Those horror movie TV hosts around the world.

October 27, 2020 § 9 Comments

Dear colleagues:

Every year in October this blog devotes an entry to a Halloween theme. Many of you have told me you enjoy the post because you are into the season’s festivities, or because you learn about other cultures. Some just like it because it brings back nostalgic memories of your childhood or hometown. In the past we have talked about the Day of the Dead celebrations (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2019/10/); Halloween traditional foods around the world (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2018/10/); some of the scariest books ever written (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2017/10/); the scariest movies in all languages (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2016/10/); horror legends and stories (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2015/10/); and America’s favorite monsters (https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2014/10/). This time we will remember those weird-looking, sometimes goofy characters that kept us glued to the television when we were kids.

Hosting horror movies on TV is no easy task; the person doing it has to be entertaining, charismatic, and funny enough to act as a safety mechanism to relieve some of the tension created by the suspense of the movie with some humor. These hosts and hostesses have the apparently impossible task of keeping hyperactive children of all ages from changing the channel despite most horror’s showing are cheesy and absurd. The horror movie host role is born when TV stations, often with low budgets, showed the old classic horror movies produced by Universal in the 1930s and 1940s. Many of those movies were good, featured well-known actors and were very scary. Unfortunately, since there are not enough of these movies to keep a weekly TV show running for too long, TV stations alternated these classic films with very bad, poorly produced  “B” movies by unknown actors and directors dealing with nonsensical stories and the worst makeup and special effects. Many of these movies never saw a movie theater, and those that were shown had a run shorter than a blink of an eye.

Incredibly, many of the “B” movies became cult films and they are now considered “classic” in a category of their own. A big part of the credit for this success has to go to the hosts and hostesses who, like DJs on the radio, showed them until they were hits. I do not believe too many of us would have ever watched “Santa Claus conquers the Martians” without the sales pitch of a horror movie TV host or hostess. Today, we take a trip down memory lane and remember some hundreds of actors who, for many years, put on a costume and makeup to get into a character. You will recognize some names, you will learn of some for the first time, but they all gave kids the thrill of a horror movie right in the living room of their own homes somewhere in the world.

Boris Karloff. This legendary British actor, known as the monster in the original 1931 Frankenstein movie, and also the narrator in Dr. Seus’ animated film “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” hosted a horror shown in the early 1960s: “Boris Karloff Presents” or “Thriller.” An American anthology TV series where he introduced a mix of macabre tales and suspense thrillers.

Count Gore de Vol. A TV horror host who appeared on a Washington, DC station from 1973 to 1987, played by Dick Dyszel. He was a pioneer of the genre when he became the first host to show on TV the unedited version of “The Night of the Living Dead.” He frequently had Penthouse Magazine models (“pets”) as his guests.

The CryptKeeper. Not all hosts are human; sometimes a puppet can become a star on its own. That is the case of the CryptKeeper, a puppet operated by puppeteer Van Snowden and voiced by John Kassir that hosted HBO’s “Tales from the Crypt” and appeared in the opening segment as the storyteller. Later, he would return for the closing segment to offer sardonic commentary or to provide a cynical moral.

Deadly Earnest. He was a late sixties popular “B” horror movie host on Australian TV, first in Perth, and later nationwide. His show: “Deadly Earnest’s Aweful Movies” was so successful that he even presented the “Worst Movie of the Year” award.

Dr. Morgus the Magnificent. Sidney Noel Rideau played the mad scientist on New Orleans TV and performed science experiments live on the show between horror movie segments. Famous for his mad genius eyes, he once said his character was inspired by Cervantes’ Don Quixote, and his loyal assistant Chopsley was his “Sancho Panza.”

Elvira Mistress of the Dark. Cassandra Peterson gained fame on Los Angeles television by playing a character wearing a revealing, black, gothic, cleavage-enhancing gown while hosting “Elvira’s Movie Macabre,” a weekly “B” movie show in the 1980s. Elvira became a household name, bringing Peterson fame, fortune, a movie, videos, and many TV guest appearances.

Emily Booth. This British actress has starred in cult movies in England, and among many other roles as a presenter, she has hosted several TV shows related to cult films, including “Shock Movie Massacre.”

