Pictoors

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:15 pm

Cash wrote:A poke to the boob deserves the Coup De Groin.

Amen, that is /not/ called for

Us however she just knows we are sexually deprived hornballs.

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:21 am

Kitt wrote: And they're more twice my age than just 10 years older

HEY! I resemble that remark...

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:35 am

Speaking of deviants... Hullo Sinsual. :cool

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:38 am

Cash wrote:If you give me $100 US, I'll send you a pic of AE, 32, and CE all together and sharing a beer.

Yeah, well if you give me $100 US I'll spend it on a hooker.

Which is better? Seeing a pic of me, or knowing that I've debased myself? I'd go for the money to me.

...

GIVE ME THE FUCKING CASH, DAMNIT!

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:11 am

Hands That Cash over.

Ooops, looks like I'm a little short on Cash....

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:58 pm

Instant Cash wrote:Us however she just knows we are sexually deprived hornballs.

We're... lovable lecher's. Yeah, that's it.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:41 am

See, the fact that you have lovable in there makes me tolerate you. Its the sketchy guys I can't handle.

I think my favorite comment came from Ronnie, one of the gay men in the show. The first day I wore the dress, before I had my handy bra with the clingy fabric that makes it stay inside the top, he comes out of the wings and looks me up and down. He said, "Girl, that dress makes your boobs look amazing. You look fuckin' hot."
I swear, it made me want to marry him.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:05 pm

Yeah yeah yeah, but if he wasn't a gay man you would have slapped him.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 pm

Kitt wrote:Er...27 doth not an old fuck make.

WOOHOO!! I'm not an old fuck according to Kitt!

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:24 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:Yeah yeah yeah, but if he wasn't a gay man you would have slapped him.

Well that depends. If he was one of the skeevy straight men, he most definitely would have gotten a slap, at the very least. On the other hand, if he was one of the cool, non-mass-homicidal-rapists (all 3 of 'em), I probably would have reacted exactly the same way, with the addition of a blush.

Brineshrimp · Post by **Brineshrimp** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:34 pm

Well, let me be the first one here to come out and say it, "You have great bobs. They make you look hot!!!"

Um, Kitt? Can you move aside? You're blocking my view of IC's boobs.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:51 pm

They're mine! I saw them first! Come 'ere IC!

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:51 pm

....

Oh my, I got to the party late.

I'd just like to say that I'm repeatedly thudding my head against the desk and deeply regretting your jailbait status.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:07 pm

So many little men, so little time.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:42 pm

I'd just like to say that I'm repeatedly thudding my head against the desk and deeply regretting your jailbait status.

Regret no longer! I revoked her jailbait status earlier in the thread.

Brineshrimp · Post by **Brineshrimp** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:57 pm

Er, I noticed you have great "boobs," NOT great "bobs" as I typed earlier.

Damn fingers.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:25 pm

TheScamp wrote:
I'd just like to say that I'm repeatedly thudding my head against the desk and deeply regretting your jailbait status.
Regret no longer! I revoked her jailbait status earlier in the thread.

awww yeah, baby.

ohhh kitttt....do tell if you're near DC in the future.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:52 pm

Christ on crutches...DAMN YOU ALL AND YOUR LACK OF LETTING ME BE JAILBAIT!
BTW: in the newest show I'm in, I will probably be forced to hang all over a 40-something year old man. Coincidentally, he's the skeevy guy from Seussical. Someone kill me.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 pm

Kitt:: Sheer coincidence that you're on opposite the perv?

Instant Cash wrote:So many little men, so little time.

Hey! It was cold out.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:50 pm

Kitt wrote:Christ on crutches...DAMN YOU ALL AND YOUR LACK OF LETTING ME BE JAILBAIT!
BTW: in the newest show I'm in, I will probably be forced to hang all over a 40-something year old man. Coincidentally, he's the skeevy guy from Seussical. Someone kill me.

...ew. Please tell me that he's not the director, did not bribe the director, and is actually a very good actor but just a pervy grosstard in real life.

If it's otherwise: I'd say start NOW in the "make it clear that I am not attracted to you" campaign.

And re: your not being jailbait? I still think you are. When's your birthday? *innocent* *halo*

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm

Cash wrote:Kitt:: Sheer coincidence that you're on opposite the perv?

Instant Cash wrote:So many little men, so little time.
Hey! It was cold out.

