A Mozilla LGBTQ Postscript
There’s been a lot of activity in the Mozilla community over the past 36 hours regarding community standards, free speech issues, and LGBTQ issues.
It’s great to see these conversations happening; I believe this is precisely what should happen in a community when disagreement arises.
One aspect continues to confuse me1: many of those discussing the issue seem to hold a position predicated on the assumption that Mozilla has claimed support for LGBTQ individuals or (more specifically) same-sex marriage.
I can find no documented substance to this assumption2.
Not to call out the pink3 elephant in the room, but in 2008, when the California constitutional amendment involving the issue, Proposition 8, was on the ballot, a number of companies, including Apple, Google, and “numerous biotech companies“4 all very publicly stated their official position against the proposition5,6.
Mozilla Corporation abdicated taking a position7.
It’s an open “secret” that Mozilla Foundation board member and Corporation CTO Brendan Eich donated money to support the proposition8.
Mozilla, last I knew, does not have any additional protections, stipulations, or benefits9 for LGBTQ individuals not already required by California law.
So when I read statements like…
Tim saying:
I’m embarrassed to work for Mozilla right now.
Or Christie saying:
Many members of the community, including myself, as well as members of the general public consider Planet Mozilla a Mozilla news source… . We wouldn’t allow hate-speech there and, we shouldn’t tolerate it on Planet, either. Right now, I feel unsafe and unwelcome at Mozilla.
Or Tim (later) saying:
I feel that my contributions considered less important because I’m queer. If it’s so important to Mozilla to allow speech like Gerv’s speech under the Mozilla banner that it’s worth discarding a percentage of the contributions made by queer and ally employees, then I guess that’s not my decision to make, though I would wonder why and who is accountable for making that trade.”
Or Lukas saying:
It seems like we protect our visual brand identity more than we protect what the Mozilla values appear to be when we refuse to set a minimum code of conduct for participation in our community. Who are we protecting when we do that? Who’s life is enriched by the inclusion of posts that support bigoted points of view?
Or Matej saying:
The point is that it appeared on Planet, which could easily be seen by the general public as an official Mozilla channel that supports the points of view it distributes.
Or Justin saying:
I’d never felt more unwelcome or had my trust broken in a Mozilla setting like that before. I don’t care whether it’s called “hate speech” or “a valid opinion” or whatever, I never want to feel like that again in a Mozilla environment.
Or Al saying:
One thing that I cannot abide is prejudicial actions within that community which go against its basic ethos of inclusiveness and betterment for the good of all.
Or Graydon saying:
Gerv just announced to the internet, using my company’s resources, that my mom isn’t married. And my company is now supporting Gerv’s continued use of our resources (domain name, trademarks, hardware, bandwidth) this way. What shall I tell my mom when I next visit her? “Hi mom, say, did you see that bit where my company endorsed homophobic abuse to deprive you of your marriage?
Or Gregg saying:
That this particular impoliteness carries Mozilla’s domain name and branding is the biggest bummer of all. I want to be proud of my company and my community, and I am not right now.
… I can certainly understand how they all could feel that way.
But given the above history, it’s probably worth examining the assumptions on which those positions are based, and separating out “how Mozilla actually is” from “how we think Mozilla is, and how we would like Mozilla to be.”
If we’re truly concerned about Mozilla’s level of inclusiveness, stance on civil rights, and support for LGBTQ (community) members, then I think it’s clear that a community member’s post on Planet isn’t the first place to be focusing energies.
_______________
1 Which was hinted at in comments on my previous post
2 Someone: PROVE ME WRONG. PLEASE
3 *cough*
4 I learned something new!
5 Thus, in support of same-sex marriage. Or, at least, not in support of defining marriage into law
6 Today, both Microsoft and Amazon publicly support marriage equality in their home states
7 As did the Mozilla Foundation; but there may be 501(c)(3) requirements involved there
8 Which, to be very clear, is entirely his right, and I am not herein stating a personal opinion on this fact; I am merely reporting it as such, and only in the contexts of inclusion with other Silicon Valley executives’ public statements in the record and one possible explanation why Mozilla may not have followed other technology companies
9 e.g. health coverage for domestic partners
If true, it is funny that the “evil” Microsoft that I used to work for espouses a policy strongly in support of its LGBT employees while MoCo does not.
