Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2006, 02:49 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
ex-postal worker kills 7

When I heard the story, I shrugged - another workplace shooting, this time the stereotypical postal worker.

Today I read a litte more, and I was very surprised to see the shooter was a woman. She sounds quite deranged, but I've never heard of a female mass murderer killing so many in such a workplace rampage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11128315/

Long before former postal employee Jennifer Sanmarco went on a suicidal rampage inside a mail processing plant in Santa Barbara, acquaintances and others took note of her odd behavior, a spiral of bizarre acts that began at least two years ago.

Interviews with officials and others in New Mexico, Sanmarco's home state, to which she returned in 2004 after she lost her job at the mail facility, paint a picture of an unpredictable woman.

“We weren’t sure what she was going to do next,” said Terri Gallegos, deputy clerk for the city of Milan, N.M., where Sanmarco applied for a business license in 2004 for a publication called “The Racist Press” that she said she planned to launch. Another time she said she wanted to register a cat food business, Gallegos said.

During one meeting, Gallegos said, Sanmarco carried on a conversation with herself “like she was arguing with someone, but there was no one there.”

Last March, office workers called authorities after the 44-year-old woman made what Gallegos described as a rude allegation. Other times, Gallegos said, Sanmarco would come in and simply stare at one employee in particular.

In June, police in nearby Grants, N.M., talked to her after someone at a gas station called to complain of nudity, police Chief Marty Vigil said. Sanmarco was dressed when officers arrived.

Sanmarco's behavior turned violent on Monday night, when she returned to her old workplace, the sprawling Processing and Distribution Center in Santa Barbara, Calif. She drove through the gate behind another car and gained entry to the building by taking an employee’s identification badge at gunpoint.

That worker was not hurt, but Sanmarco fatally shot six postal employees before committing suicide in what is believed to be the deadliest workplace shooting by a woman.

“According to witnesses from the scene, she had a 9 mm pistol and reloaded at least once during her rampage,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff James Anderson said Tuesday.

It's believed Sanmarco may also have killed a former neighbor a few hours before the Monday attack, sheriff’s officials said Wednesday.

The possible seventh victim was found dead Tuesday from a gunshot wound to the head at a Santa Barbara condominium complex where Sanmarco once lived, said Jeff Klapakis with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.

“Evidence and circumstances of both crimes show distinct correlations between the two,” Klapakis said Wednesday.

Klapakis said the woman, identified by her brother as Beverly Graham, 54, died Monday.

Authorities said it was unclear whether Sanmarco targeted specific employees at the postal center, but U.S. Postal Inspector Randy DeGasperin said “chances are” she knew the people she was shooting.

DeGasperin told reporters Tuesday that Sanmarco had left the mail facility on a medical leave in 2003 after her co-workers expressed concerns she might hurt herself. He said police removed her from the building one time.

“She was not making any threats or anything of that nature,” DeGasperin said. “It was more for her safety.”

Beverly Graham had also noticed unusual behavior, her brother Les Graham told The Associated Press. He said his sister had complained about a woman who “used to come out and rant and rave in front of her building.” The family suspects that Sanmarco was the neighbor and his sister’s killer, he said.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 02-01-2006, 02:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Free Mars!
 
feelgood's Avatar
 
Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time
Talk about going postal

One ticket please
feelgood is offline  
Old 02-01-2006, 03:18 PM   #3 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Poor woman, poor victims.

Guns lead to tragedy more ofen than I like to contemplate.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 08:42 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
imagine if one or two of the people who'd been killed had not been denied their constitutional right to bear arms, lives could have been saved.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 08:50 AM   #5 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
I'm more surprised a woman could shoot straight.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:05 AM   #6 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm more surprised a woman could shoot straight.
People's lives arent jokes.
Misz is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:06 AM   #7 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
Guns lead to tragedy more ofen than I like to contemplate.
Yeah...that's what caused all of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm more surprised a woman could shoot straight.
Ok...why are you inviting an ass beating?
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:10 AM   #8 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
imagine if one or two of the people who'd been killed had not been denied their constitutional right to bear arms, lives could have been saved.
How in the world was anyone denied their rights in this situation? Are you seriously advocating that everyone should be allowed to go to work armed and that businesses should have no right to deny access to armed individuals? Anyone in a customer service job would probably disagree with you pretty vehemintly.
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:14 AM   #9 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Ok...why are you inviting an ass beating?
Because the only type of woman who would take umbrage at this is the type who can't shoot straight, so I'm safe