Ghoulardi. A fictional character created by DJ Ernie Anderson to host the horror movie show: “Shock Theater” in Cleveland, Ohio during the 1960s. His costume was a long lab coat covered with “slogan” buttons, horned-rimmed sunglasses with a missing lens, a fake Van Dyke beard and moustache, and a messy wig. He was famous for criticizing celebrities on his show, such as bandleader Lawrence Welk and the Mayor of Cleveland.

Grandpa Al Lewis. Al Lewis reached world fame through his Grandpa character in the 1960s TV series “The Munsters,” and he decided to wear the “Count” outfit again as a host of a TV horror movie show for Superstation WTBS in the late 1980s: “Super Scary Saturday.” Besides introducing the feature “B” movie, Grandpa was often visited by WCW superstars of wresting who would share with him their opinion of the movie shown that evening, and discuss their favorite monsters.

Juan Ramón Sáenz. In the mid-1990s, Juan Ramon Sáenz hosted the radio show: “La Mano Peluda” (“The Hairy Hand”) in Mexico City. At the beginning of the show, the host would suggest a horror, paranormal, or supernatural topic, and listeners would call and share their stories aided by music effects and scary narration. The show was so successful that eventually moved to TV under the name: “Excalofrio.” Sáenz wrote five books about the theme of the show, and he died young. Mexican audience will always remember “La mano peluda…aquí se respira el miedo.” (“the hairy hand… you breathe fear over here.”)

Mystery Science Theater 3000. Joel Hodgson’s show about the last surviving human, Joel Robinson, living in the Satellite of Love with his three robot sidekicks (Crow, Tom Servo and Gypsy) spend their days watching “B” movies and talking over the film, or taking brakes from watching and performing hilarious skits. MST-3000 has been around on and off for the last 3 decades and still has a big following.

Narciso Ibañez Serrador. From the 1960s to the 1980s, Narciso Ibañez Serrador hosted “Historias para no dormir” (“Stories to keep you awake”) where he presented a horror anthology of scary tales written by him on a variety of themes. Even now, viewers in Spain remember this show as a scary classic.

Rod Serling. He had gained fame from world famous “The Twilight Zone” and served both, as on the air host of the show and as a major contributor to the scripts. Serling viewed “Night Gallery” as a logical extension to “The Twilight Zone,” but unlike its famous sister show, that dealt with science fiction, the 1970s “Gallery” focused on horrors of the supernatural and unexplained.

Ronald “The Cool Ghoul”. In 1957 John Zacherle was cast in the role that would set the course of the rest of his career, Ronald, the undertaker host of Philadelphia’s “Shock Theater.” Dick Clark gave him the name “The Cool Ghoul” when the show moved to New York City. Zacherle’s character wore a beret and a goatee, and showed the classic Universal horror movies from the 1930s. His Halloween Day marathons were also a favorite of viewers on the East Coast.

Rubén Aguirre. Long before he was “Profesor Jirafales” in Mexico’s sitcom “El Chavo,” Rubén Aguirre hosted “Tele Terror,” a horror movie show for the now defunct Televisión Independiente de México network on Friday nights during the 1960s. He introduced the movies, sometimes classic Universal horror films, other occasions “B” horror movies, and then he closed the late Friday night show, with some scary remarks about the film just shown.

Sinister Seymour. Larry Vincent was an American actor who presented horror movies in Los Angeles during the 1970s run of “Fright Night” as Sinister Seymour. His style of criticizing the movies was famous. He would appear in a small window which would pop up in the corner of the screen, tossing a quip, then vanishing again. Sometimes he would also appear in the middle of the movie “interacting” with the characters. When he died, he was succeeded on the TV station by “Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.”

Svengoolie. Chicago’s own horror movie show, originally starring Jerry G. Bishop, and from the late 1970’s by Richard Koz. Before and after commercial breaks, Svengoolie presents sketches, tells jokes, throws around rubber chickens, and performs song parody spoofs related to the film shown that evening. The show is still on nationwide every Saturday evening on MeTV.

The Damned Witch. “La Bruja Maldita” was a Mexican horror TV show in the 1960s starring Russian actress Tamara Garina as the Damned Witch presenting the weekly horror story when stirring a potion in the cauldron while laughing hysterically and screaming: ¡Mentira! (“it’s a lie”) in Spanish. She would come back after the story for a preview of next week’s episode, and end the show laughing and screaming ¡Mentira! once again.

