Author Archives: Polar Ice Standpoints Society

OBS Debate Mar 15th, 2018


Viikko 12



  • Yrsa Grüne, editor of Hbl
  • Maimo Henriksson, civil servant of the Foreign Ministry
  • Markku Kivinen, on behalf of the Alexander Institute
  • Ilya Spiegel, cineaste
  • Hostess

under the headline of
”Putin styr” (= Putin at the helm)

Others’ coordinates:
Ms. Henriksson and Mr. Kivinen are old-school representatives of administrative power, which makes their standpoints partially such that they are loyal to diplomacy and the govt’s objective to maintain relatively good relations with any nation. Grüne and Spiegel, on the other hand, stand for traditional liberal leftism, the representatives of which are wont to point out moral dilemmas and ethical predicaments in any issue at hand, also with Russia.

Deep down, Henriksson and Kivinen seem to be of the opinion that the progress of the Russian bear needs to go along its own path and course. This is characteristic of the older generation. Spiegel and Grüne believe that the troika of Demonstrations, Sanctions and Youth are the things that will propel Russia little by little in the right direction, away from unilateralism and autocracy. Participants also broach the (non-)success of Russian society as measured by demographic statistics.

Own coordinates:
Russia seems to be a country of ambivalence, an eagle with two heads. On the one hand, as heir to the weapons arsenal developed by the Soviet Union of old, it is one of the three military superpowers in the world, but in terms of its own economy it is rather a BRICS country among which it is sometimes counted. The ambivalence in relating to Russia boils down to the fact that when Russia behaves ”badly” as a superpower (by definition, superpowers ”can’t behave badly”), the punishment it receives comes as a punishment to a BRICS country, as the other options are moot.

I think that most of the things Russia interferes in are its ”internal affairs” that superpowers did not get in hot water for between 1953 (Stalin’s death) and 1991 (the Soviet Union’s fall). Moreover, the victims of Russian policies are for the most part its own citizens or citizens from neighbouring satellite Slavic and Caucasian countries. As an adult weaned on Bond movies, I think that Russia should be treated like it wants itself to be treated. Russia plays with two decks of cards, one in its left hand and the other in its right hand, which was not uncommon in those Bond movies. The West is also able to do this. Diplomacy, a spirited discussion and PR are those things that should dominate in the daytime instead of accusations. By night, espionage, sabotage and other stuff of secret-agent movies might be carried out, acts of which also steer and influence politics.

Based on my opinions, I would seat myself around the now invisible round table next to Maimo and Markku.


Obs Debate Mar 8th, 2018


Viikko 11


All-female line-up

With the rubric ”Kvinnojobb” (= women’s vocations)

  • Lenita Airisto, fashion, PR and media entrepreneur; beauty-pageant winner
  • Charlotta Niemistö, postdoc researcher
  • Michaela von Wendt, CEO of Lundia, manufacturer of furniture
  • Hostess

The debate was about how women best may climb the career ladder with children on their back as a monkey.

Others’ positions:
Lenita Airisto was in favour of women dragging themselves up by their bootstraps regardless of subventions provided by society or men. In this, she got a little bit of support from von Wendt, who had solved part of the problems of her family in enlisting help with menial tasks at home. The trouble with Ms. Airisto is that she is partly the wrong person to sermonise about combining family life and work, since she has had just a husband to take care of and ”provide for”; hence, her advice was moot in that sense.

Ms. Niemistö (and the hostess) seemed to be more for big organisations continuing their work for women, bridging inequality with different measures by labour unions, employers and society. At any rate, they could not have offered anything for SME women, who’d have at the worst a company, children, the household and the finances of the family to sort out on their own. In those cases, they would have had to defer those people to Airisto.

Own Positions:
Western societies are little by little turning from patriarchies to matriarchies, or, rather into neuterarchies, where anyone’s sex or gender should not have an impact on how one takes care of one’s work and children. At the same time, traditional patriarchies (Russia, China, Islamic countries, African nations, India) take care of ”family business” so that men’s dominance over women continues. These countries also make the biggest contributions to the world population and demographics. Whatever we may do, the procreation strategies of patriarchies outrun the procreation strategies of neuterarchies.

