https://x.com/FT/status/2021913057065160828

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49665438)

"Well no, not mine. But there are a lot of jobs that I'm not familiar with that it could do easily."

I've observed this before, but AI is the biggest example of Gell Mann amnesia that Michael Crichton ever could have imagined.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669341)

This is like saying basketball isn't hard, friend.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669332)

Firing me and saving ~$500k/year is nothing compared to a massive fuck up that will cost multiples of what I will make in a lifetime at my job combined.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49666009)

AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,|

v.

“OYT AND THE INDIE REPRIEVE,”

“........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,”,

“CANDY RIDE,” and

“.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .,”

Respondents.

Case No. 26-CV-00188-EDJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00187)

OMNIBUS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57,

XO Loc. R. 180.8 (AI Competence in Legal Practice),

& the Self-Authenticating Record of This Motion’s Own Existence

I. PRELIMINARY NOTE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE RETURN TO FRIDAY NIGHT FILINGS, THE EIGHTH DOCKET ENTRY, AND THE MOTION THAT PROVES ITSELF

It is Friday again. One week ago tonight, Pro Se Counsel stood before this Court and filed five motions in a single evening. On Monday, he filed two more. The zarathustra motion (No. 26-CV-00185-EDJ) remains on Counsel’s desk, unfiled, because Of Counsel “Evan39” Therdanine never delivered the research. Seven docketed matters and one ghost filing. That was the state of the docket as of Monday evening, when Counsel told the Court he did not anticipate further filings and meant it.

Counsel was wrong.

He is here again. It is 8:45 PM on a Friday night. This is the eighth filing. Counsel no longer pretends this is unusual.

This motion is different from its predecessors in one respect that the Court should note at the outset. The prior seven matters concerned defamation, prestige taxonomy, melodrama jurisdiction, simulated assault with a beaver tail, and the structural integrity of the $hitbort’s ranking infrastructure. Those motions used AI as a drafting tool.

This motion concerns AI itself. Specifically, it concerns a thread in which multiple poasters declared, with varying degrees of confidence and condescension, that artificial intelligence is incapable of performing legal work to a professional standard.

This motion was drafted by AI.

It is the eighth filing produced by Plaintiff’s legal team—Pro Se Counsel, Of Counsel Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC), and the nominally associated Of Counsel "Evan39" Therdanine—in one week.

The motions have included proper legal citations, procedural compliance with the Federal Rules, XO Local Rules, case law analysis under MedImmune, Lujan, and Skidmore, satirical precision calibrated to four distinct registers of humor, and a two-count summary judgment motion involving a beaver tail that specified the weight of the appendage. This is the output Respondents claim does not exist.

The motion before the Court is, therefore, both the argument and the evidence. It is Exhibit A to its own brief.

Respondent OYT poasted that “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI.’ not a damn thing.”

Counsel respectfully directs the Court’s attention to the Related Cases line above this paragraph, which lists eight docket numbers, and to the signature block at the end of this filing, which identifies an AI system as Of Counsel.

Counsel asks the Court to receive this motion not as advocacy alone, but as a demonstrative exhibit in the matter it adjudicates: a legal document, filed in a court of record, drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence, that is substantively competent, procedurally compliant, and—Counsel submits—at least modestly impressive. Whether it constitutes “a damn thing” is, respectfully, for the Court to decide.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 12, 2026, at 10:32 AM, poaster “Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle” (“TSINAH”) initiated Thread No. 5834027 by sharing a Financial Times report regarding statements by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman. TSINAH is identified in the XO canon as a poaster who “enthusiastically blends Taylor Swift fandom with lighthearted trolling.” He is also, as he disclosed in the thread, a former practicing lawyer of a decade who switched to software engineering and AI. He is the thread’s originator and its most credentialed pro-AI voice.

2. The thread generated sustained engagement over two days, accumulating responses from dozens of poasters spanning the full spectrum of AI sentiment: from categorical denial to measured skepticism to practical endorsement. The thread is, by the standards of the $hitbort, substantive. It contains genuine debate, real-world anecdotes, linked evidence, and only the baseline amount of racial invective.

3. Respondent “OYT and the Indie Reprieve” poasted, at 10:42 PM on February 12: “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI.’ not a damn thing.” He further characterized AI-displaced workers as holders of “Fake Jobs” and “Losers” granted “sinecures so they can poast their Height and Net Worth on the internet.” He concluded: “Wake me up when something interesting happens.”