Vampira. Maila Nurmi, in the early 1950s, a Finnish-American actress was the first horror movie TV show hostess ever. The Vampira character was born when pale-skinned Nurmi attended choreographer Lester Horton’s Bal Caribe Masquerade in a black outfit inspired by the New Yorker Magazine’s cartoon character Morticia from the Addams Family. Each show opened with Vampira gliding down a dark corridor with dry ice fog. Vampira would come to a stop, and looking into the camera she would let out a horrid scream. She would then introduce the feature film while reclined on a skull-encrusted couch. Vampira would invite viewers to write her asking for epitaphs instead of autographs. She came with her loyal pet spider Rollo.

There are many other hostesses and hosts who have used the small screen to introduce millions of viewers to horror movies and “B” movies in general. These are just a few of the better-known. Most left the airwaves long ago, but on Halloween we remember the evenings we spent with them in our childhood. I now invite you to share with the rest of us your horror movie TV host or hostess memories, or if you prefer, tell us of that horror movie you remember every Halloween.

What is the Electoral College in the United States?

October 20, 2020 § Leave a comment

Dear colleagues:

Every four years during the Presidential election season in the United States many interpreters face the Electoral College topic even when their assignments are non-political. This time, no doubt because of the American president, more friends and colleagues from the United States and abroad have contacted me than ever before. Because of its American uniqueness, this topic presents a challenge to many colleagues who usually work outside the United States and to others who live in the country but grew up somewhere else.  The Electoral College is one issue that many Americans do not fully understand, even if they vote every four years.  Interpreters cannot interpret what they do not understand, and in a professional world ruled by the market, where the Biden and Trump campaigns are dominating broadcasts and headlines, this topic will continue to appear on the radar screen. Therefore, a basic knowledge of this legal-political process should come in handy every four years.

Because we are in a unique election cycle, and Election Day will be here before we know it, I decided to humbly put my legal background and my passion for history to work to benefit the interpreter community. I do not intend to defend the American system, or convince anybody of its benefits. I am only providing historical, political, and legal facts so we can understand such a complicated system in a way that if needed, our rendition from the physical or virtual booth is a little easier. This is not a political post, and it will not turn into one.

Every four years when an American citizen goes to the polls on the first Tuesday in November to elect the new president of the United States, that individual does not vote for the presidential candidates. We Americans vote for a preference (Republican, Democratic and occasionally other) and for electors who will go to Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, in December to cast the electoral votes from that state, in the case of 48 states, for the candidate who represents the preference of the majority of the state voters as expressed on Election Day. Other two states, since 1972 Maine and starting in 1992 Nebraska, allocate their electoral votes in a semi proportional manner. The two state’s electoral votes representing the two senators from that state, are assigned to the plurality winner of that state’s popular vote, and the other electoral votes that correspond to that state are given to the plurality winner in the popular vote in each of the state’s U.S. House of Representatives district. Maine has 4 electoral votes and Nebraska has 5. This means 2 and 3 electoral votes respectively will go to the candidate who wins that district, even if the candidate does not win a plurality of the popular vote statewide.

We vote for the people who will go to Washington D.C., to vote on our behalf for the presidential candidate who received the most direct votes from the citizens of that state during the general election.  After the November election, those electors are pledged to the candidate who received the most votes in that state.  The result: We have direct vote elections in each state, and then we have the final election in December when the states vote as instructed by the majority of its citizens. It is like a United Nations vote. Think of it like this: Each state elects its presidential favorite; that person has won the presidential election in that state. Now, after the November election is over, the states get together in December as an Electoral College and each vote. This is the way we determine a winner. Each state will vote as instructed, honoring the will of its citizenry and the mandate of its state’s constitution.  We do not have proportional representation in the United States.