In consequence, I’m more inclined to sit beside Airisto and von Wendt. According to my opinion, quality individuals should meet up in the population, leading to the acquiring of one child or childlessness (planned parenthood). If both make enough money, motherhood can be complemented by help at home, which is to be paid for privately. In this, the prevailing mass unemployment is beneficial. It is also affirmative if men strive to choose strong women over weak women as mothers to their children.

However, this was just a snap take, while the real debate could take a course of its own.

The image below illustrates how I would have chosen, as a quick decision, my place around the now invisible round table.



Journey to the Centre of the Hearth


Viikko 10


Date: Nov 9th, 2013
Motion: THB that bad economical times bring bad politic[ian]s to power
Role: Rep. (gov.)

Dear Assemblage, Chair, House,
as the second half of the proposing side, I’d like to concentrate more on the lesser scapegrace of the present regime, the Centre Party, instead of True Finns > Blue Future. What do Centrists do wrong and why? The answers are interesting…
My speech will touch upon such things as the Principle of Struggle, a Conservative Onlooker, Facts and a Plea for Reformation. Towards the end, there will be question time.

The Principle of Struggle
When politics is being made, sides A and B fight each other viciously. Trying not to give up an inch, finally they reach a compromise somewhere down the line in the middle, leaving the issue at the compromise, the middle ground, the halfway house. What truce and armistice will follow, it will last until the issue is broached anew from some newer angle and with new champions and opponents.

Conservative Onlooker
What the Centre Party, a conservative onlooker, tried to do is to fight both A and B for the sake of their ”audacity” to renegotiate accomplished compromises. Centrists are so fixated on non-change that they basically don’t want change. When someone else tries to implement a compromise, centrists take the compromise, as they get it for free. Both A and B will look derisively on C for trying to take credit for their ”see-saw” or tug of war.

What do we know about the present situation?’

  • Centre and True Finns are current favourites in entrance and exit polls
  • Centre chairs have lately resigned after disgrace or a gauntlet-like chase
  • Rural Finland and rural communites are ruled by the Centre Party
  • If religious people do not vote for Christian Democrats, their second alternative is often the Centre Party
  • The success of the Prisma shopping-centre chain is in some cases linked up to the planning decisions that favour it in communities that are ruled by the Centre Party

Plea for Reformation
One way to affect the current situation is to do the old-fashioned thing and write to one’s Centrist congressman and demand true change and power to the people. Reformation of the powers that be would be a better option than handing power over to the opposition, for the opposition clearly have little clue as to how to rule the country in these rocky waters we are now navigating. When we need bold re-entrepreneurial spirit, redistribution of resources and lending of money, if necessary, the opposition is hell-bent for leather to just lend some more money and mete it out to anyone who is clamouring for it. The opposition should not get the credit in a bad government situation. If the government is one-eyed, the members of the opposition are downright blind. We’ll have to restore full 20/20 vision to the government.

Now it’s Question Time.
Please ask.

In my speech, I have gone through the vices and vicissitudes of the Centre Party, whereas my colleagues in the previous team of the government went through the vagaries and viciousness of True Finns, as they are the household name in national politics. Their nightmare collaboration on the horizon can and will be corrected as long as we get ourselves in the right mindset and think clearly inside the box. I hope that I made you do just that in concentrating on my main points, the four aforementioned headlines Principles of Struggle, Conservative Onlooker, Facts and Plea for Reformation. Thank you very much and let the whips finish off this national political affair.

Arvio: Löysin tämän puheen arkistosta ja ajattelin julkaista sen, koska se tuntuu sopivan nykyiseenkin poliittiseen tilanteeseen vielä vuoden verran, vaikka se kirjoitettiin vuosia aiemmin. Ansioina on tehokas väliotsikoiden käyttö ja napakka esitystapa, vaikka en joissakin kohdin ollut aivan varma siitä, mitä edes ajoin takaa. Tuo on varmaan tavallista kuin siteeraa itseään vuosien takaa…

Tämä onkin sitten viimeinen arkistoitu puhe toistaiseksi, sillä puheita on tullut täyteen iso tasaluku. On aika vetää henkeä ja palata siihen aiheeseen myöhemmin uusiutunein voimin. Puheiden julkaisemisen tarkoitus on se, että niistä jää jonkinlainen ”paper trail” väittelyn harjoittajille. Tuntuisi turhalta harjoittaa jotakin tämän tapaista toimintaa niin, että vuosien jälkeen käsissä olisi vain kasa post-it-lappuja ja ruttuisia A4:sia.