I think it is in Mozilla’s interest (in terms of attracting employees for MoCo and non-MoCo contributors) to be seen as being inclusive to Queer folk. As a personal point, one of the deciding factors I had when deciding between accepting an offer to work for MoCo and another company where I would’ve had to move to California (from Australia) was the fact that I could not bring my partner with me (for long) if I moved to the US. More inclusive immigration laws in the US could well have tipped the balance in one direction.
I agree that if that is the position Mozilla as an organisation wants to publicly have, an inflamed response to a blog post on Planet is not the way to go about it. Sure, I’d prefer it of Mozilla as a project were actively promoting itself as being inclusive to LGBT community members, but that’s not what’s getting my goat about this whole issue. Rather, I find it disappointing how little empathy particular people are feeling or showing towards their fellow members of the Mozilla community when they have clearly expressed they are unhappy, disappointed, embarrassed, unwelcome — and there has been no acknowledgement of this. What happened to being awesome to each other?
It pisses me off that my fellow Mozilla community members fall back on “free speech” (perhaps a peculiarly American perspective) or policy or convention as a justification for having hurt their friends with words — deliberate or not — and then not acknowledging this or attempting to make amends.
Another point: I am also disappointed in the responses that shift the issue to be about whether Planet syndicates Mozilla people (and potentially off topic) or Mozilla project related content only. Sure, syndicating Mozilla project related content only would “solve” the problem by making the post that started all this be off topic and thus not posted in the first place, but I am sure there are people (like me) who want to know more about their colleagues and enjoy reading off topic posts. By responding to the pleas from those who felt they were demeaned by saying “yes it looks like Planet should have only Mozilla project related content” completely ignores, and perhaps tacitly approves of, the behaviour that has been perceived as demeaning by the people that it did!
“Another point: I am also disappointed in the responses that shift the issue to be about whether Planet syndicates Mozilla people (and potentially off topic) or Mozilla project related content only. Sure, syndicating Mozilla project related content only would “solve” the problem by making the post that started all this be off topic and thus not posted in the first place, but I am sure there are people (like me) who want to know more about their colleagues and enjoy reading off topic posts.”
+1 (though they’re not technically “off topic posts” given that Planet’s policy of 5 years has been that they are completely on topic for that forum.
Babies and bathwater, noses and face spiting, and all that.
- A
“It pisses me off that my fellow Mozilla community members … hurt their friends” Plural? Have there been other recent incidents? Which ones? Were they on Planet or in other forums?
- A
As I think is well outlined here (http://blog.mozilla.com/graydon/2012/03/07/homophobia-has-no-place-in-this-community/) there’s not necessarily a belief that Mozilla has taken a particular stance but that in many countries there’s an assumption Mozilla is not actually complying with typical, normal, everyday expectations regarding employment and harassment.
If one made a comment like that being discussed in a forum tangentally relating to any business I’ve been employed in they’d have been _fired_, no questions asked, by any manager of any political opinion on the matter. Partially to avoid litigation, partially because it’s unprofessional conduct but largely because it fosters a hostile work environment for a subset of the workplace.
How does somebody work clemently with somebody else who is actively using their colleagues as ammunition in trying to deny them their due fundamental human rights (per the Universal Declaration thereof)? It’s a pretty difficult ask.
Perhaps this is a cultural divide (I’m British) or just a lob-sided expectation on my part – but I’m wondering what makes Mozilla different from every other company I’ve worked for in this regard?
@Asa problem is: minor incidents have occurred several times and should have been taken as alert signs, but you constantly ignored reasonable suggestions.
https://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/b78c4ff7d4d5e967/19cc29cf3c9f3740?hl=fr&lnk=gst&q=cedric#19cc29cf3c9f3740
and
https://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/b78c4ff7d4d5e967/19cc29cf3c9f3740?hl=fr&lnk=gst&q=cedric#19cc29cf3c9f3740
Now you have one less minor incident at hand.
ehm second link should have been this one, sorry
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657098
“I find it disappointing how little empathy particular people are feeling or showing towards their fellow members of the Mozilla community when they have clearly expressed they are unhappy, disappointed, embarrassed, unwelcome — and there has been no acknowledgement of this. What happened to being awesome to each other?
“It pisses me off that my fellow Mozilla community members fall back on ‘free speech’ (perhaps a peculiarly American perspective) or policy or convention as a justification for having hurt their friends with words — deliberate or not — and then not acknowledging this or attempting to make amends.”
