Fat loadies!
Brain - nobody has said guys need to be gym monkeys, size zero or marathon runners - there is nothing wrong with carrying a bit of extra weight either (I've been doing it for years) but GW was criticising guys with physiques so at odds with what one might reasonably expect from someone in the Armed Forces that they become ridiculous.
It is possible to be 18 stone and very fit (see international rugby players for example) but they don't have several michelin tyres of fat stored round their midriffs and they do a shedload of phys every day to stay in shape.
You don't look at some 20 stone lardie with a lager in his hand and think 'I bet he's good at his job' do you? You think 'Fat git, needs to spend less time in the pub' If you think it is the right image for the RAF to project then you belong in a very different RAF than the one I joined 26 years ago.
It is possible to be 18 stone and very fit (see international rugby players for example) but they don't have several michelin tyres of fat stored round their midriffs and they do a shedload of phys every day to stay in shape.
You don't look at some 20 stone lardie with a lager in his hand and think 'I bet he's good at his job' do you? You think 'Fat git, needs to spend less time in the pub' If you think it is the right image for the RAF to project then you belong in a very different RAF than the one I joined 26 years ago.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crab
Warburtons make bread, don't they?
Seriously, yet another attack on something that isn't my actual argument, i.e. they way I am making my argument, does not go any way towards actually rebutting the argument itself. I could tell you the Latin name for the logical fallacy you are making but you'd have to look it up in your bread-maker's book.
I used the cut/paste/respond technique so that those with brains which would not fit into a jam jar can tell which point I am actually referring to when I attempt to refute it. Since this is clearly not to your liking I will, for you and for now, refrain from the technique.
You have further made the assumption that since I have defended the right of people to be fat that I must be a fatty myself ("Maybe that cutting and pasting was your exercise for the day") - something of an unreasoned response. And yes, I know I cut and pasted that quote
Please tell me if I misunderstand, but the argument stated by you (and others here) seems to me to have started out as "fat knackers can't do the job". I responded that I did not care how fat people are so long as they can do the job. You now seem to be responding with "fat people look unmilitary". You have also added a second point that they might be better at their jobs if they were thinner.
For your first point, "looking unmilitary" is a matter of personal opinion. Some skinny people are perfectly capable of looking unmilitary and could remedy this by buying an iron and actually using it, and getting a haircut, but I don't see you haranguing them here. Short people are also at a disadvantantage, and yet you are not exhorting them to grow. Smoking most certainly looks unmilitary (and also has health risks comparable with being grossly overweight), yet you do not extol the virtues of a nicotine-free lifestyle. I can therefore only conclude that the "looking unmilitary" argument you forward is false - a smokescreen, if you like, for the fact that your problem with fat people actually stems from elsewhere.
Also, one person can only look "more miltary" or "less military" than another. There is no absolute scale of "militariness" where you can mark someone out of ten for how military they look - it's subjective. One person may give a particular subject 8 out of 10 for "military look" while another person would give the same subject a mere 6.
Due to the lack of an absolute on the scale of "militariness" someone can only look more or less military than the average military person, so there will always be "less military looking" and "more military looking" people. It's like height - people are only tall or short compared to the average. If the rest of the population was 5ft tall I'd be a giant - it isn't, so I'm not.
Finally, I refute the idea that "looking military" (by whoever's definition) is a reasonable goal in itself. Like I said before, mostly in jest, if the aim of the military was to look smart we'd go to war in DJs. The aim of the military is not to "look military", it is to be military.
Your second point regarding the ability for people to do their jobs better if they were thinner may well be valid. People could also do their job better if they didn't smoke, were taller, better looking and less ginger (
). I look forward to you campaigning against all these maladies in due course.
On a more serious tack, fitness (which is what I assume you mean by "being thinner" - correct me if I misunderstand here) is also not an absolute - one person can only be more or less fit than another. We can, however, measure fitness in many ways, most of which are relevant to only one type of fitness. The RAF has set a standard it expects people to meet on some of those scales. If people manage to reach that level then who are you to demand more? Meeting that level is part of the job - having a certain BMI is not.