Oh, Or, Well


Viikko 8


Date: Feb 22nd, 2018
Motion: THW pass the (mass) surveillance bill with its necessary changes to the Constitution
Role: Secretary (opp.)

Dear House, Ladies & Gentlemen,

This discussion is informed by

Government’s Stance: Big Brother’s Supervision Society

The govt. is after a solution to pre-empt recent acts of violence in the country. Their proposal is loud and clear and it may be processed rapidly if necessary, on condition of the support that it requires. The ordinary citizen does not have to do anything, just like in those letters from institutions we receive where we ”don’t have to act on these modifications and alterations to the policies”. It is ”relieving” and ”easy” to let authorities do their thing and let people go on with their business as usual.

For all that, that legislation won’t bite into the quality of the crimes it tries to prevent. Also, the need to change the constitution is too much to ask for. We’re not at that kind of watershed. The situation is not extraordinary. What the bill, if passed, would do is add to the data officials have at their disposal without a noticeable effect. Also, the potential for abuse is heightened, as we have seen from some examples in the past. Ordinary policemen do not overcome their pettiness as easily as we’d like to imagine.

Opposition’s Stance: Little Sister’s Information Society
What the united opposition parties seem to offer as an alternative and have a backing for is a society where crime is prevented because people inform the police about suspicious and harmful individuals in advance. I dub it ”Little Sister’s Information Society”. What speaks for this approach is the fact that the millions of pairs of eyes of ordinary citizens see a lot more than the thousands of pairs of eyes of authorities. Also, a lot of reports have already poured in to authorities about then-suspect citizens, who later on committed something of a felony.

The drawback of this thing is that it’s not fun to be the eyesore of one’s neighbour, whoever one may be. The mass spread of ”paranoia” does not serve anyone’s interests except for anarchists, conspiration theorists and libertarians. What’s more, it is not usually possible to detain anyone before a crime and thus prevent a crime from happening. The policies governing this aspect of crime prevention should be changed asap to bring about the affirmative changes in national security that we’re aiming for.

The Third Chance: a Foursquare Surveillance Society
A great many commentators know that we live in a ”10/100 society” where 100 % of the population have to be disciplined so as to keep under discipline the 10 % who cause trouble. (This has been reiterated earlier in this post.) This affects our surveillance-bill quarrel as well. Only a fraction of people cause trouble but the vast majority or entirety are ”punished” for that ill indiscriminately, or there is an attempt again to do so.

The better solution is to devise the below presented foursquare. The idea of it is that the vast majority of people populate the white square. They’re innocent. They should be safe from prying surveillance in their corner, as they’ve done nothing wrong. Then two attributes are determined to pinpoint a citizen’s potential for terrorism and damage-doing. They shall and should be statistical qualities that have demonstrably been linked to such activities in the past. These characteristics may change over time. What caused terrorism in the past (ultraleftist beliefs, RAF in West Germany) no longer does so. Individuals in the blue and red squares exhibit an elevated or heightened propensity for precarious behaviour. The real interest, however, lies in the purple square, where the violet colour indicates that the individuals in it share both of the predisposing attributes for violence and they should therefore be under the tightest monitoring (and/or detainment).

Even so, this is only the beginning of societal change for the better. Police need to be able to act on what they know and not just be able to gather (big) data or (citizen) information. Actions count, not knowledge. Precision Prevention is the way forward in the future rather than Molestation of the Masses. If we cannot move in this direction, and we have to choose between the two earlier mentioned alternatives for legislation and a policy, I’m more inclined to take the opposition’s Information Society, as it tampers with citizens’ rights less, and may still guide us towards a more secure society and safety among and for our citizens.

Thank you.

Puheen kesto: Koska tämä on pyöreitä lukuja kellottava puhe, otan pitkästä aikaa sen kunniaksi tälle aikaa eli puheen keston. Kesto on X min Y sek.

Peerless Dot Com


Viikko 7

Ei niin huonosti ajoitetusti tarjoan nyt ystävänpäiväksi tällaista päivän teemaan eli  parinvalintaan liittyvää puhetta. Puhe on tosin kirjoitettu aiemmin ja eri vuoden aikaan.


Date: Dec 5th, 2013
Motion: THW encourage science rather than choice on match-making Internet sites
Role: Min. (gov.)