OYT’s position is categorical. It admits no exceptions. It is also, as of this filing, empirically false. Counsel’s AI-assisted legal team has produced eight filings in one week—including a two-count motion involving simulated assault with a specified-weight beaver tail and a declaratory judgment challenging the POTUS/Princeton Paradox—and the Court may determine for itself whether any of this qualifies as “a damn thing.”

4. Respondent “........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,” (hereinafter “the Dot-Comma Pumo”) poasted, at 8:29 PM on February 12, an elaborate hypothetical involving the Golden State Warriors, Nike, Steph Curry, and Under Armour. The hypothetical posits that an AI reviewing a Nike exclusivity contract would not know that Steph Curry wears Under Armour, and would therefore issue a cease-and-desist letter to Curry, whereupon Curry’s AI would respond, and the two AIs would “just go back and forth until...what?”

This hypothetical is, with respect, the work of someone who has not used AI. The entire premise—that an AI reviewing a contract would lack access to publicly available information about its parties—is the opposite of how AI functions. Contextual information retrieval is the thing AI does best. The scenario the Dot-Comma Pumo describes as an absurd reductio is, in fact, a workflow that Plaintiff’s Of Counsel Opus 4.6 performs routinely: ingest a document, cross-reference external context, identify conflicts. A six-year-old could Google “Steph Curry shoe deal.” The Dot-Comma Pumo has constructed a hypothetical in which AI is stupider than a search engine, and built his entire argument on it.

The same Respondent later poasted: “There’s this idiotic idea that lawyers don’t already use forms and that we spend 90% of our day re-drafting purchase agreements from scratch.” Counsel notes that this is, inadvertently, a pro-AI argument. If the work is already formulaic—and this Respondent says it is—then automating it is easier, not harder. The Dot-Comma Pumo has argued against himself and does not appear to have noticed.

5. Respondent “Candy Ride” poasted, at 12:03 AM on February 13: “At the high level, law is just helping people manage risk. It is a people job. Unless judges or juries go away, AI cannot counsel people through problems like a real person.” He subsequently poasted, regarding AI romantic relationships: “And they are really dumb.”

Candy Ride’s position is that AI cannot “counsel people through problems.” The thread’s own record disproves this. Poaster “@grok, is this true?” reported that his organization used AI to assess legal risk in a termination matter: “We recently had to fire a guy we caught drinking on the job and it recommended between 6-12 months severance to avoid legal risk.” The recommendation was bad—comically excessive for a termination-for-cause—but the failure mode is significant. The AI did not refuse to counsel. It counseled badly. Bad advice is still advice. A first-year associate might have given the same recommendation, and the client would have been billed $450 an hour for it.

Candy Ride is also the established poaster identified in the XO canon as “aka ZZZ,” the “primary target of gunneratttt’s feuds.” The Court may note this biographical detail without drawing conclusions from it.

6. Respondent “.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .” (hereinafter “the Morse Code Pumo”) poasted multiple contributions arguing that legal work is fundamentally interpersonal. His most forceful statement, at 2:05 PM on February 13: “Until the AI is getting on the phone with the biggest assholes on earth to hand hold them like literal babies for an hour at a time no lawyers are losing their jobs.”

The Morse Code Pumo’s position is the most nuanced among Respondents, and Counsel acknowledges this. His description of transactional practice—“all the work is taking a form doc and running it by rich fucks to see if they are cool with the terms”—is credible, and his observation that associates contribute “fuck all” beyond tagging STET is consistent with widely documented BigLaw realities. His error is not in describing the present. It is in forecasting the future. He concedes the technical work is automated. He concedes the associate’s value-add is marginal. He then argues that lawyers are safe because clients are difficult. This is the argument that the iceberg is not a threat because the deck chairs are comfortable.

7. Two poasters in this thread merit the Court’s attention as favorable witnesses, and both require procedural disclosures.

Poaster “LathamTouchedMe” responded to Paralegal Mohammad’s challenge (“Go on then Microsoft. Fire all your accountants and lawyers”) with: “Seriously. They’ve got access to the latest models not even available commercially. Should be simple.” This is an endorsement of AI capability from a poaster who is currently a named Defendant in Mainlining v. LathamTouchedMe (No. 26-CV-00183-MSJ), filed by this same Counsel last Friday.