{voice class=George Costanza]"I was in the pool!"[/vc]

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:38 pm

Cash: Sheer coincidence. It's also not confirmed, but there's a high chance.
Patience: He knows I'm not interested and never will be. He's also not the director and is too poor to bribe him. However, he's a terrible actor and was probably cast because of lack of turnout. And I'm not jailbait, coz apparently, 17 is legal in NY. Which I don't believe. If I can't buy a lighter, I shouldn't be able to fuck freely.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:47 pm

Patience wrote:*innocent* *halo*

Yeah...I *almost* believed you for a second.

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:02 am

damn, 17 is legal in NY? In Texas, its 18 or 2 years difference for stagitory or some shit like that.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:42 pm

Nope, it's 17 in Texas, too. If your spouse is under the age of 17, you're exempt.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:44 pm

Kitt wrote: Patience: He knows I'm not interested and never will be. He's also not the director and is too poor to bribe him. However, he's a terrible actor and was probably cast because of lack of turnout. And I'm not jailbait, coz apparently, 17 is legal in NY. Which I don't believe. If I can't buy a lighter, I shouldn't be able to fuck freely.

First: that's the best line EVER.
Second: I'm so sorry. That's a grosstastic situation. I can only offer you Mace and the agility to use it.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:50 pm

Cash wrote:
Patience wrote:*innocent* *halo*
Yeah...I *almost* believed you for a second.

That's because you're looking in the wrong place: my halo isn't on my CHEST, Cash.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:56 pm

It's not a braile halo, either.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:20 pm

No, no, it's not.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:34 am

17 in New York.
In Texas, it's 17, unless you're within 3 years' age, in which case it's 14. [In practice, sex over 14 is almost never prosecuted as statuatory rape in Texas.]
16 in Michigan [13 if you're within five years' age].
In Iowa, it's 14 if you're less than 5 years apart, 16 if you're more than five years apart, and 12 if you're married.
Missouri, 14 if you're over 18 but under 21, 17 if you're over 21.

Stupid bunch of confusing laws. I like Paraguay and Chile, where it's 12. Or Spain, where it's 13. Nice and simple.

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:59 am

well, that clears things up. now I know. and knowing is half the battle.
*Gi Joe theme plays*

but yeah, mace or a high voltage taser/stun gun.

Lord Death Hand · Post by **Lord Death Hand** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:22 am

3278 wrote:

In Iowa, it's 14 if you're less than 5 years apart, 16 if you're more than five years apart, and 12 if you're married.

12 if you're married? What? Okay, am I the only one who this strikes as odd?

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:25 am

Patience wrote:
Cash wrote:
Patience wrote:*innocent* *halo*
Yeah...I *almost* believed you for a second.
That's because you're looking in the wrong place: my halo isn't on my CHEST, Cash.

[homer simpson]I've made my choice.[/homer simpson]

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:40 am

Ok, I'm officially ready to kill this guy Mike, the creepy skeevy Grinch guy who's all like 40 and shit and nasty and skeevy.
HE WATCHES ME CHANGE! And all I wear under my costumes is a bra, panties, and a bodystocking. That's not a lot of clothing. And he just loves to watch me change from the Who costume to the Jungle of Nool costume and back again. I mean, the little girls have noticed and have asked if I know. The ones who are 10. It's disturbing.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:26 am

Yeah how creepy is it that some 40 year old wathes a younger girl, especially one who doesn't want the attention so obviously, change her clothes! The fool!

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:02 am

Well if he's not going to get any, what's the point in being subtle about it?

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:43 pm

Kitt wrote:Ok, I'm officially ready to kill this guy Mike, the creepy skeevy Grinch guy who's all like 40 and shit and nasty and skeevy.
HE WATCHES ME CHANGE! And all I wear under my costumes is a bra, panties, and a bodystocking. That's not a lot of clothing. And he just loves to watch me change from the Who costume to the Jungle of Nool costume and back again. I mean, the little girls have noticed and have asked if I know. The ones who are 10. It's disturbing.

Ew. Ew. EWWW.

Can you talk to the director? Where is this being put on?

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:13 pm

I think you should just start tasering him at odd junctures as a matter of policy, then. That's really really uncalled for.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:22 pm

Thorn wrote:I think you should just start tasering him at odd junctures as a matter of policy, then. That's really really uncalled for.

