ABC 9/11 FAIRY TALE "The Path to 9/11"

[308nato]

Actually, what Rush said about the show was that the blame was spread around both sides of the aisle. Bush doesn't get a pass by the producers. The bureaucracy in DC fvcked us as usual. In summing it up he noted one walks away with the feeling that the terrorists are the bad guys, as it should be.

Socks Berger, Halfbright and Willie just can't take anything less than a satisfatory portrayal of their service to the country.

 

[randym431]

Rush says "there is an unbelieveable scene" and you take it to mean that the scene can't be believed? Talk about reaching for straws.

You'd have to hear this for yourself. Rush actually stuttered over the words. He knew the twist he was trying to put forth.

 

[LunarRay]

We live in the tomorrow not in the yesterday. This mini series is designed for the tomorrow and you all know that. November is close and it is time to put folks on the defensive. Truth, lies, maybe, could be.... all designed to move the folks in the congressional districts that are a bit upset with the current situation.. nothing more nor anything less.. it is political under the guise of informative..

Look at every thing that is put forth until election day and marvel at the genius of the event. These folks are the best of the best and they are targeting a certain few million across this nation... that is all it takes to keep a seat..

Anyone who cares that Clinton did anything or Bush at this point is not seeing the motive behind every little thing that is put out for public consumption... Power is had in two months.. Imagine life for Bush until 2008 if the Democratic apparatus takes over the House.. Focus on that imperative..

 

[straightalker]

I see complete hypocracy.

This 9-11 special is for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who believe 9-11 was the work of flea infested dirty radical muslims sitting in a remote central Afghanistan desert cave. Why do the Demoratz fear what is in this Disney movie? Because there are lies in it? Well hold on a minute. The Clintons lied all the time as Governor and President. (the two operate as a team, Hilary is the brains of the operation). Their political rise to the Presidency was shrouded in the weird deaths of 27 people. See 'The Clinton Chronicles'. Another film that makes the Clintons sweat.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: straightalker
I see complete hypocracy.

This 9-11 special is for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who believe 9-11 was the work of flea infested dirty radical muslims sitting in a remote central Afghanistan desert cave. Why do the Demoratz fear what is in this Disney movie? Because there are lies in it? Well hold on a minute. The Clintons lied all the time as Governor and President. (the two operate as a team, Hilary is the brains of the operation). Their political rise to the Presidency was shrouded in the weird deaths of 27 people. See 'The Clinton Chronicles'. Another film that makes the Clintons sweat.

Doesn't the pre-9-11 tape showing Bin Laden and some of the hijackers together kind of hurt the whole conspiracy therory?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: straightalker
I see complete hypocracy.

This 9-11 special is for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who believe 9-11 was the work of flea infested dirty radical muslims sitting in a remote central Afghanistan desert cave. Why do the Demoratz fear what is in this Disney movie? Because there are lies in it? Well hold on a minute. The Clintons lied all the time as Governor and President. (the two operate as a team, Hilary is the brains of the operation). Their political rise to the Presidency was shrouded in the weird deaths of 27 people. See 'The Clinton Chronicles'. Another film that makes the Clintons sweat.

LOL, and you are the one calling others "tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts"

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: straightalker
I see complete hypocracy.

This 9-11 special is for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who believe 9-11 was the work of flea infested dirty radical muslims sitting in a remote central Afghanistan desert cave. Why do the Demoratz fear what is in this Disney movie? Because there are lies in it? Well hold on a minute. The Clintons lied all the time as Governor and President. (the two operate as a team, Hilary is the brains of the operation). Their political rise to the Presidency was shrouded in the weird deaths of 27 people. See 'The Clinton Chronicles'. Another film that makes the Clintons sweat.

Doesn't the pre-9-11 tape showing Bin Laden and some of the hijackers together kind of hurt the whole conspiracy therory?

That famous "fat phony Bin Laden" tape has been outed a long time ago as a fake by scientists and researchers who studied both the visual and audio. The audio signature of every person is unique. It forms a graph of your voice features. This tape did not have Osama Bin Looney's voice signature. Not even close.