Finally, a genuine well done to you for maintaining your fitness so far, but your health will fail you one day and, from the amount of pride you appear to have in it I suspect that you will be in for quite a fall when that happens.
Politely_amused
Well, smoking also suggests (to me) a supreme lack of self-discipline. To some drinking alcohol suggests the same, just as leaving the toilet seat up suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to many women. I am not ranting at smokers and nor is my girlfriend ranting at me about the toilet seat: it's called tolerance (although it's also because my girlfriend is several thousand miles away right now!)
If your first impression of someone is your lasting impression then you need to look deeper - the problem is with you, not with them.
As I have said before, E&E is a part of the job - be fit enough to do your job.
Who said that? Certainly there are times when a little extra lard can be to one's benefit, but I think we've all agreed that fat is not "better". I'm merely arguing that it is not always unacceptable.
A_A
Agreed. So stop smoking, boozing, eating red meat, and sleep 8 hours a night. No? Lifestyle choices, all of which have an impact on your health and all of which can be curbed by self-discipline. When I see you ranting about these things then I might take you a bit more seriously. In case you missed it, we joined the military in order to defend those self-same lifestyle choices: I like the odd tipple and also red meat, and I do not want to pray five times a day or be a part of a dictatorship (hmm...). I defend those choices by being in the military and my lifestyle is acceptable to the military.
Feel free fella. You are certainly not what I need as the albatross around my neck when I'm evading an intelligent and persistent enemy.
Oh, my mistake - you're not even in a position to be able to do so, are you? Enjoy the armchair.
Warburtons make bread, don't they?
Seriously, yet another attack on something that isn't my actual argument, i.e. they way I am making my argument, does not go any way towards actually rebutting the argument itself. I could tell you the Latin name for the logical fallacy you are making but you'd have to look it up in your bread-maker's book.
I used the cut/paste/respond technique so that those with brains which would not fit into a jam jar can tell which point I am actually referring to when I attempt to refute it. Since this is clearly not to your liking I will, for you and for now, refrain from the technique.
You have further made the assumption that since I have defended the right of people to be fat that I must be a fatty myself ("Maybe that cutting and pasting was your exercise for the day") - something of an unreasoned response. And yes, I know I cut and pasted that quote
Please tell me if I misunderstand, but the argument stated by you (and others here) seems to me to have started out as "fat knackers can't do the job". I responded that I did not care how fat people are so long as they can do the job. You now seem to be responding with "fat people look unmilitary". You have also added a second point that they might be better at their jobs if they were thinner.
For your first point, "looking unmilitary" is a matter of personal opinion. Some skinny people are perfectly capable of looking unmilitary and could remedy this by buying an iron and actually using it, and getting a haircut, but I don't see you haranguing them here. Short people are also at a disadvantantage, and yet you are not exhorting them to grow. Smoking most certainly looks unmilitary (and also has health risks comparable with being grossly overweight), yet you do not extol the virtues of a nicotine-free lifestyle. I can therefore only conclude that the "looking unmilitary" argument you forward is false - a smokescreen, if you like, for the fact that your problem with fat people actually stems from elsewhere.
Also, one person can only look "more miltary" or "less military" than another. There is no absolute scale of "militariness" where you can mark someone out of ten for how military they look - it's subjective. One person may give a particular subject 8 out of 10 for "military look" while another person would give the same subject a mere 6.
Due to the lack of an absolute on the scale of "militariness" someone can only look more or less military than the average military person, so there will always be "less military looking" and "more military looking" people. It's like height - people are only tall or short compared to the average. If the rest of the population was 5ft tall I'd be a giant - it isn't, so I'm not.