Though this is one of those aspects of evoultion where men seem to have an edge on the whole.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:24 AM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
How in the world was anyone denied their rights in this situation?
the law abiding peaceful employees weren't armed because of policy, but that didn't seem to matter to the person that comitted the crime, did it? Had these people been allowed to practice their rights to bear arms, maybe the only person dead would be the one that had the intent on holding a massacre.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Are you seriously advocating that everyone should be allowed to go to work armed and that businesses should have no right to deny access to armed individuals? Anyone in a customer service job would probably disagree with you pretty vehemintly.
Are those companies that prohibit an employee from carrying a weapon responsible for the employees life in the event that an armed individual with intent to maim or murder enters the premises? My guess is that they would not be held liable and any individual that dies as a result of the criminal not caring if they obeyed law/policy/whatever died because they were prevented from providing for their own self defense.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 10:39 AM   #11 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
the law abiding peaceful employees weren't armed because of policy, but that didn't seem to matter to the person that comitted the crime, did it? Had these people been allowed to practice their rights to bear arms, maybe the only person dead would be the one that had the intent on holding a massacre.
You don't see any problems with allowing armed individuals into banks, hospitals, department stores, schools, etc? No possibility that a momentary lapse in judgement might hurt or injure someone accidentally? Should we arm all of our middle school and high school students because another one of them might go off the deep end? Don't I have the right not to have to worry that I might accidentally jostle someone in an elevator and have their weapon discharge because they neglected to put the safety on? I think if you think through what you're advocating, you might see that no one's rights are absolute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Are those companies that prohibit an employee from carrying a weapon responsible for the employees life in the event that an armed individual with intent to maim or murder enters the premises? My guess is that they would not be held liable and any individual that dies as a result of the criminal not caring if they obeyed law/policy/whatever died because they were prevented from providing for their own self defense.
And in with that guess, you are wrong. Pretty much every state requires employers to provide a "safe place to work", including protection from fellow employees and outsiders. Basically what you're saying is that your right to be armed as an employee trumps my duty as employer to protect you and other employees from harm through accidental or purposeful actions. The post office works under slightly different rules because it is a semi-public entity, but if this had happened at UPS or really any other private firm, there would be significant amounts paid as damages to the survivors and the families of the deceased through a variety of insurance policies (life, workers comp, general liability, employment practices liability). Employers can and have been held liable by the estates of people killed during violent events.

Just to clarify my position, I don't have any problem at all with responsible adults owning guns. However, I do not want to live in a society where everyone is armed, nor do I want to raise my children to live in fear of the remote possibility that they might be victims of violence.
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 10:55 AM   #12 (permalink)
The Griffin
 
Hanxter's Avatar
 
going out on a limb here hoping this wasn't a private transaction and thinking this was totally preventable...



line "f" asks if the applicant has been adjudicated as mentally deficient or commited to a mental facility which was not the case... she was taken to a mental facility but not ordered to one by a court...

further, while in new mexico she was observed by neighbors and authority alike to be in la - la land but nothing was done about it...

Quote:
It's unclear when San Marco's mental problems took hold. In 1995 she was healthy enough to pass a psychological exam and be hired as a dispatcher for the Santa Barbara Police Department.

She left after just four months, but police Lt. Paul McCaffrey said turnover is high among dispatchers and San Marco's departure was not related to any performance issues.

San Marco also passed a background check to become a part-time employee at the Goleta mail sorting center. Tabala described her as standoffish but said initially she didn't show any signs of mental illness.

That changed. On Feb. 5, 2001, sheriff's deputies removed her from the center and took her to a mental health facility in Ventura for three days of assessment.

She returned to work, Tabala said, but several employees told him she was talking to herself and making racist remarks. He and a union shop steward talked to management, and her job ended soon after that...
linkage

had she been, evidence would have been available to the gun dealer that would have stopped the sale of the gun (assuming the gun was purchased after the looniness started)...

all the gun dealer does with this form is keep it on file for inspection by authorities in case something like this does happen...

the batfe keeps a database of millions of these forms in hopes of stopping the purchase by felons, illegals, and others as well as solving crimes comitted with firearms...

that's after the fact...

i own guns and have owned guns since i was 10... i advocate the right to own them and will do so till the outlaw them...

but, as shown in this case the government failed it's own system, she wrote "no" in the box and it wasn't checked out if she lied... how would the gun dealer know if she's being truthful or not... the locals knew she was wacko but did nothing about it when they had the opportunity to...

and now 7 people are dead...

i don't care if her motive is racist or not - that's not the issue here...

you don't put the leash on the dog after he bites someone
Hanxter is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 11:00 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
You don't see any problems with allowing armed individuals into banks, hospitals, department stores, schools, etc?
In a word, no!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
No possibility that a momentary lapse in judgement might hurt or injure someone accidentally?
anything is possible, but proper responsibility and common sense will make it the minimum so you should be safe. you stand a greater chance of being hit by a car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Should we arm all of our middle school and high school students because another one of them might go off the deep end?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Don't I have the right not to have to worry that I might accidentally jostle someone in an elevator and have their weapon discharge because they neglected to put the safety on?
do you jostle people in elevators like linebackers jostle quarterbacks? again, you have a more likely chance of being hit by a vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I think if you think through what you're advocating, you might see that no one's rights are absolute.
the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness sound vaguely familiar to me.....



Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
And in with that guess, you are wrong. Pretty much every state requires employers to provide a "safe place to work", including protection from fellow employees and outsiders.
you left out a keyword in that argument....'reasonably' safe place to work. cameras, unarmed security at the doors, and fire exits are generally all that is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Basically what you're saying is that your right to be armed as an employee trumps my duty as employer to protect you and other employees from harm through accidental or purposeful actions.
No, what i'm saying is that my right to defend my life and your duty to provide a 'reasonably' safe work place do not mean the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
The post office works under slightly different rules because it is a semi-public entity, but if this had happened at UPS or really any other private firm, there would be significant amounts paid as damages to the survivors and the families of the deceased through a variety of insurance policies (life, workers comp, general liability, employment practices liability). Employers can and have been held liable by the estates of people killed during violent events.
please cite some examples because, to date, I've not heard of any company having to pay for the death of an employee via liability claims. insurance and comp benefits are not in the same category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Just to clarify my position, I don't have any problem at all with responsible adults owning guns. However, I do not want to live in a society where everyone is armed, nor do I want to raise my children to live in fear of the remote possibility that they might be victims of violence.
you've been brainwashed with this idea that guns make people violent. that is completely wrong. people are violent already and those that are violent will use whatever is handy at the time. A gun in responsible hands can be the difference between life and death at the hands of that violent person. If you are not teaching your children that there is a remote possibility that they might be a victim of violence, then you are failing as a parent in that area. all one needs to do is read the paper and listen to the news to know that there will ALWAYS be the possibility of being a victim of violence.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 01:49 PM   #14 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
please cite some examples because, to date, I've not heard of any company having to pay for the death of an employee via liability claims. insurance and comp benefits are not in the same category.
Workers Compensation is insurance in every state except North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia and couple of others (can't remember off the top of my head) where the state provides the coverage (called a monopolistic state). Who do you think pays the benefits? Your employer may have a $250,000 deductible, but the insurance carrier is the one who pays you the money and reimburses the employer (except for your paycheck, where the employer submits a copy of you paystub and is reimbursed). Let me know if you need a list of carriers that write workers comp in your state, and I can give you just about as long a list as you want. There are generally about 100 writing in any state, with a few notable exceptions.

As far as examples, the companies in the Twin Towers on 9/11, or more accurately their insurance carriers, paid well over $1B in workers comp, general liability and life benefits because of the event. Speaking solely on financial terms, that number is obviously dwarfed by loss that the property carriers paid out, but it still managed to bring on an early onset of a hard market for the casualty (liability) markets. If you check my profile, you'll see that I do this for a living, so I'm pretty confident on how this all works. If you'd like any other examples, I'd be copy articles from Business Insurance into a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
anything is possible, but proper responsibility and common sense will make it the minimum so you should be safe. you stand a greater chance of being hit by a car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
do you jostle people in elevators like linebackers jostle quarterbacks? again, you have a more likely chance of being hit by a vehicle.
As with anything, the more that you increase the number of potential causes, the greater chance of something occurring. For instance if I walk in areas with more cars driving, I have a greater chance of being hit by a car. If I walk down 16th street in Grinnell, IA east of town (gravel road with very light traffic), I stand a much smaller chance of being hit than if I am crossing the intersection of State and Monroe in Chicago. If fewer people are carrying guns around me, I stand a much smaller chance of being shot on purpose or accidentally.

As for my elevator riding skills, I am not always the most coordinated individual, and I work in a very busy building. It's been known to happen. I've also bumped into people on the street because I lost my balance. What if I slip on the pavement on a wet day and you've neglected to notice that the safety on your Walther PPK slipped into the off position the last time that you put in the holster? That's a live round going who knows where. Sure, it's not an everyday accident, but as soon as you make anything idiot proof someone comes along and builds a better idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you left out a keyword in that argument....'reasonably' safe place to work. cameras, unarmed security at the doors, and fire exits are generally all that is required.
Actually, none of these are required by employers. Fire exits are required of building owners, but neither cameras nor security is required of any employer. It may be prudent for reasons other than worker safety, but it is certainly not required. Are there cameras or security guards at your doctors office? How about the guy that puts new siding on your house - does he have cameras and security? What about the local golf course? Book store? Bar? A "safe place to work" generally means free from dangers that pose an iminent threat to the health or safety of the employee, like no asbestos laying around, no piles of broken glass and no uncontained open flames.