Besides that. You can just look at the man in the video and compare it to pictures of Osama-BL. It's not him. Not even close. Real simple to discover on your own.

The concensus out there among the honest Intel Community is that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for the past 4 years.

 

[LunarRay]

heheheheh... a tape real or false appears.... What is the motive for its existence and production??

Why not examine the motive regardless of truth or falsity first..

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Doesn't the pre-9-11 tape showing Bin Laden and some of the hijackers together kind of hurt the whole conspiracy therory?

That famous "fat phony Bin Laden" tape has been outed a long time ago as a fake by scientists and researchers who studied both the visual and audio. The audio signature of every person is unique. It forms a graph of your voice features. This tape did not have Osama Bin Looney's voice signature. Not even close.

Besides that. You can just look at the man in the video and compare it to pictures of Osama-BL. It's not him. Not even close. Real simple to discover on your own.

The concensus out there among the honest Intel Community is that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for the past 4 years.

I am talking about the "new" tape that is all over the news today. According to every news source it is a previously unshown video. I guess your sources are much better than every media outlet in the country.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: straightalker
I see complete hypocracy.

This 9-11 special is for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who believe 9-11 was the work of flea infested dirty radical muslims sitting in a remote central Afghanistan desert cave. Why do the Demoratz fear what is in this Disney movie? Because there are lies in it? Well hold on a minute. The Clintons lied all the time as Governor and President. (the two operate as a team, Hilary is the brains of the operation). Their political rise to the Presidency was shrouded in the weird deaths of 27 people. See 'The Clinton Chronicles'. Another film that makes the Clintons sweat.

Doesn't the pre-9-11 tape showing Bin Laden and some of the hijackers together kind of hurt the whole conspiracy therory?

That famous "fat phony Bin Laden" tape has been outed a long time ago as a fake by scientists and researchers who studied both the visual and audio. The audio signature of every person is unique. It forms a graph of your voice features. This tape did not have Osama Bin Looney's voice signature. Not even close.

Besides that. You can just look at the man in the video and compare it to pictures of Osama-BL. It's not him. Not even close. Real simple to discover on your own.

The concensus out there among the honest Intel Community is that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for the past 4 years.

Maybe he's related to Tupac.

 

[trenchfoot]

if anybody wants to learn how to properly attack and neuter a "dramatized" version of an historically significant chain of events just have disney make a "dramatized" documentary of how the bush administration lied the nation into invading iraq.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well it now seems that the Democrats are sending a letter theatening Disney's broadcast license if they air this movie.

Here it is straight from a nice left wing blog so you can't accuse me of being biased.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

<text of letter here>

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."

Does anyone not see this as a problem? We have gone from "we don't like your movie" to "we are going to take away your license if you air this movie"

And people say that Bush is a threat to out freedoms? When has Bush threatened the New York Time, ABC, CBS or NBC for say things about him they don't like?



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

LOL, I guess the liberati loves censorship after all! How sweet.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well it now seems that the Democrats are sending a letter theatening Disney's broadcast license if they air this movie.

Here it is straight from a nice left wing blog so you can't accuse me of being biased.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

<text of letter here>

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."

Does anyone not see this as a problem? We have gone from "we don't like your movie" to "we are going to take away your license if you air this movie"

And people say that Bush is a threat to out freedoms? When has Bush threatened the New York Time, ABC, CBS or NBC for say things about him they don't like?



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

LOL, I guess the liberati loves censorship after all! How sweet.

Rights are only for people they agree with. Clintonians are pissed and getting this thing revised... Think that ever happen if the shoe was on the other foot? not a chance!

Remember people If it is based on 9-11 commission reports to some degree there are probably some details that are factual. Not saying the movie is all fact but to insist that every scene is made up with no merit to actual events is just plain ignorant. I'd bet you agree that some of the scalding scenes with President Bush might have some merit.

The problem with America is that many don't believe anything until they see it on TV then they think it is fact.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well it now seems that the Democrats are sending a letter theatening Disney's broadcast license if they air this movie.