This is almost exactly what I was about to comment. Very well put, Cameron.
Danny, the excuse given will be that Planet is not owned by the Mozilla Corporation nor does it endorse the content. It is all in the fine print that no one reads on Planet.
It doesn’t mean tacit approval. It’s recognition that Mozilla could regulate Planet more but also recognition that Mozilla shouldn’t regulate what kind politics Mozillians subscribe to outside Mozilla activities.
While I’m disappointed to learn that my colleague Brendan donated in support of Prop 8, I guess I’m not sure what that has to do with this discussion. What people donate money to in private (I realize that political donations are a matter of public record, but you have to go seeking them out) is their business. It’s when they start talking about, or promoting, causes in a workplace forum that it becomes a workplace issue.
Tim, I don’t see why being listed in the LA times as donating money to support Prop 8 with your employer listed as Mozilla is any better or less public than what Gerv did. I bet you more people read about Eich’s donation than have read Gerv’s post (just not ones who comment in the Mozillasphere).
@Cameron: Government immigration policy probably isn’t something Mozilla can affect that much!
Regarding empathy, perhaps that’s true.
To my mind, there’s a distinction to be made between acknowledging someone feels a certain way vs. validating those feelings or (going even further and) taking responsibility for them.
I don’t see the explanation of the Planet policy, i.e. “free speech”, as a dodge at all. It was an answer to the question of “Why is Mozilla allowing this kind of content on Planet?”
Additionally, I hope this post did communicate that I acknowledge that there are genuine, personal, and visceral feelings involved (specifically, by quoting some of those feelings).
As for making amends, that’s difficult to do when one demands that you take a particular action (i.e. censor what was posted) or demands that you change your opinion (i.e. what occurred is hate speech) before they will engage with you.
I, for one, am disappointed that some community members outright refused to engage with Gerv (especially when he offered) or publish their own thoughts on their own blog, and instead just repeatedly demanded that administrative measures be taken to resolve the issue.
@Danny: Regarding your hypothetical, I’m not sure I agree.
A lot of people have thrown around the term “hostile work environment,” but I’m unconvinced that even if this were a “workplace forum” (it’s not), that this wouldn meet the definition (I recently just had training on this). There are two types of “hostile work environment” claims, but the one we’re interested in does not apply to singular, offhanded remarks. A continuing pattern must be established.
Given this, I can’t speak to your specific cultural norms, but given a hypothetical of Gerv’s behavior in America, I don’t believe this even meets the definition of “hostile work environment.”
Tactless? Unprofessional?
Maybe. That’s a different discussion.
Your curiosity about why Mozilla Corporation (not Foundation/Project, since your post only discussed the work context) refuses to take a clear, public stance on these issues specific is a great question.
I have no answer for you.
@Tim: I would echo Steve’s reply.
Put succinctly, Planet, in its current role, was not established as a “workplace forum.” This has been stated repeatedly.
So when you make assertions that presume that Planet is a “workplace forum,” they’re predicated on facts that simply are not true.
(Should Planet be a “workplace forum”? “I thought it was a workplace forum, and now I’m confused?” “I don’t like having to read this on Planet, and want to change what Planet is.” All different discussions.)
To your other point, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that money is speech. (Even though I don’t personally agree with them,) given that fact, it’s reasonable to consider Brendan’s (private) donation as speech.
I fail to understand the logical consistency of a position that holds that we should react to Gerv’s exercise of speech rights, given that Planet is not a “workplace forum,” any differently than we would react to Brendan’s exercise of “speech” rights.
Having said that, the point of this quick jaunt back into history was to point out that if you’re truly concerned about Mozilla [Corporation] being inclusive, safe, and welcoming for all contributors, then a logical question to ask yourself is why Mozilla Corporation hasn’t taken a more clear, public stand on these issues.
I posit that if you’re truly concerned about it, you should be asking that question until you receive an answer, instead of focusing on who posts what to Planet.
preed: planet.mozilla.org ends in mozilla.org and mozilla.org is a domain owned by my employer, Mozilla. Perhaps I’m a bit slow, but I don’t see why a comment that wouldn’t be acceptable over the lunch table at work should be acceptable on any content that appears on a mozilla.org domain, whether that content is original or syndicated.