Dear Assemblage, Chair, House, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In this speech, my aim is to go from a) why choice is not free will to b) an example of a bad choice to c) lessons of the past to d) what kind of science might work, even if it did not. In other words, this division deals directly with the wording of the motion today. Let us kick off.

The Delusion of Free Will
We like to think that we choose romantically right, but in reality I think the familiar takes precedence over the the foreign. A boy may leaf through the pages of a glossy fashion-model magazine only to find out that the women he fancies the most actually look like versions of her own mother when she was younger and in childbearing age. Biology, genes and familiarity are the master of the ”free” will, which in turn subordinates itself as a ”slave”.

I have coined the following rule: the rule of As Gentle or Gentler Than Myself which, explained in short, means that trait-wise we’d like to find a partner whose body odor, temperament and height (in this case rather short than tall) matches ours or is milder, more pleasant or more lenient. But, when it comes to descendants of ours, we might benefit from exactly the opposite qualities, traits or characteristics in our partner.

An Example of a Bad Choice
Prince Edward, King Edward VIII of Great Britain, gave up on the throne as he fell in love with an American woman, Wallis Simpson, in the 1930’s. Their affair or relationship resulted in love, but the former king became redundant for the rest of his life, when he could have had it both ways and ruled over England as its designated monarch. Had he not given a toss about love, he could have made something out of (t)his life. He died in 1972.

Lessons by the Past
So, the opposite of a freely chosen, romantic marriage is an agreed and negotiated marriage that is so well documented in most of Jane Austen’s books such as Pride and Prejudice. Marriage therein was a deal, with dowries and sweeteners coming along with it, and marriages then lasted often longer than today for reasons of necessity but also for excellent choices by those who took part in the process. We’d like to think of this kind of external choice as the natural counterpoint to this debate and an example of things working out outside of and beyond choice by a free will.

Science as a Help
What kind of science would we champion to accomplish good pairs?
Statistics means tables of info or data, but statistics also happens to be a science in its own right, known in Finnish as ’tilastotiede’. I would use it to attain pair(ing)s.

It could be figured out based on historical evidence and questionnaires as to what unites successfully married and happy couples across the board. When the key factors were found out, newcomers to match-making sites should be asked for the relevant information in addition to the voluntary depictions of themselves that they had submitted to the site. Ultimately, the machine or webmaster behind the site could/should join the dots and begin suggesting potential matches to individual users, with caveats about partial potential mismatches. Statistics would be the science guiding us forward on the mountain of love.

I’d like to conclude by saying that it’s feasible to get the curve to rise with help from science in pairing people off. The odds are stacked for them. Love can break your heart, but science can help you make a new start.

Thank you.

Puheen kesto: 4 min 35 sek
: Tämä aloite löytyy aiemmastakin, vastikäisestä puheesta, mutta ao. sisältö oli erilainen ja rooli viimeisen puhujan. Sävy on kuitenkin samantyyppinen, koska puheet on kirjoitettu saman puolen (eli hallituksen) nimissä. Tässä on vähemmän pituutta ja selkeämpi rakenne. Tämä sopii paremmin maallikolle ja toimii roolissaan ehkä paremmin kuin linkattu puhe toimii whipin puheena. Mutta makuasioista ei ”sovi” kiistellä.

Hyvät Radio Suomen Lähetysikkunan Exoduslaiset


Viikko 5


Jos kuuluit aikoinaan Radio Suomi -lähetysikkunan kantaviin voimiin, tule uudestaan ircci-sfääriin tekemään unelmistasi totta!

Löydät viransijaisen poksin osoitteesta

  • ja keskimmäinen vaihtoehto alta (= sama paikka)
  • jos olit enemmän YleX:n kuluttajia, paikkasi on Discord on myös olemassa appina selainpalvelun ohella. Appi toimii tableteilla ja älypuhelimissa.

Tämä koskee Yle Puheen, Yle Radio Suomen ja Ylen Ykkösen kuuntelijoita ja ns. aktiivi-nikkejä lähetysikkunassa eli shoutboksissa eli huutolaatikossa eli poksissa eli akkunassa eli räppänässä.