[QUOTE=dksuddeth]you've been brainwashed with this idea that guns make people violent. that is completely wrong. people are violent already and those that are violent will use whatever is handy at the time. A gun in responsible hands can be the difference between life and death at the hands of that violent person. If you are not teaching your children that there is a remote possibility that they might be a victim of violence, then you are failing as a parent in that area. all one needs to do is read the paper and listen to the news to know that there will ALWAYS be the possibility of being a victim of violence.[/QUOTE[

The operative term here is "remote". You can't remove that possibility, but by your own admission, I'm more likely to be hit by a car than shot. I will teach my kids to be careful crossing the street and not to antagonize violent people. I have lot more experience in that area than you might think, and I've never been shot at once. I think that you've been brainwashed to expect armed muggers and rapists are lurking around every corner. A gun in the home in more likely to be kill someone accidentially or as a suicide than it is to kill someone purposfully (either as a murder or in self defense). See the 2002 CDC study. It runs about 40% murder/self defense and 60% suicide/accidental shooting. Guns are not inherently evil, being inanimant objects, but arming our society will not do anything to reduce the amount of violence. Quite the opposite - if every one is armed, then an armed response (which is inherently violent in its very nature) by anyone who feels provoked will become the norm.
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 03:19 PM   #15 (permalink)
Very Insignificant Pawn
 
Location: Amsterdam, NL
The USA post office used to have employes waive (sp?) any workman's compensation or they would not be hired. Has this changed?
flat5 is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 03:40 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
The operative term here is "remote". You can't remove that possibility, but by your own admission, I'm more likely to be hit by a car than shot. I will teach my kids to be careful crossing the street and not to antagonize violent people. I have lot more experience in that area than you might think, and I've never been shot at once. I think that you've been brainwashed to expect armed muggers and rapists are lurking around every corner. A gun in the home in more likely to be kill someone accidentially or as a suicide than it is to kill someone purposfully (either as a murder or in self defense). See the 2002 CDC study. It runs about 40% murder/self defense and 60% suicide/accidental shooting. Guns are not inherently evil, being inanimant objects, but arming our society will not do anything to reduce the amount of violence. Quite the opposite - if every one is armed, then an armed response (which is inherently violent in its very nature) by anyone who feels provoked will become the norm.
I see people spout these CDC stats and I can't help but think that they are being obtuse. Makes me want to go 'blah blah blah'. Why people play the odds with their families lives is beyond me. Nothing is more precious to me than my family and I wouldn't hesitate to take the life of someone that threatens them. Why people wouldn't use the most effective and efficient means for the protection of their family is something that needs to be explained to me.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 09:24 PM   #17 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I see people spout these CDC stats and I can't help but think that they are being obtuse. Makes me want to go 'blah blah blah'. Why people play the odds with their families lives is beyond me. Nothing is more precious to me than my family and I wouldn't hesitate to take the life of someone that threatens them. Why people wouldn't use the most effective and efficient means for the protection of their family is something that needs to be explained to me.
For your family's sake, I hope that you keep your gun locked at all times. Leaving unsecured handguns around the house (unless you live alone or only with adults) is irresponsible in the best of lights. If you do that, then your gun could end up being in the 40% of being used as intended.

Personally, I don't like the odds, but that's me. And I play the odds all day every day for a living, so it's hard for me not to think about that when I'm at home. All I ask is that you don't bring your gun into my house.
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 02-04-2006, 10:45 PM   #18 (permalink)
Upright
 
Why do i get a mental image of the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons when I read this article?
jeenyus_ones is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 05:25 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
For your family's sake, I hope that you keep your gun locked at all times. Leaving unsecured handguns around the house (unless you live alone or only with adults) is irresponsible in the best of lights. If you do that, then your gun could end up being in the 40% of being used as intended.
It's usually carried at all times. home invasions are on the rise and even though the odds of my home being invaded are (insert odd statistic here) small comparitively, I'd rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Personally, I don't like the odds, but that's me. And I play the odds all day every day for a living, so it's hard for me not to think about that when I'm at home. All I ask is that you don't bring your gun into my house.
There is certainly no disrespect on my part towards anyone that does not want a gun in their home. It is their home and their choice. I'll probably never understand the reasons for that choice, but there you have it. stay safe.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
 

Tags
expostal, kills, worker

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360