I’m not really interested in arguing about whether Brendan’s donation is bad or not, since I don’t approve of it either (assuming that there wasn’t some terrible mixup and he meant to donate to oppose Prop 8; admittedly unlikely, but possible). The existence of other bad things in the world does not make any particular thing not-bad.
preed: Also, I think you’re simply wrong that “Mozilla Corporation hasn’t taken a more clear, public stand on these issues.” Mozilla has a policy against discrimination, which is available at https://intranet.mozilla.org/Policy_Against_Discrimination_and_Harassment_-_US (sorry, those who don’t have access to the Mozilla intranet). It says, in part:
“Mozilla also prohibits unwelcome behavior based on a protected basis (such as gender, race, age, or religion) that makes the work environment intimidating, offensive, or hostile to employees.” As an example of unwelcome behavior, it cites:
“Slurs, jokes, statements, remarks, questions, or gestures that are derogatory or demeaning to an individual’s or group’s identity or characteristics where they are part of a legally protected status or that promote negative stereotypes based on any such protected status.”
It’s very clear that advocating for legislation to take away civil rights from a group that has a legally protected status violates Mozilla’s harassment and discrimination policy. The only question, then, is enforcement.
@Tim: According to your resume, you’re employed by Mozilla Corporation.
The Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation are different legal entities. mozilla.org is registered to the Mozilla Foundation. So, to answer your question: the assertion that Planet is not a “workplace forum” is derived from this distinction.
I hope that clears it up.
I agree, regarding the existence of “badness” in the world; there is lamentably too much, so I personally make priorities, and that is the central point of this post: you may want to reconsider whether railing against a single person for a post on what is, essentially “a site on the Internet” (as I’ve established above) is really an effective use of your energy with respect to this issue.
Regarding your second comment: I hope you appreciate the irony of responding to my request for a “clear, public stand” on these issues by linking me to an intranet.
In regards to the policy’s language, it’s not substantively different from what California law requires of employers, so I don’t see that as a huge “win” or “goin’ above and beyond” that you seem to imply that it is.
And finally, you provide no evidence or argument for any claim following the words “It’s very clear…”
So… I can’t really respond to that, except to say “I don’t think it’s clear at all. If you presented a logical argument as to why you think it’s true, then I would respond to it.”
(It’s worth noting: if we just agree to assume your statement is true, then isn’t “advocating for legislation to take away civil rights from a group that has a legally protected status” exactly describe donating money to Proposition 8; are you claiming that also “violates Mozilla’s harassment and discrimination policy?”)
It’s not about “railing against” one person, it’s about an institutional lack of community standards and lack of accountability. I also think it’s meaningless hair-splitting to differentiate between the Corporation and the Foundation, given that my (limited) understanding is that the project is trying to eliminate arbitrary divisions between the two.
@Tim:
It’s not about “railing against” one person, it’s about an institutional lack of community standards and lack of accountability.
Thank you for effectively summarizing the point of this post.
As for what you consider “hair-splitting,” that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.
But when you go around screaming “hostile workplace environment,” such distinctions between which legal entities were involved (and an accurate understanding of “hostile workplace environment,” for that matter) are very much not “arbitrary.”
I would suggest it might be helpful to take the time to understand the distinction, since while you may personally find it “meaningless,” other people and institutions (courts, for instance) very much do not.
Tim: “Perhaps I’m a bit slow, but I don’t see why a comment that wouldn’t be acceptable over the lunch table at work should be acceptable on any content that appears on a mozilla.org”
I wouldn’t call it slow, just narrow-minded. If you think that a technical detail like DNS has any meaningful weight in this discussion then you have not put much thought into it. Do all Tweets on twitter.com provide a public representation of Twitter employees’ views? Are Wikipedia pages on wikipedia.org a public record of Wikipedia employees views?
Aside from this, Gerv’s canonical post is hosted on a non-Mozilla server under a non-Mozilla domain, and syndicated onto a Planet page which states that the content is owned by its posters and represents the views of those individuals!
I do not believe that people will believe that Planet posts provide Mozilla-approved messages. One only needs to see the huge list of blogs (above which is the disclaimer) and read a few posts to realise that not everyone there is a Mozilla employee and that there are non-Mozilla posts.