Yeah, but won't he just think that she's into him then, and intensify his disgustingness? Think about it: 40-year-old skeevy guys will jump at any chance they think they have.

Gah. I think she should give him the finger if she sees him watching her.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:46 pm

un·bi·ased also un·bi·assed
adj.

Without bias or prejudice; impartial. See Synonyms at fair1.

unbiased

adj 1: characterized by a lack of partiality; "a properly indifferent jury"; "an unbiased account of her family problems" [syn: indifferent, unbiassed] 2: without bias [syn: unbiassed]

Just shakes his head.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:52 pm

trans·fer·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trns-fûrns, trnsfr-ns) n.
The act or process of transferring.
The fact of being transferred.
In psychoanalysis, the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent or sibling, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the analyst.

n 1: (psychoanalysis) the process whereby emotions are passed on or displaced from one person to another; during psychoanalysis the displacement of feelings toward others (usually the parents) is onto the analyst 2: transferring ownership [syn: transfer] 3: the act of transfering something from one form to another; "the transfer of the music from record to tape suppressed much of the background noise" [syn: transfer]

*sigh*

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:09 pm

tease Audio pronunciation of "TEASE" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tz)
v. teased, teas·ing, teas·es
v. tr.

1. To annoy or pester; vex.
2. To make fun of; mock playfully.
3. To arouse hope, desire, or curiosity in without affording satisfaction.
4.
1. To urge persistently; coax: teasing their mother for more candy.
2. To gain by persistent coaxing: “the New York editor who could tease great books from the unpromising woolly jumble of an author's first draft” (Ian Jack).
3. To deal with or have an effect on as if by teasing.
5. To cut (tissue, for example) into pieces for examination.
6. To disentangle and dress the fibers of (wool, for example).
7. To raise the nap of (cloth) by dressing, as with a fuller's teasel.
8. To ruffle (the hair) by combing from the ends toward the scalp for an airy, full effect.

I'm sure I'm so far off too...

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:08 am

Fine, Paul.

So, show me where exactly Kitt said she's been leading this skeezy 4o-year-old on? Or that she at all appreciated the attention she's been receiving from him?

Or are you saying that because she's willing to accept attention from some men, whom she considers 'safe', she has no right to say she doesn't like attention from The Skeeze?

Besides, since when is spying on someone when they're dressing cool? Personally, I'd be creeped out if it was /Caz/ spying on me when I was dressing. Someone I've got absolutely no interest in whatsoever? That's just fucked up.

And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't spying on people sort of a gateway to other forms of sexual predation? Why is it okay for it to happen to Kitt but not okay to happen to other people?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:17 am

Thorn wrote:So, show me where exactly Kitt said she's been leading this skeezy 4o-year-old on? Or that she at all appreciated the attention she's been receiving from him?

He didn't say that. He didn't imply it. He implied she's a tease. Because she is.

Thorn wrote:Or are you saying that because she's willing to accept attention from some men, whom she considers 'safe', she has no right to say she doesn't like attention from The Skeeze?

He didn't say that, either. Nor did he imply it.

Thorn wrote:Someone I've got absolutely no interest in whatsoever? That's just fucked up.

It's actually quite natural, particularly in a skeezy old man whom she'll never allow to see her undressing by choice since he's skeezy. Which is, I think you'll find, exactly what Paul was saying in the first place.

Thorn wrote:Besides, since when is spying on someone when they're dressing cool? Personally, I'd be creeped out if it was /Caz/ spying on me when I was dressing.

/That's/ just fucked up.

Thorn wrote:And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't spying on people sort of a gateway to other forms of sexual predation? Why is it okay for it to happen to Kitt but not okay to happen to other people?

Voyeurism can be a gateway to other forms of sexual predation. Watching people change backstage is only borderline voyeurism - past the border of good taste, but in no way uncommon for men of all ages and skeezyness factors. Crappy. Rude. Not really the same as "peeping tom." Moreover, it's certainly no guarantee of escalation.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:22 am

You know, I told Caz earlier this would happen. I said to him, "You know I'm going to call Paul on his bullshit, and 32's gonna come rushing to his defense like I've kicked his dog." And here you are.

3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:So, show me where exactly Kitt said she's been leading this skeezy 4o-year-old on? Or that she at all appreciated the attention she's been receiving from him?
He didn't say that. He didn't imply it. He implied she's a tease. Because she is.