Voit toimia epävirallisessa lähetysikkunassa kuin toimisit alkuperäisessä Yle(n) Puhe, Radio Suomi tai Ykkönen -lähetysikkunassa. Kiinnostuksen kohteesi, lempihymiösi ja maneerisi ovat kaikki käytössäsi unohtamatta sitä, että sinun on hyödyllistä edelleen viitata #puheenaiheisiin risuaidalla ja @henkilöihin taksamerkillä. Jos olet unohtanut, niin Radio Suomen suosittuja ohjelmia olivat mm.

  • Ajantasa 1 ja Ajantasa 2 (arkipäivisin 10 – 11 ja 14 – 15)
  • Pyöreä pöytä (ke 17:30 – 18:00)
  • Levylautakunta (la 13 – 14)
  • Maailmanpolitiikan arkipäivää (la 14 – 14:30)
  • Poppikoulu (la 14:30 – 15)

Mene sinne ja toimi näin:

1) Rekisteröi sähköpostiosoitteesi aloitusruutuun

2) Avaa sähköpostiisi tuleva viesti

3) Paina linkkiä

4) Rekisteröi itsellesi sama nimimerkki kuin millä sinut tunnettiin useimmin tai viimeksi

5) Valitse salasanakin

6) Astu keskusteluun. Näet palkista, ketkä ovat paikalla

7) Ulosloggausta ei tarvita, mutta onnistuu painamalla ratasta ja ”Leave

8) Uusi sisäänloggaus Rejoin-painikkeesta

9) Lukemalla IRC-opuksen voit toteuttaa lisätoimintoja ja kikkailevia komentorivejä

10) Jos n. 12 aktiivista nikkiä ilmoittautuu mukaan, kunkin heistä pitäisi löytää ainakin kahdenkeskistä jutteluseuraa aina, kun he loggautuvat sisään, olipa vuorokaudenaika mikä hyvänsä.

Lähetysikkunan kokeilu on maksutonta, eikä aiheuta sinulle mitään harmia. Pysyt anonyyminä ja tietoturvasi on kunnossa. Saat toki sanoa itsestäsi enemmän kuin silloin aikoinaan.

Tämä tiedote koskee ainakin seuraavia lähetysikkunan ”kantavia” voimia, jotka auttoivat sitä kasvamaan ja ”kukoistamaan”: @AAA, @abc, @Aino Alpeilta, @Anders Borgia, @AnnBell, @Antonio Spagetti, @Antsza, @Antte, @Antti Lumperi, @Archie Bunker, @arokierijä, @Alfred, @Aulis Kaakko, @Axo, @Beatnikki, @boxi joutaa kiinni,heti; @Brusilla, @catman, @Coco, @DasBoot, @dubio, @EeKoo, @ei toimi suomesa, @Elbe, @Elena, @Elisa, @Ensio, @ex-Mira, @faku, @filosofi, @gallifrey, @guise, @Hanck, @hellu, @hetero, @hippulanvinguttaja, @hornetti-ikivelka100G, @hote, @huawei, @ilkka, @Jaana, @jaguarin, @jahvetti86, @Jani, @Jartzscha, @JJ-Nli, @jukkapehani, @Julma t. Raaka Arska, @kape, @Karnanen Kuopiosta, @kaustinen, @keke, @kekkeruusi, @Klunssila, @kokoomusnainen jssk nahassa, @kosan, @langaton jatkojohto, @laskukausi, @LateQ, @Leksa, @Liisi, @Luke, @Läski-Freddyn kissa, @lörpötin, @Maca, @mallipoisto, @Marde, @MarkkuJuva, @Marleena, @Matti-is-hockey, @merikapteeni, @mustavuori, @Nero, @N:n apupoika, @Nyhtöpossu, @Odottava äiti Jennie, @old-små-bil, @oulumän, @Paavo-Juuso Natunen, @pakkasukko, @pantasusi, @parkonniemi, @pellehermanni, @Persu, @Poikamies, @Pörje, @Raafela, @raksar, @rihlat, @Reiska Pattayalta, @Rikkis, @Sarde, @Sibale, @sihuJ, @siirakki, @Simo Vaatehuoneelta, @sinimeri, @solimar, @sopa, @statiivi, @stoistoi, @Suomipoika10, @suvituuli, @takametsistä, @takkuvaris, @The1, @Thjärysä, @Tiffany Romanov, @Tolkku, @Tosirealisti Kokkola(sta), @TriX, @Trumpin valesyyllinen, @Turska-Trø, @työläispoika, @työläisrouva, @Valto2, @vanha friikki, @Vapaavarsi-Franklin, @velipaveli, @Vero, @voxpopuli, @X-minä, @xyz ja @ycx.