Tim: One further point that I forgot to mention. Given that a small number of blog posts lie at the heart of the recent discussions, I had hoped that given how vocal you are on the topic you had actual read Gerv’s and Andrew Lilico’s posts.
“advocating for legislation to take away civil rights from a group that has a legally protected status” is not something that happened in the content of either of those posts. I would say that was fairly explicit and clear.
Tim, you talk about violating “Mozilla’s harassment and discrimination policy”, why then do you make comments attacking a persons color in your reply to another mozilla employees comments?
You say in that comment “White guys and their sympathizers always think they’re being really original when they say this sort of thing, but it’s actually quite banal.”
Christie (another Mozilla employee?) even followed up with it being alright to generalize based on race. What is that if not harassment or derogatory writing based on a person’s culture?
Those comments are on a post appearing on planet mozilla. Wouldn’t they then run afoul of the community standard policy you want to create?
After a weekend somewhat away from this, I have to say that what bothers me most about this whole thing is that people are simply making shit up.
For example, Tim said “It’s very clear that advocating for legislation to take away civil rights from a group that has a legally protected status violates Mozilla’s harassment and discrimination policy.”
Sure, but that’s not what the instigating post did. That’s pretty much the opposite of what the post said. Perhaps because Tim’s an American and doesn’t follow foreign-affairs closely, he just assumed Gerv was talking about a UK equivalent of Prop 8. But that’s not what happened. Not even close.
And Tim isn’t the only pushing this lie, I’ve seen it in comments in just about every blog post on the topic and it’s all over the newsgroup thread.
I’d call it a hasty jumping to conclusions, but several people have raised this with Tim and others and yet they continue to spread the lie that Gerv was advocating for removing rights.
I don’t know how we can have a real discussion on this issue when some people are determined to make up their own facts.
- A
I think you can pretty much ignore anything Tim says. He lives in some alternate world where written words have different meanings. For example, his blog post where he claims that most of the comments on gerv’s post asked to prove that LBGTQ folk are human. Any attempt to ask for clarification is stonewalled. Or, as in his responses on Christie’s blog, he resorts to calling out race, and responding with “check your privilege”. He’s not interested in discussion. He’s interested in a code of conduct that matches only his world view.
Asa: Perhaps it’s worth considering the idea of assuming good faith?
Strafe: Is this an example of what you consider appropriate and respectful conduct?
Check your privilege, Tim.
Tim, hmmm, is this a derailing for dummies tactic? I’d think otherwise but your previous racist comments make me think you’re not capable of reasonable conversation.
Strafe: Pardon, I was under the impression that this was a serious discussion.
Not if your response to everyone who disagrees with you is “Check your privilege,” which is what you’ve been saying to everyone.
Oh, and I left out how you delete any comments on your own blog that disagree with you.
It is interesting that someone who has been at Mozilla for less than six months and who is openly advertising to looking for a new job elsewhere is the one complaining the loudest about behavior of Mozilla folks.
Sorry Tim, my perhaps too snarky response was related to your comments on Christie’s blog post about a code of conduct.
Your responses there tend to be, as Anonymous says above, “Check your privilege”, or links to articles like ‘Derailing for Dummies’. But from my view you also do things listed in ‘Derailing for Dummies’ and merit the ‘check your privilege’ response. I find it ironic that you press for a code of conduct but when it’s pointed out that you also do the very things a code of conduct is supposed to prevent you fight back at the other person.
You’ve failed to address people pointing out that your statements about most commenters asking to prove you are human appear to have no basis in fact. I understand you were upset at the original post by gerv. I understand that a code of conduct should be a good thing. I don’t understand your reaction where you hyperbolize other peoples responses.
This type of behavior makes it difficult to believe that any form of ‘code of conduct’ will actually be useful to you.
This was the response to me on FF’s Facebook page.
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/03/mozilla-statement-on-diversity/
The statement sits at odds with having an apparently homophobic CEO.
In truth, I see little evidence of FF caring what its users think. It is a very sad day.
Polly,
Yes, I’ve seen this “Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities,” and I think it’s demonstrably false, given the data. As I’ve pointed out above, Mozilla was entirely silent on the Prop 8 issue, while many other tech companies were very publicly against it.
The keep pointing out their health benefits policies, but the elephant in the room is that their policies are what’s required by California state law, nothing more, nothing less. So those policies are far from “supportive.” (They point out that they offer these benefits even in jurisdictions where it’s not required, but I interpret that as not wanting to have to explain to their employees in those jurisdictions why their benefit packages are different than those of Mozilla Californian employees.)