Finally, I refute the idea that "looking military" (by whoever's definition) is a reasonable goal in itself. Like I said before, mostly in jest, if the aim of the military was to look smart we'd go to war in DJs. The aim of the military is not to "look military", it is to be military.
Your second point regarding the ability for people to do their jobs better if they were thinner may well be valid. People could also do their job better if they didn't smoke, were taller, better looking and less ginger (
). I look forward to you campaigning against all these maladies in due course.On a more serious tack, fitness (which is what I assume you mean by "being thinner" - correct me if I misunderstand here) is also not an absolute - one person can only be more or less fit than another. We can, however, measure fitness in many ways, most of which are relevant to only one type of fitness. The RAF has set a standard it expects people to meet on some of those scales. If people manage to reach that level then who are you to demand more? Meeting that level is part of the job - having a certain BMI is not.
Finally, a genuine well done to you for maintaining your fitness so far, but your health will fail you one day and, from the amount of pride you appear to have in it I suspect that you will be in for quite a fall when that happens.
Politely_amused
being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline.
Yes that does not automatically mean individuals are not professional in their duties - but it's not a good first impression.
I've effectively got a casualty straight away if fattie can't keep up with the break contact drills.
I find it genuinely disgusting that people here can argue for the ridiculous notion that being fat is better!
A_A
you need to be fit to operate in the worst possible circumstances.
The number of people that I would leave in this thread indicates that things have certainly not improved.
Oh, my mistake - you're not even in a position to be able to do so, are you? Enjoy the armchair.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry crab but I need to quote this one:
Which "one" here is doing the expecting and how were their expectations formed? Surely what you are talking about is actually prejudice: "one" expects people in the military to have a certain image which fits the model in "one's" head and "one" gets upset when this is not the case. Examples:
1. He looks lardy: he is unprofessional.
2. He looks Arabic: he is a terrorist threat.
3. He is ginger: he smells of wee.
The RAF "image" is for the RAF Corporate Comms people to sort out, not you and not I. If people are getting the wrong image then we have the wrong Corporate Comms people.
(PS - apologies to all the strawberry blondes out there, all in jest. I'm going to keep doing it though!)
criticising guys with physiques so at odds with what one might reasonably expect from someone in the Armed Forces that they become ridiculous.
1. He looks lardy: he is unprofessional.
2. He looks Arabic: he is a terrorist threat.
3. He is ginger: he smells of wee.
The RAF "image" is for the RAF Corporate Comms people to sort out, not you and not I. If people are getting the wrong image then we have the wrong Corporate Comms people.
(PS - apologies to all the strawberry blondes out there, all in jest. I'm going to keep doing it though!)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, my mistake - you're not even in a position to be able to do so, are you? Enjoy the armchair.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cripes. No wonder the Royal Air Force is going to the dogs with spin like that, PTT.
Civvies - Acceptable to be lardies.
Armed Forces - Not acceptable to be lardies.
You can write as many papers as you like on it, PTT but some things just aren't quantifiable.
Keep defending the rites of the fatties. It's obviously a 'life style choice' of theirs that they simply don't want to come to terms with.
And yes, it does look unprofessional.
Do the RAF Corporate Comms people include grossly overweight bods in the PR blurb?
Civvies - Acceptable to be lardies.
Armed Forces - Not acceptable to be lardies.
You can write as many papers as you like on it, PTT but some things just aren't quantifiable.
Keep defending the rites of the fatties. It's obviously a 'life style choice' of theirs that they simply don't want to come to terms with.
And yes, it does look unprofessional.
Do the RAF Corporate Comms people include grossly overweight bods in the PR blurb?
I am going to withdraw gracefully from this one. Parting shot:
Assuming the everyone meets a minimum standard of fitness as laid down by the service. I'd rather be in an Air Force where the common attributes amongst the aircrew are excellent flying skills - built on the basis of a first class flying training system - that nourishes our traditional characteristics of flexibility, innovation, self-reliance, cunning and wit. I'm happy to live with the demographic variation of physiques found amongst such a group.