Historically and culturally this country was built on the entrepreneurial spirit: Those who risk everything want everything, and when they succeed, all benefits should go their way. We are an “all or nothing” society. That is even reflected on our sports. All popular sports invented and played in the United States have a winner and a loser by the end of the game: Americans dislike ties because they associate a tie with mediocrity. A baseball game can go on forever until a team wins.  We do the same in politics. Once the citizens have voted, the winner in that state (except for Maine and Nebraska above) gets all the benefits, in this case all the electoral votes; it does not matter if he or she won by a million votes or by a handful. You may remember how President George W. Bush was elected to his first term; he won Florida by a small margin, but winner takes it all, therefore all of Florida’s electoral votes went to him and he became the 43rd. President of the United States.  Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams got to the White House with a margin smaller than George W. Bush. In recent years, another two presidents got to the White House without getting a majority of the popular vote: Bill Clinton twice, and president, Donald J. Trump. According to all presidential polls, if president Trump was reelected, he would go back to the White House after winning the electoral college, but losing the popular vote.

The electoral college was born to have a duly elected democratic government that would replace the monarchy Americans endured in colonial times. The state of communications and the educational level of the American population were such, that it was thought unwise to hold a direct presidential election where the winner of the popular vote would become president of the United States. Access to newly founded Washington, D.C., surrounded by swamps and, for Eighteenth Century standards, far away from most thirteen original states made it uncertain that all states would get to vote in a presidential election. Because only a handful of representatives from each state would go to the capital to cast that state’s votes for president, it was decided that only land holder white men would have a right to vote for these electors. It was decided to exclude white men with no land as they had no vested interest in the election; women were considered unprepared to make such a decision, blacks were slaves and deprived of human rights, including political ones, and Native Americans and other minorities were not considered citizens of the United States, and ineligible to vote.  Eventually, after a Civil War a century later, and several social movements a century after the War, all men and women born in the U.S., or naturalized American citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or national origin, successfully claimed their human right to vote. The American population of the United States territories are nationals of the U.S., and they can vote in a presidential election if they are residing in the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

I mentioned earlier that most Americans like the principle of winner takes it all. Although that is true, the country’s political and legal systems rest on a foundation of fairness and justice. With a nation as diverse as the current United States, a majority believes the only way to maintain these principles is through a balance of the rights of the people on one side, and those of the states on the other. (For those who have a difficult time understanding why the states have rights separate from the people, please imagine the United States as a mini-world where each state is an independent country. Then think of your own country and answer this question: Would you like a bigger or more populated foreign country to impose its will over your country, or would you like for all countries to be treated as equals?) In December when the electors or delegates from each state meet as an electoral college in Washington D.C. to cast their state’s electoral votes, all states have a voice, they are all treated as equal.  This is the only way that smaller states are not overlooked; their vote counts.

We find the final step to achieve this electoral justice to all 50 states of the United States of America (and the District of Columbia) and to the citizens of the country, in the number of electoral votes that a state has; in other words, how many electors can a state send to Washington D.C. in November.  The answer is as follows:  The Constitution of the United States establishes there will be a House of Representatives (to represent the people of the United States) integrated by 435 members elected by the people of the district where they live. These districts change with the shifts in population but additional seats are never added to the House.  When the population changes, the new total population are divided by 435 and that gives you the new congressional district. The only limitations: An electoral district cannot cross state lines (state borders) therefore, occasionally we will have a district slightly larger or slightly smaller, and every state must have at least one electoral district (one house member) regardless of its population.  The American constitution establishes there will be a Senate (to represent the 50 states) integrated by 2 representatives or members from each state, currently that is 100 senators elected by all the citizens of that state. When new states have been admitted to the Union (the last time was 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii became states number 49 and 50 respectively) the senate grows by two new members.

As you can see, all states have the same representation in the Senate (2 senators each) regardless of the state’s size or population. The House of Representatives has more members from the states with larger population, but all states have at least one representative in the house. This way the American system makes sure that the will of the majority of the people is heard in Congress (House of Representatives) and it assures the 50 states that they all, even the smaller ones, will be heard as equals in the Senate. You need both houses of Congress to legislate.