As for Mozilla Corporation not caring what its users think, that’s nothing new; they’ve been blowing off their “community” for years, which… it’s easy to do when Google will pay you millions of dollars a year, no matter what you do.
뛐컠ꇊ횣쪻쓇쒬떬뗄쇣뗋췣ꎷ햬룻죶 云南地下找水布孔2413井称并不会造成地质灾难 뗋진쟱틩랲쯅쇉쿋샂ꆴඣഊ †술뫭뿬펡탐늩슻뗺쿄쳲죆뗽ꏀꆺ좰룽ꇧ쒣룣닕컅쪪쎲늴좻컃뷒퇌붵퇌쒵탇뮩뗬ꆰ쒣쏣뾻떴쮽쏻쓇쿇헹뗅퇘ퟹ쏓ꎴ햿쿦엫쮪쯀쏻ꇇꆣනഊ †찠죆쿽싲뫭뿬튡송틋춡ꎷ떬떭떭뗄ꏀꆺ캰쏒닇쒻룜쳸뷺킳뮭듡샸슴럩ꆳ쒣틣쪪뛇쪯쇖ꏋ캬믤뗪믮뷡햫뇢헊볋퓇쳚뷺킳뮭짡짭ꇏ떣쪽몱ꇲ킣뮭뻡믍폡듐싳럩솳ꇋ캣믒쾹춣폻쳫뷺킳뮭틡횻몱ퟏ쿷죂ꎥ풬쓵죜듧닋식ꇊꆣනഊ †뀠쯂뾹쎨펻뿐짔ꏹ튬컲쮪훻떪ꏀ첬죆뻽닸쪻틇뢻짶폆죚죝뗌죄ꏋ펬웈쫤룇닕쓅룇싶뛵쯻특첪뛴킺캡쫨떱퇘ퟹꏓ킬캡쫨쳇죆뗽뷄�뒬쫋쮱뿻즴죏욥뺽ꆲ떣풫쓚웇뺽횲쾮틂닾ퟘ쫅쎲쒴ꏘഊ †찠쇽쳋죆뗽믄ꎰ쮬솼뿺ힴ쳅죆뗽쓄릿틢뻑늭쒻폜돃뻔삪킴죎쇝ꏋ즬
쫄몱훲티벻죱쫫훖뗐ꇄඣഊ ��껊쮰싕찠쏆뗅쫚ꎮ티십믖ꏘ쾨ꏂඩഊ †쨠솮뿹쯩웩ꎬ춬쪬랱쇉돋죶ꎥ좬쎴펻틐뾻쫩럇쿉탲풰폂뫫쇺쓐뗈ꏄ횬직퓙쯚쏻뿇쪴헇퇢뗹ꇄඣഊ 《电子信息产品环保使用期限通则》发布 †퀠풰탂솦ꏋꆬ햰뻢쫍쓇쯣컹떽ퟄ듔뮴볪ꎼꆿනഊ †찠죆틽킲솦ꏋ떬쮫죻쎴펻쯐뮵ꎰ뚬쫸맇�틋즻ꏹ횬훘뗘쯄떤풹뗚ꏘ횬붱믓쏨쇔맋죽ꆥ뺣릡죜듧ꏋ쮬쇻즳뗏탄좦죝쎴펻쯐몿룁뇄ꇤඣഊ †찠죆퓽탚킦풰ꏂ풬탚튦뢻룶폒돚킰첦쏆냅욵쫷럖효에쏅쟻쪰캮티십믖뗘죄ꇋඣഊ †티십믖ꏘ첬쏆냅욵쫷럖얨쏅뗻쫚ꆮ뾣틉폔죉뫎냎욵쫷펹ꏃ춬쪬랱즢냤욵뗷쫄쇽ힿ뛮쫠죇쫽솮쏹ꆶ첣죆쿽퓖뗚쫄솵몦닍뿙쇘ꎦ뛮훠쒻폜돃쫶낮쏋ꆶ뚣쯸듻쫋쮱럹뚢떯쫄솮쏹ꎶ튬뻑쪭쯇믻쏨쟔쮰쓹드뗯떽별쾫쇞ꇋඣഊ †쨠솮뿹쯩