Candy Now or on Sunday?


Viikko 4/’18


Date: Jan 24th, 2018
Motion: THW have most people/everyone vote as advance-poll voters
Role: Whip (opp.)

More and more people vote early in the run-up to general or presidential elections. Of a lesser importance are Europarliament and municipal elections. Referenda are also by nature alike elections, although they are not an election technically. This kind of event befalls us at frequent intervals, so what to make of early voting?

As of now, it has been revealed that 36 % of citizens in Finland have voted at advance-polling stations. In the United Stated Presidential Elections of 2012, the figure was at around 32 %, having risen steeply. We can expect early in-person votes to be cast in these double digits. North American commentators have voiced concerns over several things, e.g. early voting depressing the overall percentage of voter participation (i.e. below 70 %), early voting adding to the overall cost of elections and early voting pre-empting the effect of last-minute scandals or scoops, certain ”previous-week” surprises.

Our side has presented various viewpoints against advance-poll voting that you should be aware of. Here I’m offering you a summary thereof, so that you may make up your own mind.

First of all, early voting was never meant to be any kind of default way of voting. The idea was to enable voting for people who were travelling, ill, under the blade, in labour, seeing a mistress or a lover, in court or otherwise inhibited from voting as usual. Also expatriates were thought of, as they often vote at embassies on different days than the extant native population. In the present-day situation, overeager early voters could be likened to men or women who instead of going to the Men’s or Women’s (toilet) want to go to the toilet of the Disabled — ♿ — as it has become a ”neutral haven”. In the past, voting early was not as easy as it is today. People had to register in advance to cast an absentee ballot, and they may have had to offer a reason, or a pretext, for doing so. Nowadays it’s a free-for-all. This was brought up by our Secretary.

There are only a few occasions where an individual can have access to society at large before his or her eyes. Entering the army is one. Voting is another, and it’s non-gender-specific. Forming a queue to the polling station is fun in itself and it is enlightening to see some familiar faces among many more strange ones. The fragmentation of society manifests itself in our not voting on Election Day but choosing instead to vote on some nondescript day. It would do us good to see ourselves as bit players in the social fabric and that experience can be had on Election Day. This was brought up by our Chair.

The most damning evidence or reason for not voting early is what I came up with together with our MP: the fact that we do not really know what happens to those early votes once they’ve been enclosed in an envelope. Their ritual scribblin’, sealing, stamping and storing is well known, but what happens thereafter? For all we know, they could be sent to the dump before the elections, and no-one would know about it. Nobody would look for lost votes in a landfill or an incinerator, and the animals frequenting those dumps couldn’t tell us about that either. Voting on Election Day is an entirely different matter. During the day, representatives of all or most parties convene at the site as voting officials. They watch the voters and each other throughout the day. When the voting ends at 8 pm, no card leaves the room. The ballots are counted on the big table in the room and piled up into stacks, depending on the popularity of the candidates. Finally, around 10 or 11, the message is sent to Helsinki about how many votes each candidate, party or independent has acquired. The possibility for election fraud is close to nil. And your vote will be one of those that were included in the final reckoning. Compare that with the prospect of having your vote lost at a dump.

Personally I think it’s easy to fall under the allure of early voting, as it does not require restraint on one’s own behalf but a kind of instant gratification, like the question, ”Do you want candy now or on Sunday?” But we know the risk in that kind of behaviour, and it applies to this case as well. For these reasons, I’m asking you to steer clear of advance-poll stations. Do vote on Sunday, please.

Thank you.

Arvio: Puheessa on ajankohtainen aihe; ovathan presidentinvaalit hyvinkin lähellä eli noin puolen viikon päässä. Aihe on myös sellainen, jonka puolesta, harvinaista kyllä, myös kansa on äänestänyt ”jaloillaan” toimimalla aloitteen viitoittamalla tavalla. Näin oppositio saa niskaansa paitsi propositio-puolen myös kansan, mikä usein jää debateissa teoreettiseksi vaihtoehdoksi. Kerran näinkin päin. Whipin pointeista viimeisin on paras, joskin vähän vainoharhainen.