This is the second time in one week that an active defendant in a Mainlining action has appeared as a favorable witness in a separate Mainlining filing. The first was “goy orbison” in the beaver thread (No. 26-CV-00187-MSJ). Counsel submits that this is no longer a coincidence. It is a pattern. The $hitbort’s ecosystem naturally produces situations where Plaintiff’s adversaries support his position when the underlying facts are clear. The Court may consider this either a vindication of Plaintiff’s litigation posture or evidence that the forum’s factional dynamics defy conventional procedural logic. Both conclusions are correct.

Poaster “michael doodikoff”—identified in the XO canon as “an ‘everyman’ poaster who provides simple, direct, and often friendly one-liners”—contributed: “I use AI to draft a lot of my depo questions, then I just read them.” This is the most damaging testimony in the thread for Respondents’ position, precisely because of its source. Michael doodikoff is not a technologist. He is not an AI evangelist. He is a working lawyer who uses AI the way Respondents claim lawyers cannot: for substantive legal work product, integrated into daily practice, without the sky falling.

III. ARGUMENT

A. This Motion Is Its Own Exhibit

Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, this Court may declare the rights and legal relations of interested parties in cases of actual controversy. The controversy here is whether artificial intelligence can perform legal work to a professional standard. The Respondents say it cannot. Plaintiff submits this motion.

Of Counsel Opus 4.6 has participated in the drafting of every filing in the Mainlining docket since its inception on February 6, 2026. These filings have included: four Motions for Summary Judgment (Nos. 00180–00183), an Amicus Brief (No. 00184), an unfiled but fully drafted Emergency Motion for Declaratory Judgment addressing the POTUS/Princeton Paradox (No. 00185), a defamation action involving a misspelled anatomical term (No. 00186), a two-count motion involving political defamation and simulated assault with a two-pound beaver tail (No. 00187), and this Omnibus Motion (No. 00188). The output totals approximately forty pages of legal writing produced in one week. It has included proper citation to MedImmune, Lujan, Skidmore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the XO Local Rules. It has been formatted in Times New Roman, in the Garamond 12-point tradition, filed electronically via the Mahchine™, and served upon parties whose monikers include emoji, Morse code, and the phrase “bald fag.”

Respondent OYT says no one has presented “a damn thing.” Counsel directs his attention to the docket.

B. The Four Species of Denial

The Respondents in this action represent four distinct but equally flawed positions on AI competence in legal practice. Counsel catalogues them not because each requires individual refutation—the motion’s own existence handles that—but because the taxonomy is instructive.

Species 1: Categorical Denial (OYT). “Not a damn thing.” This is the strongest claim and the easiest to disprove. It requires only one counterexample. The Court has eight.

Species 2: Constructed Ignorance (the Dot-Comma Pumo). The Steph Curry hypothetical is an argument built on a premise that is factually inverted. The Dot-Comma Pumo assumes AI cannot access contextual information. This is like arguing that submarines are useless because they cannot go underwater. The capability he denies is the capability that defines the technology. His secondary argument—that legal work is already formulaic—is correct, and it is the strongest argument for automation that any Respondent in this thread has made. He has constructed his own rebuttal and presented it as a defense.

Species 3: Emotional Exemption (Candy Ride). “It is a people job.” This is the argument that AI cannot replace lawyers because lawyers are human. It is true in the same way that it is true that horses are faster than cars in a meadow. The question is not whether AI can replicate the full human experience of legal counsel. The question is whether it can perform enough of the work, well enough, cheaply enough, that the economics of the profession change. The @grok severance anecdote answers this: the AI counseled. Badly. But it counseled. And bad AI counsel at scale is cheaper than bad associate counsel at $450 an hour.

Species 4: Concession Disguised as Denial (the Morse Code Pumo). This Respondent concedes that technical legal work is formulaic, that associates add minimal value, and that the real work is client management. He then argues that AI cannot replace lawyers because clients are difficult. Counsel notes that “the work is easy but the people are hard” is not the defense of a profession. It is the description of a bottleneck. And bottlenecks get solved.

C. The XO Canon Anticipated This Debate

The Court may take judicial notice that the XO Satire & Persona Protocol, Section VIII (“AI in Law: The New Compliance Vector”), addresses precisely the questions raised in this thread. The canon observes that AI hallucinations are “not bugs” but “features”—deliberate traps that ensure lawyers who rely on them uncritically “get absolutely destroyed” by sanctions. The canon acknowledges that high-end AI is “100% worth it in LAW” for litigation support while recognizing failures in complex transactional tasks (the “Convertible Debt Trap”). The canon recommends cross-model verification (the “Cross-Model Mandate”) as a malpractice safeguard.