Going back to the Electoral College, the number of electoral votes each state has is the same as its number of Senators and Representatives. The total number of Senators and Representatives is 535 (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) Washington D.C. is not a state; therefore it has no Representatives or Senators, but it has 3 electoral votes to put it on equal footing with the smaller states for presidential elections. Therefore, the total number of electoral votes is 538.  Because of these totals, and because of the American principle of winner takes it all that applies to the candidate who wins the election in a state, to win a presidential election, a candidate must reach 270 electoral votes.  This is the reason California, our most populated state, has 55 electoral votes (53 Representatives and 2 Senators) and all smaller states have 3 (remember, they have 2 Senators and at least one Representative in the House)

The next time you have to interpret something about the Electoral College in the United States remember how it is integrated, and think of our country as 50 countries with an internal election first, and then vote as states, equal to all other states, on the second electoral round in December.  Because on the first Tuesday in November, or shortly after that, we will know who won each state, we will be celebrating the election of a new president, even though the Electoral College will not cast its votes for another month. It is like knowing how the movie ends before you see it.

 

Electoral votes by state Total: 538;

majority needed to elect president and vice president: 270

State number of votes State number of votes State number of votes
Alabama 9 Kentucky 8 North Dakota 3
Alaska 3 Louisiana 9 Ohio 20
Arizona 10 Maine 4 Oklahoma 7
Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Oregon 7
California 55 Massachusetts 12 Pennsylvania 21
Colorado 9 Michigan 17 Rhode Island 4
Connecticut 7 Minnesota 10 South Carolina 8
Delaware 3 Mississippi 6 South Dakota 3
District of Columbia 3 Missouri 11 Tennessee 11
Florida 27 Montana 3 Texas 34
Georgia 15 Nebraska 5 Utah 5
Hawaii 4 Nevada 5 Vermont 3
Idaho 4 New Hampshire 4 Virginia 13
Illinois 21 New Jersey 15 Washington 11
Indiana 11 New Mexico 5 West Virginia 5
Iowa 7 New York 31 Wisconsin 10
Kansas 6 North Carolina 15 Wyoming 3

I now invite your comments on the way presidential elections are conducted in the United States, but please do not send political postings or partisan attacks. They will not be posted. This is a blog for interpreters and translators, not for political debate.

Democracy, or democracy ATA-style?

October 7, 2020 § 8 Comments

Dear colleagues:

We are in a political environment in the United States at this time, in a few days we will vote for president of the United States, and this is also election time at the American Translators Association. I write this post because I deeply care for our association and the direction it follows for the benefit or detriment of our professions. This post is not an attack on anybody for who they are, but an expression of opinions and a means to disseminate information you may find useful before you vote. I also did some fact-checking and bring you the elements you will need to separate fact from fiction.

Election of candidates.

I am not familiar with some candidates and the ones I know are probably the same ones most of you recognize from the slate. I just want you to be aware of two important points all voting members should consider before voting. Please do your homework and vote for practicing interpreters or translators. Do not continue to stack the board with agency owners, even if they attempt to portray themselves as practicing colleagues. That may be half-truth, and remember their interests are not yours. They are not illegal, but they are not yours. The second point you must remember is that do not vote for the maximum number of candidates allowed. If there is only one board candidate you like, vote for that person and leave the others blank. When you do not know the candidate, or you have doubts, it is better to abstain. An abstention is powerful, because it increases the chances of your candidates to win as you do not gift a vote to someone you are not sure about. In my case I already voted, and I only voted for one candidate. The individual I chose has disagreements with me, and this candidate is not an interpreter, but he has my trust because I know this person is smart, honest, and not an agency.

I encourage you to think long and hard before you decide on your candidates, and do not feel bad if you just vote for one individual.

The decoupling question.

How can not decoupling be considered illegal? I understand the issue should be raised if a certification were needed to practice translation and ATA were the only certifying entity officially recognized, but neither is true. Certification may give you a competitive advantage and help you dissipate doubts about your professional level, but it is not a legal requirement to work as a translator. Although well-known as a serious credential, ATA has no official recognition as a certifying agency or office. ATA membership is voluntary and certification is one benefit of membership. Nobody can be forced to join ATA, just like no one can be forced to take the certification exam.

Regarding the ABA remarks, whether intentionally, or due to a lack of basic knowledge, it is puzzling that an allegedly practicing court interpreter in Pennsylvania can make the following statement: “Now, as a world class nonprofit association, certification legal experts have repeatedly advised us that it is unseemly and illegal to force individuals to become members just to take and maintain their certification…the ABA and the AMA have no such requirements for professional lawyers and doctors.” 