Here it is straight from a nice left wing blog so you can't accuse me of being biased.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

<text of letter here>

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."

Does anyone not see this as a problem? We have gone from "we don't like your movie" to "we are going to take away your license if you air this movie"

And people say that Bush is a threat to out freedoms? When has Bush threatened the New York Time, ABC, CBS or NBC for say things about him they don't like?



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

LOL, I guess the liberati loves censorship after all! How sweet.

Rights are only for people they agree with. Clintonians are pissed and getting this thing revised... Think that ever happen if the shoe was on the other foot? not a chance!

Remember people If it is based on 9-11 commission reports to some degree there are probably some details that are factual. Not saying the movie is all fact but to insist that every scene is made up with no merit to actual events is just plain ignorant. I'd bet you agree that some of the scalding scenes with President Bush might have some merit.

The problem with America is that many don't believe anything until they see it on TV then they think it is fact.

Actually it has happened. Republicans threw such a fit over "The Reagans" that CBS pulled it altogether. IIRC it wound up on Showtime for a couple of weeks.

Point is, what's happening is not a situation where the "liberal media" is cowing to its own. When they produce a political piece of crap that pisses off half the country (doesn't matter which half) they are going to cave if enough pressure is applied.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Well so far, we have stars in the movie, scriptwriters and 9/11 commission members that have said that they made all this ****** up for the movie.

Ok, how's this.... all the conservatives in this thread are serial child rapists. And I'm going to make a movie about it... would you censor me? Would you demand the film be pulled?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Ah yes, when in doubt, blame Clinton for everything.
Never mind that Ashcroft didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda in 2001, maybe he was too busy covering nude statues.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/0...l-qaeda-in-high-threat-summer-of-2001/

Who is blaming Clinton for everything? There is blame enough for everyone. The problem is Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al-Qaeda, Bush had 8 months. Based on that it is hard to blame them equally.

But when Clinton actually tried to do something all the reps. started yelling "Wag the Dog!" I agree he didn't do enough, but the republicans put a quick stop to what he actually did attempt.

Here is a timeline of terror events, Clinton's responses and other notable events.

Feb. 26, 1993: First World Trade Center bombing
There is no military response.

June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers are bombed killing 19.
There is no military response.

August 7, 1998: U.S. Embassy's in Tanzania and Kenya are bombed.
Aug. 17, 1998: President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Aug. 19, 1998: Word that Starr has requested and received a sample of Clinton's DNA becomes public.
Aug. 20, 1998: Monica Lewinsky testifies before the grand jury for a second time.
Aug. 20, 1998: The U.S. attacks targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Dec. 12, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee approves a fourth and final article of impeachment against President Clinton, accusing him of making false statements in his answers to written questions from Congress.
Dec. 15, 1998: UN inspector Richard Butler filed a report charging Iraq had failed to provide "full cooperation" with inspectors.
Dec. 16, 1998: In a coordinated strike, U.S. and British forces attack Iraq in retaliation for its failure to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. Because of the military action, House Republican leaders delay a planned impeachment debate and vote set to begin Thursday, December 17.
Dec. 17, 1998: Republicans reschedule the impeachment debate for December 18 over Democratic objections.
Dec. 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 1:25 PM The first article of Impeachment is approved.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 4:15 PM Clinton and Democratic house leaders hold "Impeachment 'pep' Rally on White House Lawn.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 6:00 PM Clinton makes a speech about the Iraq attacks saying among other things: "We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again." and "So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world."

Oct. 12, 2000 USS Cole is attacked.
There is no military response.

Notice the pattern of behavior? Clinton responded with military action against terror attacks only 2 times as president, both while he was fighting impeachment.
Either Bill Clinton used military action to distract the country from his problems, or he has really bad timing.
There are studies that say his use of military action was probably not related to his other problems, but I think you can see by the timeline I present that the cries of "Wag the Dog" are not completely unfounded.

