint gurus. Thus, by II's own hand, the ID is demolished, and they must accept the permanent nature of the July 9th directive.
The fact that the July 9th directive does not even mention, nor actually appoint, "guru", does not change the fact that II deludedly believes that it does! The net result is that IISB cannot claim the "illness" objection to TFO's central thesis that the July 9th directive is the final instruction for initiations within ISKCON.
Recycling the defeated
The one other time the IISB videos deal with answering what TFO states is a quote from pages 18-19, wherein TFO speaks about the private letters Srila Prabhupada wrote to those who were "ambitious" to become diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. IISB's response is to claim that we are claiming Srila Prabhupada "lies" to the devotees concerned. The exact same argument was already made previously by the same IISB member making the claims here, and we already refuted these "lying" claims in BTP 79, and they can be read here:
iskconirm.com/lies
There we show we are not claiming that Srila Prabhupada is lying. Lying projection: We can show, however, that IISB actually does believe Srila Prabhupada is lying.
a) One of the private letters written by Srila Prabhupada, in which the IISB videos falsely claim that we are stating Srila Prabhupada is telling "lies", is a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa, dated 2/12/75, in which the "law of disciplic succession" that we quoted earlier is stated. However, the letter also refers to being applicable to all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples by stating "every student" and "my disciples". And the IISB videos claim that this "law" is an order for diksa gurus, and that it is "the final decision of initiations".
"ritvik (guru – as per the July 9 letter)".
ISKCON India Scholars Board
Thus, they state that the appointment of a rtvik in the July 9th letter was also the appointment of "guru". Which means that II believes the July 9th letter was not issued temporarily to deal with Srila Prabhupada's illness, but that it was issued to permanently appoint gurus. Thus, by II's own hand, the ID is demolished, and they must accept the permanent nature of the July 9th directive.
The fact that the July 9th directive does not even mention, nor actually appoint, "guru", does not change the fact that II deludedly believes that it does! The net result is that IISB cannot claim the "illness" objection to TFO's central thesis that the July 9th directive is the final instruction for initiations within ISKCON.
Recycling the defeated
The one other time the IISB videos deal with answering what TFO states is a quote from pages 18-19, wherein TFO speaks about the private letters Srila Prabhupada wrote to those who were "ambitious" to become diksa gurus even in Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. IISB's response is to claim that we are claiming Srila Prabhupada "lies" to the devotees concerned. The exact same argument was already made previously by the same IISB member making the claims here, and we already refuted these "lying" claims in BTP 79, and they can be read here:
iskconirm.com/lies
There we show we are not claiming that Srila Prabhupada is lying. Lying projection: We can show, however, that IISB actually does believe Srila Prabhupada is lying.
a) One of the private letters written by Srila Prabhupada, in which the IISB videos falsely claim that we are stating Srila Prabhupada is telling "lies", is a letter to Tusta Krsna Dasa, dated 2/12/75, in which the "law of disciplic succession" that we quoted earlier is stated. However, the letter also refers to being applicable to all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples by stating "every student" and "my disciples". And the IISB videos claim that this "law" is an order for diksa gurus, and that it is "the final decision of initiations".
Which would mean that, according to IISB, this letter would be authorising female diksa gurus ("FDG"). But IISB has already rejected FDG as a deviation, as we have documented in earlier issues. And, thus, they would have to believe that Srila Prabhupada was "lying" when he referred to "every student" and "my disciples" in this letter.
b) Also, the "law", as we quoted earlier, states that one can only become a diksa guru after the "disappearance" of one's own guru. But ISKCON has authorised numerous diksa gurus in the physical presence of their own spiritual masters. Thus, if IISB believed in the "law", it would have launched a campaign against such "granddisciple gurus", as they are in violation of the "law", which according to IISB was the "final decision of initiations". After all, as we saw in the case of FDG, IISB will launch a campaign against gurus if they believe they are not authorised. But IISB has not launched such a campaign in this case, showing they do not even "believe" in the law, and have only invoked it to try to oppose TFO.
No limitation or incompatibility
In regard to this law, it is further claimed:
"what that does is that naturally limits the July 9th letter to the lifetime of Prabhupada."
However, the law only states when it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru: "in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples"
It therefore states nothing about when the existing diksa guru must cease acting as a diksa guru himself, since the "law" only states "you can", not "must", accept disciples. Thus, the law does not limit Srila Prabhupada to only acting as the diksa guru during his lifetime. Therefore, the July 9th directive, which states that Srila Prabhupada continues to act as ISKCON's diksa guru, is not limited to Srila Prabhupada's lifetime, as claimed above.
Nor does the July 9th directive change the fact that a guru's physical absence is the only time period in which it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru. Thus, just because it may not become necessary to exercise this law, does not mean the law is being discarded or contradicted. So the law and the July 9th directive are not incompatible, nor does one "reverse" or "supersede" the other.
Srila Prabhupada declared deviant
We have dealt with basically all the arguments claimed by IISB to be from Srila Prabhupada that supposedly terminate the July 9th directive. One other relevant quote from Srila Prabhupada offered by the IISB videos was the quote from October 18th, 1977, which was already answered on page 4.