What I don't want to be part of is an organization where the common characteristics are anchored in physical prowess, with the attendant demographic variation being in all the cerebral attributes that make us the Royal Air Force and not the US Marine Corps.
Must go - time for my body pump class.
Assuming the everyone meets a minimum standard of fitness as laid down by the service. I'd rather be in an Air Force where the common attributes amongst the aircrew are excellent flying skills - built on the basis of a first class flying training system - that nourishes our traditional characteristics of flexibility, innovation, self-reliance, cunning and wit. I'm happy to live with the demographic variation of physiques found amongst such a group.
What I don't want to be part of is an organization where the common characteristics are anchored in physical prowess, with the attendant demographic variation being in all the cerebral attributes that make us the Royal Air Force and not the US Marine Corps.
Must go - time for my body pump class.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13
Simply saying it's spin doesn't make it spin. I believe it's a logical argument: if you see flaws in it then please point them out. I'm not adverse to changing my mind if I see a compelling argument.
I would disagree:
Civvies - do what you like within the bounds of the law.
Armed forces - do your job and ideally do it well. That job includes passing the fitness test! If you don't do the job then you are not being professional.
Looking professional is an irrelevance, maybe a nicety. Being professional is what counts.
If things aren't quantifiable then why are you ranting about them? Because you don't like it? Nice attitude unless you're CAS!
I don't know about the Corporate Comms blurb - not read it in a while. I doubt it does include them though. But then that's what PR is for - presenting the image you want presented. Spin, if you like
Simply saying it's spin doesn't make it spin. I believe it's a logical argument: if you see flaws in it then please point them out. I'm not adverse to changing my mind if I see a compelling argument.
Civvies - Acceptable to be lardies.
Armed Forces - Not acceptable to be lardies.
Armed Forces - Not acceptable to be lardies.
Civvies - do what you like within the bounds of the law.
Armed forces - do your job and ideally do it well. That job includes passing the fitness test! If you don't do the job then you are not being professional.
Looking professional is an irrelevance, maybe a nicety. Being professional is what counts.
If things aren't quantifiable then why are you ranting about them? Because you don't like it? Nice attitude unless you're CAS!
I don't know about the Corporate Comms blurb - not read it in a while. I doubt it does include them though. But then that's what PR is for - presenting the image you want presented. Spin, if you like
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT - How I would love to be in your chain of command to bring to bear some of your 'reasoning'.
I say again being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline. That is very hard to argue against. If people wish to smoke or drink - that is up to them and (surprise, surprise) the forces also have rules for that.
And Brian, having worked with the US Marine Corps, their exceptional professionalism and bravery under the conditions they have fought under in Iraq over the last 4 years on tours up to 15 months long is something that you will obviously never understand.
I say again being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline. That is very hard to argue against. If people wish to smoke or drink - that is up to them and (surprise, surprise) the forces also have rules for that.
And Brian, having worked with the US Marine Corps, their exceptional professionalism and bravery under the conditions they have fought under in Iraq over the last 4 years on tours up to 15 months long is something that you will obviously never understand.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not ranting, just agreeing with the common sense shown by some on here.
As some have quoted on here, the RAF fitness test isn't exactly a challenge. And as some have also said, people do find ways of getting out of doing it. I'll wager those that have found a way around it are the ones it was originally aimed at - the salad dodgers. Long queues outside sick bay prior to the test with lots of 'back problems and twinges in the leg' no doubt.
That job includes passing the fitness test! If you don't do the job then you are not being professional.