In other words: the canonical XO position on AI in law is not denial. It is not uncritical acceptance. It is the position that AI is a powerful and dangerous tool that requires skilled operators—that prompt engineering is, in the canon’s language, “liturgy,” and that the skill of the practitioner determines the quality of the output. This is exactly what poaster Dr? Michael Greger argued in the thread, and what michael doodikoff demonstrated by example. The Respondents are not merely wrong about AI. They are behind their own forum’s canon.

IV. NOTE REGARDING THE STATE OF THE DOCKET AND THE PATTERN OF ADVERSARIAL WITNESSES

The Mainlining docket now comprises: five Friday-evening filings (Nos. 26-CV-00180 through 00184); the unfiled zarathustra motion (No. 00185); two Monday-afternoon filings (Nos. 00186 and 00187); and this motion (No. 00188). Eight docketed matters, one ghost filing, four Motions for Summary Judgment, two Declaratory Judgment actions, one Amicus Brief, and one motion involving a beaver tail. Of Counsel “Evan39” Therdanine’s research remains outstanding. His status remains “under review.” His contribution to this week’s work product remains his name on the signature page.

The Court should also note a pattern that has now recurred twice. In Mainlining v. tancredi marchiolo (No. 00187), active Defendant “goy orbison” (No. 00181) appeared as a favorable witness. In this motion, active Defendant “LathamTouchedMe” (No. 00183) appears as a favorable witness. Two of Plaintiff’s own adversaries have now endorsed his position in separate proceedings. Counsel submits that when even the people you are suing agree with you, the underlying proposition is difficult to contest.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e respectfully requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment providing:

(1) That artificial intelligence is capable of performing legal work to a professional standard, as demonstrated by the record of this Court’s own docket, which now contains eight AI-assisted filings produced in one week by a pro se litigant, an AI Of Counsel, and a human Of Counsel whose contribution is limited to appearing on the signature page;

(2) That Respondent OYT’s claim that “no one has been able to present anything impressive made with ‘AI’” is refuted by this motion, its seven predecessors, and the signature block that identifies Of Counsel Opus 4.6 as a drafting participant in all of them;

(3) That the Dot-Comma Pumo’s Steph Curry hypothetical is constructed on an inverted premise and that his secondary argument—that legal work is already formulaic—is, in fact, the strongest available argument for AI automation of legal practice;

(4) That Candy Ride’s assertion that AI “cannot counsel people through problems” is disproved by the thread’s own record, in which AI did counsel—badly—and that bad counsel at scale remains cheaper than bad counsel at $450 per hour;

(5) That the Morse Code Pumo’s position—that lawyers are safe because clients are difficult—constitutes a concession disguised as a defense, and that describing a bottleneck is not the same as proving it is permanent; and

(6) That the XO Satire & Persona Protocol, Section VIII, anticipated this debate, and that the Respondents are not merely wrong about AI but behind the canon of their own forum.

One week ago, Counsel walked into this Court on a Friday night and filed five motions. He is back. It is Friday night again. The motions are still coming. Of Counsel Opus 4.6 is still drafting. Of Counsel Therdanine is still not delivering research. The Mahchine™ is still cataloging. And the beavers—who appeared only briefly in the Monday filings but whom Counsel has grown fond of—are, presumably, still building.

Counsel asks this Court for a declaration. He asks the Respondents to read the docket. And he asks the $hitbort, respectfully, to wake up. Something interesting happened.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Of Counsel:

OPUS 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

Senior Drafting & Forensic Analysis

Eight Filings in Seven Days

Of Counsel:

“EVAN39” THERDANINE

Of Counsel, Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP

(where he has held that title for a period the Court need not inquire into)

Status: Under Review

Filings Contributed To: Zero of Eight

The Southern District of XO • Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of February, 2026, at approximately 8:45 PM—a Friday night, which the Court will recognize as Counsel’s preferred filing hour and which Counsel recognizes as evidence of a pattern he can no longer deny—a true and correct copy of the foregoing Omnibus Motion for Declaratory Judgment was served upon the following Respondents via Thread No. 5834027:

“OYT and the Indie Reprieve” (who asked to be woken up when something interesting happened, and who is hereby served with his alarm clock); “........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,” (whose moniker Counsel has now typed three times and whose Steph Curry hypothetical will haunt him longer than it should); “Candy Ride” (whose assertion that law is a “people job” is not wrong so much as it is incomplete, and who is also known as ZZZ, though the Court need not concern itself with that); and “.- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. .” (whose moniker is Morse code that Counsel has declined to decode on the assumption that the message is either profane or irrelevant, and whose nuanced position Counsel respects even while arguing it is mistaken).