An extremely large portion of the videos deal instead with going outside Srila Prabhupada's actual statements and claiming to offer evidence from: the leaders of organisations outside ISKCON, tradition, and "sastra". But what outside leaders may say is irrelevant to what Srila Prabhupada ordered. This can only be determined by examining Srila Prabhupada's orders themselves! And "tradition" will be shown in the next article as not being able to prevent Srila Prabhupada from continuing as ISKCON's diksa guru.
The arguments from "sastra" are self-defeating because they would mean that what IISB accepts Srila Prabhupada did order would also not be sastric. For example, they claim "sastra" states:
"First thing is this name-giving ceremony is done by an Acarya. [...] so the representative cannot give the name. [...] The Acarya should tell [...] Rtvik Prabhu, I thought of this name [...] This much communication must be there from Acarya to representative."
Thus, it is emphatically claimed that a spiritual name cannot be given by the rtvik representative, but rather must only be given by the Acarya or diksa guru. But IISB accepts that the July 9th directive is a valid document authorised by Srila Prabhupada, and this states the exact opposite, that the representative alone gives the spiritual name:
"After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupad by giving a spiritual name".
Thus, in their desperation to defeat TFO using "sastra", they have only ended up claiming that it is Srila Prabhupada himself who has deviated from sastra!
The Final Order
Final order delivers final nail
b) Also, the "law", as we quoted earlier, states that one can only become a diksa guru after the "disappearance" of one's own guru. But ISKCON has authorised numerous diksa gurus in the physical presence of their own spiritual masters. Thus, if IISB believed in the "law", it would have launched a campaign against such "granddisciple gurus", as they are in violation of the "law", which according to IISB was the "final decision of initiations". After all, as we saw in the case of FDG, IISB will launch a campaign against gurus if they believe they are not authorised. But IISB has not launched such a campaign in this case, showing they do not even "believe" in the law, and have only invoked it to try to oppose TFO.
No limitation or incompatibility
In regard to this law, it is further claimed:
"what that does is that naturally limits the July 9th letter to the lifetime of Prabhupada."
However, the law only states when it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru: "in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples"
It therefore states nothing about when the existing diksa guru must cease acting as a diksa guru himself, since the "law" only states "you can", not "must", accept disciples. Thus, the law does not limit Srila Prabhupada to only acting as the diksa guru during his lifetime. Therefore, the July 9th directive, which states that Srila Prabhupada continues to act as ISKCON's diksa guru, is not limited to Srila Prabhupada's lifetime, as claimed above.
Nor does the July 9th directive change the fact that a guru's physical absence is the only time period in which it is possible for a disciple to become a diksa guru. Thus, just because it may not become necessary to exercise this law, does not mean the law is being discarded or contradicted. So the law and the July 9th directive are not incompatible, nor does one "reverse" or "supersede" the other.
Srila Prabhupada declared deviant
We have dealt with basically all the arguments claimed by IISB to be from Srila Prabhupada that supposedly terminate the July 9th directive. One other relevant quote from Srila Prabhupada offered by the IISB videos was the quote from October 18th, 1977, which was already answered on page 4.
An extremely large portion of the videos deal instead with going outside Srila Prabhupada's actual statements and claiming to offer evidence from: the leaders of organisations outside ISKCON, tradition, and "sastra". But what outside leaders may say is irrelevant to what Srila Prabhupada ordered. This can only be determined by examining Srila Prabhupada's orders themselves! And "tradition" will be shown in the next article as not being able to prevent Srila Prabhupada from continuing as ISKCON's diksa guru.
The arguments from "sastra" are self-defeating because they would mean that what IISB accepts Srila Prabhupada did order would also not be sastric. For example, they claim "sastra" states:
"First thing is this name-giving ceremony is done by an Acarya. [...] so the representative cannot give the name. [...] The Acarya should tell [...] Rtvik Prabhu, I thought of this name [...] This much communication must be there from Acarya to representative."
Thus, it is emphatically claimed that a spiritual name cannot be given by the rtvik representative, but rather must only be given by the Acarya or diksa guru. But IISB accepts that the July 9th directive is a valid document authorised by Srila Prabhupada, and this states the exact opposite, that the representative alone gives the spiritual name:
"After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupad by giving a spiritual name".
Thus, in their desperation to defeat TFO using "sastra", they have only ended up claiming that it is Srila Prabhupada himself who has deviated from sastra!
The Final Order
Final order delivers final nail
PADA: The Final Order is simply one of many tools currently being used to re-focus the worship on Srila Prabhupada. Some new bhakta just wrote to PADA and he said their temple has had so many GBC gurus come and go, there is no incentive to worship any one of them now. It is "revolving door" gurus. So he is going to worship Srila Prabhupada.
I think that is the direction it is heading no matter what. That being said, Krishna Kant has some strange obsession with his idea that we cannot conduct ritvik initiations until we convince the GBC to do them for us. What if the GBC never does? He does not seem to have a plan B.
KK originally wanted me to work under Jayapataka and take a vacation in the Caribbean under the loving care of JPS, so he has had secret meetings with them. But I fail to see any positive result. Worse, I never would have returned alive from KK's Caribbean vacation. I would have probably been sliced up with machetes and fed to the Caribbean sharks. He is a little naive, or compromised, or in league with the bad guys, but his ideas are not completely correct. Anyway yeah, there is no other order, worship the pure devotee is the only order -- full time and all the time. ys pd
ys pd