As some have quoted on here, the RAF fitness test isn't exactly a challenge. And as some have also said, people do find ways of getting out of doing it. I'll wager those that have found a way around it are the ones it was originally aimed at - the salad dodgers. Long queues outside sick bay prior to the test with lots of 'back problems and twinges in the leg' no doubt.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, whether you like it or not you joined a fighting force. Not a force the "projects it's air power"
The RAF IS a fighting force - but we do not (and will never) 'fight' the way the army does - we are not trained to do so, nor will we ever be required to. I can guarantee you that NO RAF aircrew will EVER be required to go running around the bondu, digging trenches, and tabbing for miles whilst carrying ridiculous amounts of kit. Yes, we are trained to E&E if the situation requires it - and I can guarantee you that, regardless of how 'lardy' one of us may appear, they will have no difficulty getting out of a burning aircraft and tabbing 2k if the Talitubbies are up our arses - this I know from experience.
The RAF fights by projecting air power, and doing so does NOT require that we are fit enough to get into close-quarter combat with an enemy - if we ever end up in that situation, somebody somewhere has fcuked up. Anybody you see out on ops, regardless of appearances, has passed the fitness test to the level required by OUR service and is, by definition, "FIT FOR PURPOSE". People paid alot more than you and I have deemed this to be sufficient, so who the fcuk are you to tell them (and us) that it's not good enough?
This 'soldier first, specialist second' mentality that pervades the army (and, in all honesty, serves it well) does NOT apply to the RAF. We are SPECIALISTS, pure and simple, try to understand that. We work differently to you, and as such have different requirements of our personnel. Nobody here is saying that it is better to be a lard-arse, just that it is NOT a barrier to service if you are fit enough for purpose (as defined by RAF leadership, NOT army). But then again, the army has never been able to see any viewpoint but it's own - THAT is an indication of severely limited capacity that would bar YOU from servivce as RAF aircrew (different requirements, see?)
Strange, though, how our waistlines don't seem to trouble you if we're coming in, under heavy fire, to pull YOU out of the sh!t.....THAT is what WE do, and we do it well.
The point is this - please, for once, get this into your heads - 'JOINT' does NOT equal 'ARMY'.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooer, saucer of full fat milk for the lardy above.
Alright then - a curtain call and some backtracking.
In no way did I mean to denigrate the US Marine Corps for it's professionalism or bravery. I am not a Yank basher and unreservedly apologise if offence was caused.
My point was the USMC are renowned for their physical prowess. They are soldiers in jets and for that reason the British Army holds them as a model for what it thinks the RAF should be like. However, their air power is solely configured for support of it's ground forces and they are often difficult to integrate into the wider air campaign. Many functions are performed for them by the USN and USAF so they can afford to concentrate on what they are good at. With broader responsibilities the RAF should not try to emulate the USMC and should uphold it's own traditions and characteristics, one of which is higher regard for brains than brawn.
Late for body pump now - it'll have to be Pilates instead.
In no way did I mean to denigrate the US Marine Corps for it's professionalism or bravery. I am not a Yank basher and unreservedly apologise if offence was caused.
My point was the USMC are renowned for their physical prowess. They are soldiers in jets and for that reason the British Army holds them as a model for what it thinks the RAF should be like. However, their air power is solely configured for support of it's ground forces and they are often difficult to integrate into the wider air campaign. Many functions are performed for them by the USN and USAF so they can afford to concentrate on what they are good at. With broader responsibilities the RAF should not try to emulate the USMC and should uphold it's own traditions and characteristics, one of which is higher regard for brains than brawn.
Late for body pump now - it'll have to be Pilates instead.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See my theory for E&E is this, I don't need to be as fit as wg13 and all his gym queen chums (target rich environment AT!) , all I have to do is shoot him in the leg at the start, the perusing force will stop and gather round him and I'm away to eat another day
Once again RAF brains v Army muscle
Once again RAF brains v Army muscle
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politely_amused
What? 
Does this mean that you'd like to use your rank to silence me when I say something you disagree with? Oh for the joys of equality on Pprune
Actually it isn't.
Being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to you. It may not to others. Smoking suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to me - it does not to others.