I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but him launching those rockects, was the correct thing to do, and the republicans were wrong in there response.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Actually it has happened. Republicans threw such a fit over "The Reagans" that CBS pulled it altogether. IIRC it wound up on Showtime for a couple of weeks.

Point is, what's happening is not a situation where the "liberal media" is cowing to its own. When they produce a political piece of crap that pisses off half the country (doesn't matter which half) they are going to cave if enough pressure is applied.

I think there is a difference between the Reagan movie and this one though. The Path to 9-11 is based on the 9-11 report as well two books about the events leading up to 9-11.

The problem with the Reagan movie is that it had some serious distortions. Scenes such as the one where Nancy talks to Reagan about aids and Ron supposedly makes some off the cuff insulting comment about sin and death. The whole Reagan movie was basically a hatchet job, it stared Barbara Steisand's husband, talk about good balance.

Look at this quote from CBS made during the announcement to move the movie to Showtime: "We believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience,"
So CBS admitted itself that the film was not a fair portrayal of events.

So on one hand we have a movie that smeared Reagan and was filled with scenes that had no basis in reality.
On the other we have a movie based on the 9-11 report with a few dramatized scenes (I am sure they play up the drama in these Bin Laden scenes)

Also compare the reactions to the film: to the Reagan film we get threats of boycotts, to the 9-11 film Senators are sending letters threatening the companies broadcast license.

As far as the ?Path to 9-11? goes the biggest objection to the movie seems to do with a scene in which some anti-terror squad is about to get Bin Laden and someone in Clinton's admin tells them 'no' Now the event in the movie did not take place, it is a dramatization that combines several similar events, apparently 10 times they came close to getting him and every time they were stopped.

The story going around is that the people who gave the "no" did so because they were afraid of what would happen if the mission failed. Apparently they looked at what happened to Janet Reno after Waco and none of them wanted to be hung out to dry by Clinton if the missions failed, seems like a good analysis.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
heheheheh... a tape real or false appears.... What is the motive for its existence and production??

Why not examine the motive regardless of truth or falsity first..

totally amazing....

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well so far, we have stars in the movie, scriptwriters and 9/11 commission members that have said that they made all this ****** up for the movie.

Ok, how's this.... all the conservatives in this thread are serial child rapists. And I'm going to make a movie about it... would you censor me? Would you demand the film be pulled?

You are so far off base it is hardly worth a response.

1. They did not make "all this ****** up for the movie" I believe that most of the movie is based on very firm facts, the 9-11 report, meeting notes etc. It is not like they just crafted a fairy tale of what happened.

2. The scenes that they did make up are composites of many different events, a very common practice in historical and factual movies. A movie that showed every attempt to get Bin Laden would be hours long in itself, so they shrunk 10 different events down into one scene. They also took several real people and combined them into one character in the movie.
Read the book Blackhawk Down and then watch the movie, you will see that the Eric Bana character is a combination of several different members of Delta Force, it is not practical to have a movie with 20 different people playing major parts.

3. If you made a movie about members of this thread being rapist you would just be making things up that have no basis in reality, the movie does have a basis its called the 9-11 report.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well so far, we have stars in the movie, scriptwriters and 9/11 commission members that have said that they made all this ****** up for the movie.

Ok, how's this.... all the conservatives in this thread are serial child rapists. And I'm going to make a movie about it... would you censor me? Would you demand the film be pulled?

Why would we censor you if you want to make an a$$ of yourself in public?

 

[Starbuck1975]

And so how many times has ABC aired Farenheit 9/11 and said it was historically based?

Apples and oranges...Fahrenheit 9/11 was a theatrical release...this is a made for television movie.

If a network TV station was going to air Farenheit 9/11 would conserative groups be whining?

Yes they would whine, but that shouldn't prevent the network station from airing it.

Let's put it this way...if ABC were about to air Fahrenheit 9/11, and conversative lawmakers attempted to prevent said airing, the liberals in this room would be crying about American fascism and censorship.


I think ABC should be allowed to air this miniseries, and let the viewing public determine if it is rubbish or a worthy addition to the continued discussions about 9/11.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well it now seems that the Democrats are sending a letter theatening Disney's broadcast license if they air this movie.