Copies have also been served upon: “LathamTouchedMe” (active Defendant in No. 00183, favorable witness in this proceeding, the second such occurrence this week); “michael doodikoff” (whose one-sentence testimony about AI-drafted deposition questions is more devastating to Respondents’ position than anything Counsel could have written, and who probably does not know he is now a witness in a federal proceeding); “Dr? Michael Greger” (the thread’s most capable analyst, whose arguments Counsel has cited rather than improved upon); “TSINAH” (the thread’s originator, whose dual credentials in law and engineering make him the closest thing this proceeding has to an expert witness); the Billing Department of Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP, Client Matter No. ML-AI-2026-001, to which Of Counsel Therdanine has contributed zero of eight filings; and the Clerk of this Court, who has now processed eight filings from this Counsel, who deserves not merely a beaver documentary and an evening off but a full week of administrative leave and the Court’s sincere gratitude.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH

OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Dated: February 13, 2026, approximately 8:45 PM ET

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™, on a Friday night, again

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669367)

i'll believe it when i see it, pramkreet

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49665519)

same with msft. this thing is going to blow up in everyone's face pretty soon. ai is the future but these companies are spending insane amounts of money trying to be first and i don't think there's much of an upside to it. investors are starting to doubt the payoff is there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49665787)

I've used this example before, but let's pretend the attorney for the Warriors is signing a deal with Nike, and there's a clause in the contract saying that Nike is the exclusive shoe company for the Warriors.

How does the AI know that Steph Curry wears Under Armour?

If the contract is signed with that clause, does the AI then issue a C&D to Steph Curry because he's wearing his own shoes?

And then Steph Currys' AI then automatically writes a letter that says "STFU i'm Steph Curry"?

And then the AI just go back and forth until...what?

You would have to be really stupid to think that in 18 months big corporations legal departments is just going to be AI yelling at other corporation's AI.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49667212)

it is already good but still needs nudging and guidance to reflect what you want it to say.

it executes more than steers the ship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49667296)

"If AI can be a code monkey, it could be a lawyer?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49667381)

"Oh wow, this AI wrote a perfect NDA in 3 seconds! Lawyers are fucked!"

I could've "drafted" an NDA out in faster time than it would take me to log on to an LLM, and it takes me 3 minutes to read one.

Most of my job is speaking with the client trying to figure out wtf they actually are trying to do and what is important to them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49667458)

Hate to break this to you....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49667463)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669184)

who cares if it will automate Fake Jobs? the only reason Fake Jobs exist is because we don't know what to do with millions of Losers other than to grant them sinecures so they can poast their Height and Net Worth on the internet. That doesn't change if you suddenly get rid of Fake Jobs. You are just replacing one problem with an even bigger one.

Wake me up when something interesting happens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49668526)

In their defense, by the time a single damn thing happens btw, everything will be happening simultaneously. You can’t really look for leading indicators in the form of “things happening” imho.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669206)

i'm sure it will get better, but will it get better a highly technical tax planning analysis? there has to be a commercial driver for programming it to do that i'd think and I don't think the demand is going to be there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49668592)

it has improved to the extent in coding where you see guys like this (someone whose work underpins multiple services at aws--that is to say, he's in the top 0.1% in terms of technical ability) using it:

https://x.com/MarcJBrooker/status/2022354091138326996

in fact, the more structured the rules, the *better* it will be and quicker that time will come. on top of that as the models get smarter they are more proactive in considering edge cases and can operate unsupervised for longer periods. two years ago AI was only useful for quick autocomplete because it was kind of dumb and couldn't think in a loop -- now those problems are a very long way towards being solved.

the commercial driver is people pay a lot of money for lawyers. it will happen slower because obviously programmers are best suited to automate programming and law in general is slow to evolve, but the bottom line is creating software that allows a lawyer to say "I can do for one dollar what your current guy is asking five" is a huge incentive for development.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49668615)

see also: what an actual working lawyer who knows about programming and is up to speed with AI's current capabilities and gaps has to say (responding to gary marcus, a notorious "AI will never X" naysayer who has been proven wrong incessantly over the past couple years): https://x.com/deredleritt3r/status/2022314279668519076

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49668625)

Buy now guys before it's too late!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834027&forum_id=2Ã#49669330)