Feel free to disassociate your opinion from facts at any time
I'm aware of a rule regarding fitness: pass the fitness test. Do you want a rule in place about fatness as well? Why? What relevance does it have?
wg13
Correct, the fitness test isn't a challenge, but the levels set are the levels set. Who are you to decide what they should be?
You can wager what you like, but until you have a shred of evidence to back it up (and no, so-called "common sense" does not count as evidence) then you are merely hypothesizing and possibly slandering, on a public forum, numerous people with genuine medical conditions such as back problems.
And "saucer of milk" is hardly a reasoned response...
PTT - How I would love to be in your chain of command to bring to bear some of your 'reasoning'.
Does this mean that you'd like to use your rank to silence me when I say something you disagree with? Oh for the joys of equality on Pprune
being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline. That is very hard to argue against.
Being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to you. It may not to others. Smoking suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to me - it does not to others.
Feel free to disassociate your opinion from facts at any time
I'm aware of a rule regarding fitness: pass the fitness test. Do you want a rule in place about fatness as well? Why? What relevance does it have?
wg13
Correct, the fitness test isn't a challenge, but the levels set are the levels set. Who are you to decide what they should be?
You can wager what you like, but until you have a shred of evidence to back it up (and no, so-called "common sense" does not count as evidence) then you are merely hypothesizing and possibly slandering, on a public forum, numerous people with genuine medical conditions such as back problems.
And "saucer of milk" is hardly a reasoned response...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, gents, this is becoming very counter-productive now, especially so soon in the wake of improved Army-RAF relations following the BBC 'One Life' documentary.
The British Army are bloody good at what they do - and it requires a high level of fitness. The RAF are also bloody good at what WE do - and it does not. Let's just leave it at that.
Appearances bear no real relevance on the battlefield. I'll now bow out of this discussion.
The British Army are bloody good at what they do - and it requires a high level of fitness. The RAF are also bloody good at what WE do - and it does not. Let's just leave it at that.
Appearances bear no real relevance on the battlefield. I'll now bow out of this discussion.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, the fitness test isn't a challenge, but the levels set are the levels set. Who are you to decide what they should be?
You can wager what you like, but until you have a shred of evidence to back it up (and no, so-called "common sense" does not count as evidence) then you are merely hypothesizing and possibly slandering, on a public forum, numerous people with genuine medical conditions such as back problems.
And "saucer of milk" is hardly a reasoned response...
You can wager what you like, but until you have a shred of evidence to back it up (and no, so-called "common sense" does not count as evidence) then you are merely hypothesizing and possibly slandering, on a public forum, numerous people with genuine medical conditions such as back problems.
And "saucer of milk" is hardly a reasoned response...
Slanderous? Have a word. Daft comment from a professional arguer no doubt.
especially so soon in the wake of improved Army-RAF relations
As far as I'm aware, I'm the only pongo commenting. The others on here who are commenting on fatties not being a good example (which is what the original thread was about) are, as far as I'm aware, RAF.
As per usual, the topic has been pushed away from the subject at hand - people being fat not setting a good example to the young types.
Fat and military don't go together. I'm suprised some of you are putting so much effort into arguing that they do.
From what some of you are saying, RAF and military don't go together. How embarrassing.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF and military don't go together.
If I went onto an Army web site and tried to lay down the law on how infantry tactics should be changed I'd be told to **** off because I have little inf experience
So if someone who's never been in the RAF.......
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I went onto an Army web site and tried to lay down the law on how infantry tactics should be changed I'd be told to **** off because I have little inf experience
So if someone who's never been in the RAF....
So if someone who's never been in the RAF....
I'm sure it says 'Military Aircrew' at the top.
If thats the case and you're RAF, you've just suggested that you aren't military, maybe its you who should..........
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These boys look fit and smart enough. However, I am not too sure about the hand on hip adopted during the right dress at 1.17min running time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbpI7WQkF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbpI7WQkF0