Because she likes to flirt? I'm afraid I'm a bit fuzzy on the line between "flirting" and "teasing", but in my book, showing us all pictures we demanded she post up for us, and then appreciating our approval is not "teasing".

3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Or are you saying that because she's willing to accept attention from some men, whom she considers 'safe', she has no right to say she doesn't like attention from The Skeeze?
He didn't say that, either. Nor did he imply it.

I'm sorry, is there another way to read his sarcasm at her being creeped out by this guy? I read it as him saying she's got no right to expect this guy to respect her right to whatever privacy backstage accommodations will offer, because she likes attention from some people. Perhaps Paul would like to speak for himself to explain how it should really be read?

3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Someone I've got absolutely no interest in whatsoever? That's just fucked up.
It's actually quite natural, particularly in a skeezy old man whom she'll never allow to see her undressing by choice since he's skeezy. Which is, I think you'll find, exactly what Paul was saying in the first place.

So natural means okay? Natural means that she shouldn't be upset by it? I'd allow that the impulse is natural, but him indulging his impulse is not okay, whether she's a "tease", a "flirt" or a "prude".

3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Besides, since when is spying on someone when they're dressing cool? Personally, I'd be creeped out if it was /Caz/ spying on me when I was dressing.
/That's/ just fucked up.

Riiiight. Because you're the standard by which all things "normal" should be measured? This is me making a little "W" with my thumbs and forefingers.

Being spied on is not my idea of cool. Caz watching with my knowledge, or watching out in the open and I'm just not looking at him to be aware of it? Fine. But hiding someplace so he can watch me unawares (as I assume The Skeeze is doing)? No, not cool, I don't care who's doing it.

3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't spying on people sort of a gateway to other forms of sexual predation? Why is it okay for it to happen to Kitt but not okay to happen to other people?
Voyeurism can be a gateway to other forms of sexual predation. Watching people change backstage is only borderline voyeurism - past the border of good taste, but in no way uncommon for men of all ages and skeezyness factors. Crappy. Rude. Not really the same as "peeping tom." Moreover, it's certainly no guarantee of escalation.

I wasn't saying it is a guarantee of escalation. However, considering the views Paul was expressing about sexual predation in the thread about sexual predators just recently, I thought it interesting that he should be so sanguine about a woman he knows being subjected to such behavior.

Further, if it's "crappy" and "rude", then how come Kitt's not allowed to be upset by it?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:37 am

Thorn wrote:You know, I told Caz earlier this would happen. I said to him, "You know I'm going to call Paul on his bullshit, and 32's gonna come rushing to his defense like I've kicked his dog." And here you are.

Yeah. Much like sometimes when someone calls you on your bullshit, Caz comes rushing to your defense. It's what you do for someone you're in love with. And Paul and I are really, really, in love. With sex and everything.

Thorn wrote:
3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:So, show me where exactly Kitt said she's been leading this skeezy 4o-year-old on? Or that she at all appreciated the attention she's been receiving from him?
He didn't say that. He didn't imply it. He implied she's a tease. Because she is.
Because she likes to flirt? I'm afraid I'm a bit fuzzy on the line between "flirting" and "teasing", but in my book, showing us all pictures we demanded she post up for us, and then appreciating our approval is not "teasing".

I don't believe I said that she was a tease because she showed us pictures we asked for.

Thorn wrote:
3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Or are you saying that because she's willing to accept attention from some men, whom she considers 'safe', she has no right to say she doesn't like attention from The Skeeze?
He didn't say that, either. Nor did he imply it.
I'm sorry, is there another way to read his sarcasm at her being creeped out by this guy?

Yes.

Thorn wrote:
3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Someone I've got absolutely no interest in whatsoever? That's just fucked up.
It's actually quite natural, particularly in a skeezy old man whom she'll never allow to see her undressing by choice since he's skeezy. Which is, I think you'll find, exactly what Paul was saying in the first place.
So natural means okay?

No, but it can mean "not 'just fucked up.'"

Thorn wrote:Natural means that she shouldn't be upset by it?

Not at all. I didn't say that. Nor did I imply it.