There is not such a thing as an “ABA Bar Exam.” I am sorry to hear an ATA Board member making such remarks. Perhaps the reason for this regrettable statement can be understood, nut justified, by visiting the Administrative Office of the State of Pennsylvania’s official website: The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s Court Interpreters classifies Spanish interpreters in three categories. From higher to lower skill level: Master, Certified, and Conditional. Are considered conditional interpreters those who score 50 percent on a simultaneous, consecutive, and bi-directional sight translation exam (a 49 percent score fails the test) testing the bare-bones minimum skills to interpret in court. Because conditional interpreters, like the person who made these comments, are separated from failing candidates by one percentage point, they may interpret during hearings of lesser complexity where freedom or substantial assets are not at risk. They cannot interpret trials unless they are before a lower court and involve small claims, traffic violations, etc.

Attorneys must pass a STATE BAR EXAM to be able to practice law. They must join that State Bar and remain members throughout their professional life in that State. It is the State Bar that grants and runs the continuing legal education program needed to keep a license valid, and the State Bar is the only body to monitor the rules of ethics are observed, and when they are not, only the Bar can sanction attorneys after notice and hearing. The only thing “illegal” is to practice law without a license (State Bar membership) carrying up to 364 days in jail in most states, and very harsh Civil sanctions, which could include compensatory and punitive damages depending on the harm done. Conditional-level court interpreters often work with pro-se individuals, and, have limited exposure to situations where the law license issue is mentioned. As for the American Medical Association’s part of the statement, since 1933, the certification function has been administered by a separate organization known as the American Board of Medical Specialties. No relation to the AMA, administratively or functionally. Interesting that a candidate who lost an election twice and got to the board by appointment both times gives such an eloquent opinion on something he lacks.

I encourage you to put your interests as a member above the associations economic priorities and reject this amendment. Vote No.

An election with multiple candidates.

I am very troubled by the arguments of those who oppose the amendment because they base their opinion on false assumptions, and because they represent the Institutional viewpoint. That two of the former presidents endorsing the opinion were beneficiaries of unopposed “elections” merits mentioning as it goes to the credibility of the opinion. 

An election is a decision between (at least) two options, anything else can be called a ratification, imposition, proclamation, appointment, or coronation, but not an election. 

Nations, corporations, and associations are governed by those who represent the will of the majority of its citizens, shareholders, or members. From its inception by the Greeks, many centuries ago, this has been called democracy. 

History has seen many totalitarian regimes in countries, corporations, and institutions disguised as “democracies.” Often, arguments to justify this aberration include a consensus by an elite in a position of power indicating they, as self-appointed protectors of the masses, are making the tough decisions; that it would be too dangerous to let citizens, shareholders or members decide because they are not “prepared” for it. 

The argument that an outsider who may be elected president-elect, treasurer, or director would jeopardize the institutional continuity of the people in power sends chills through my body. Elections are to change what a majority dislikes, not to guarantee everything will stay the same. Supporting ATA’s official viewpoint reminds me of those attempting to destroy our nation’s democracy at this time.

To say people not screened and blessed by the ones in power will not perform as needed, will not devote the necessary time to fulfill their responsibilities, or will quit their position shortly after the election, is plain insulting. People run for elected positions because they want to do the job. They want to do the job according to the interests of those who elected them, and sometimes these may not be the interests of those already in power. 

The bylaws are to an association what a constitution is to a nation. Their amendment is a serious matter and it should reflect the decision of that association’s membership based on real information, not a manipulated alternative reality. The only place where unopposed “elections” are welcome and considered a good thing is totalitarian structures populated by those too afraid to face the will of a majority without feeding them first manipulated information. That was tried before, caused many hardships and pain, and after many years it fell because it never represented the view of the majority. I don’t want another Soviet Union in my profession.

I encourage you to put democracy and membership above the current leadership’s appetite for control and support this amendment. Vote Yes.

Please vote. Most members never vote and that took us to where we are. Think of your career, the profession, and how a professional association should serve the interests of its human members, not corporations, or personal ambition.

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for October, 2020 at The Professional Interpreter.