Here it is straight from a nice left wing blog so you can't accuse me of being biased.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

<text of letter here>

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."

Does anyone not see this as a problem? We have gone from "we don't like your movie" to "we are going to take away your license if you air this movie"

And people say that Bush is a threat to out freedoms? When has Bush threatened the New York Time, ABC, CBS or NBC for say things about him they don't like?



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

LOL, I guess the liberati loves censorship after all! How sweet.

Clinton and others involved have every right ot sue for slander/libel if the movie claims to be true and isn't. Has nothing to do with censorship. Disney dropped Fahrenheit 9/11.. yet they get involved with politics again? Weird.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well so far, we have stars in the movie, scriptwriters and 9/11 commission members that have said that they made all this ****** up for the movie.

Ok, how's this.... all the conservatives in this thread are serial child rapists. And I'm going to make a movie about it... would you censor me? Would you demand the film be pulled?

You are so far off base it is hardly worth a response.

1. They did not make "all this ****** up for the movie" I believe that most of the movie is based on very firm facts, the 9-11 report, meeting notes etc. It is not like they just crafted a fairy tale of what happened.

2. The scenes that they did make up are composites of many different events, a very common practice in historical and factual movies. A movie that showed every attempt to get Bin Laden would be hours long in itself, so they shrunk 10 different events down into one scene. They also took several real people and combined them into one character in the movie.
Read the book Blackhawk Down and then watch the movie, you will see that the Eric Bana character is a combination of several different members of Delta Force, it is not practical to have a movie with 20 different people playing major parts.

3. If you made a movie about members of this thread being rapist you would just be making things up that have no basis in reality, the movie does have a basis its called the 9-11 report.

"
2. The scenes that they did make up are composites of many different events, a very common practice in historical and factual movies. A movie that showed every attempt to get Bin Laden would be hours long in itself, so they shrunk 10 different events down into one scene. They also took several real people and combined them into one character in the movie"

That isn't what was done. Don't act informed when you aren't. They turned multiple events into one BIG event that ended up being completely false. It was done to make the movie interesting.. but if you want to make stuff up, it can no longer be named a documentary.

 

[Aisengard]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ABC_comes_u...eged_partisan_slant_in_9/11_miniseries

A flurry of on-line email campaigns, protesting the film and demanding it be corrected or not aired, has erupted. According to the libertarian group Truemajority, "It's not just that ABC's movie is slanted. Big parts of it are simply untrue. The producer himself even admitted to simply improvising a key scene which depicts the Clinton administration letting bin Laden go when they had him in their sights -- a complete fabrication. Last night, the movie's star, Harvey Keitel, said 'It turned out not all the facts were correct.'" [1]

According to ABC's entertainment division, the film is a "dramatization... not a documentary." However, several key scenes, which critics allege distort the September 11 commission's report on which the film is based, are being reworked, reshot, or pulled altogether, and ABC is reportedly "mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."

It's funny how the liberal media allowed such a biased and terrible production to get through, yet "The Reagans" never saw air time. I mean, you'd think it'd be the other way around, what with the media being so LIBERAL and all.

 

[ProfJohn]

The latest on the "Path to 9-11" is that ABC is going to try and change the scene everyone is upset about. The one that shows Sandy Berger hanging up on some CIA guys right before they go after Osama. What ABC wanted to show was a lack of action by the government in their attempts to get Osama. However, the might have gone a little over the line with this scene in implying that Burger made the choice to not get him. Therefore, ABC is going to re-edit the scene so that no 'one' person is blamed, but that the blame is placed on government as a whole for not acting.

I would like to see the movie. I hope that it is a truthful telling of what happened and the places where the government failed us.

The Clintons know that 99% of the American people did not read the 9-11 report and therefore only got their news on what is in it from TV and Newspaper. That is why they are scared of this movie, because it shows the events in a way that anyone can watch. I think Clinton is also upset that the movie implies that the whole Monica thing got in the way of war on terror.