Thorn wrote:
3278 wrote:
Thorn wrote:Besides, since when is spying on someone when they're dressing cool? Personally, I'd be creeped out if it was /Caz/ spying on me when I was dressing.
/That's/ just fucked up.
Riiiight. Because you're the standard by which all things "normal" should be measured? This is me making a little "W" with my thumbs and forefingers.

Gone straight to "bitch," huh? I wish I knew what your deal was.

Look, what I did there - and it was clever, I assure you - was turn your value judgement and precise phrasing right around on you. I did this knowing pretty well exactly how you'd react - although I honestly expected a less heated response - and thus how I could respond. Which is this way:

Because you're the standard by which all things normal are measured? It is almost precisely the same for you to determine his actions are fucked up as it is for me to determine that yours are fucked up.

See how I pointed out the flaw in your judgement by making you accuse me of the same bullshit you were slinging? Gods, I'm awesome.

Thorn wrote:Being spied on is not my idea of cool. Caz watching with my knowledge, or watching out in the open and I'm just not looking at him to be aware of it? Fine. But hiding someplace so he can watch me unawares (as I assume The Skeeze is doing)? No, not cool, I don't care who's doing it.

It's not unawares. The Skeeze is doing it noticeably enough that the 10 year old girls have noticed. Or so we're told, and we certainly have no reason to doubt Kitt's word on this, now do we?

Thorn wrote:Further, if it's "crappy" and "rude", then how come Kitt's not allowed to be upset by it?

She is. It's crappy. And rude. And I wouldn't want some 40-year-old skeeze watching me undress, either. I don't know if I'd be "upset," but I'm older, and a boy, and so it's quite different. That's why, you'll note, I didn't say anything like, "It's not okay for Kitt to be upset by this." Stop reading what you want me to be saying into what I'm actually saying just so that you'll have some reason to get pissy.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:15 am

3278 wrote: Stop reading what you want me to be saying into what I'm actually saying just so that you'll have some reason to get pissy.

So, if we agree we wouldn't want some 40-year-old skeeze watching either of us undress; we agree that it's crappy and rude of him to do so; you acknowledge that your vantage on the situation is different from Kitt's, and so you didn't say anything like "It's not okay for Kitt to be upset by this," then what exactly are you arguing with me for?

Was it just my phrasing you didn't like? Was there some major point I've missed that merited you starting an argument with me? Or did you just want to banter with me enough so you could turn around and agree with me, then tell me what a bitch I am for thinking you're arguing with me?

I'd turn your "I wish I knew what your deal was" around on you (see, I can be clever too!), but honestly, I don't care.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:27 am

Well, this escalated quickly.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:32 am

Allow me to clarify some things. I am not upset at the fact that a forty year old watches me change backstage. I know that this is bound to happen at least once in a while. I am, however, upset that it happens so often and blatantly that little girls are mentioning it. People will tend to look over once in a while to see another person change. It happens. Hell, some of us hold conversations as we stand there in our skivvies, shimmying into one costume or another. But we don't sit there, with our mouths slightly opened, unabashedly watching each other's asses. Even the couples don't do that. This guy doesn't hide behind things. But when I move (as I do regularly) to either get to a different costume or just to get away, so does he. This bothers me a lot. If he just watched me because I happened to be in the place he was looking or sitting, I could sort of understand that. It wouldn't make me happy, but at least I wouldn't be freaked out. But he will move when I move, and that's not cool.

Another thing, this in regard to me being a tease. I do have tendencies to be a tease to my friends and/or boyfriend (should I have one). But never have I acted as a tease to someone that I dislike/am creeped out by, and/or who is more than twice my age.

Oh, and I didn't post these pictures online for you guys. I posted them because my friends like to keep up with me. The fact that some of you qualify as friends, and some of you I would like to see qualify as friends is the reason I posted the link here.

I would also like to see the arguing go away now. I posted the message about the skeevy guy because I wanted to vent and because I recall an old thread that claimed that livejournals were eating away updates on 'normal' bulldrekker life. So, instead of posting it on LJ, where people from the theatre can read it and possibly get offended, I posted it here. It was never meant to be turned into a flame war. So stop it. I don't want to have to withhold evidence....er...I mean, pictures.

At any rate, now that we've all let out our hostility and anger, I say it's time to light some marshmallows on fire, make some high-calorie chocolate snacks, and try not to kill ourselves while I go choreograph my own college audition dance. Christ on crutches, what have I gotten myself into?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:35 am