upFront.eZine News Archives

The Stockholm Conference: Q&A with Bricsys Executives

Issue #1,032

 

transcribed by Ralph Grabowski Stockholm skyline, as seen from the Brewery At last month's Stockholm conference of BricsCAD users, the CAD media had the opportunity to quiz Bricsys executives on the topics of the CAD replacement market and scan-to-BIM. The following text is transcribed from a recording and so consists of paraphrased conversations. Questions were asked by several journalists and answered by one or more executives. Bricsys user conference being held at the Brewery in Stockholm   The CAD Replacement Market Q: How do you go to market without having Autodesk stomping down on resellers who want to sell both [AutoCAD and BricsCAD]? A: We are developing a new dealer network, some with old dealers and some new ones. Q: I guess [Autodesk European super dealer] Mann & Machine are talking tomorrow, as they didn't talk today at this conference? A: They are only exhibiting. Q: Autodesk requires a complete separation of companies if a reseller wants to sell both. No sharing of marketing, customers; even the managing director [CEO] has to be different. A: We think we can offer resellers explosive growth, instead of good growth. Executives from Bricsys answering questions from the media Q: You have multiple markets: The replacement market (Revit, Bentley) is sticky, and takes a long time and a lot of effort. And then there is the adjacent market, where it works with Revit, it works with Bentley, it works in the DWG sphere. A: Only 17-18% of the market uses BIM (as of last year), and only a portion of that uses Revit. This means there is a lot of growth, and so there is not much of a replacement market. In some areas, it [Revit? BIM?] is just 6%. Q: We are 20 years into BIM. You still have the problem of convincing AutoCAD users to move to 3D. A: Look at the difference in the workflow. Look at the complexity of what is out there. This is why we are only at 18% [ with BIM].  The market will go with the one that solves the problem of complexity. There is a huge difference between solving the problems (such as with our Propagate technology) and what is out there. Q: [Design firm] HOK has tried the others, like ArchiCAD, and so is now looking at BricsCAD. The problem with ArchiCAD was you had to change your workflow from an Autodesk workflow to an ArchiCAD workflow. When I ask ArchiCAD how it's going, they say, "They want us to put Revit's problems into our workflow, because that's their workflow."  A: It’s not Revit all the way, or AutoCAD all the way. There is Revit with Rhino, and so on. We don't think it is a winner-take-all market. There is the tendering process, and then actually doing the [design] work. One large contractor is considering BricsCAD for tendering, for its speed.  A very large firm, like HOK, is not going to wake up tomorrow and throw out all of their software, all of the infrastructure they have built, and then implement BricsCAD BIM. We want to solve the problems workflow-by-workflow and deliver enough differentiation. We are not trying to play the replacement game; we are trying to play the differentiator game.   Bricsys CEO Erik de Keyser introducing BricsCAD V20 Q: You are playing a replacement game. You are replacing AutoCAD for starters, and then potentially replacing Revit.  A: We are talking about BIM [with regards to differentiation]. Of course, we will continue to try to replace AutoCAD. AutoCAD is, in our estimation, a billion-dollar market. It allows us to fund all this creativity that you see, to deliver a better BricsCAD. Q: AutoCAD is a billion-dollar market to Autodesk. If you combine [BricsCAD's] Bimify with SketchUp, it is a good way to begin. SketchUp, no matter how much you hate it, is one of the key conceptual tools on the market. The IT guys hate it, want to get rid of it, because it doesn't give you anything for the documentation phase.  You have created your own SketchUp clone [BricsCAD Shape]. How do you play with Trimble? Are you foes? Do they see you as Hexagon-vs-Trimble, as both have laser scanning and all that kind of construction stuff? [Trimble owns SketchUp; Hexagon owns Bricsys. SketchUp outputs dumb surfaces; Shape outputs BIM solids. - Ed.] A: We are mindful of SketchUp, but once you do a model you are done. The reason we wrote Shape and spread it to the market is to make it part of the BIM story. We give it away free. Trimble is a friend. SketchUp is a friend. I will say something slightly controversial: Autodesk is a friend. There is room for multiple winners. We think we have good technology, and we will work alongside multiple players.  Q: When you see what they did to that one particular reseller, where they nearly cut his n-ts off-- A: They might not consider us friends, but we consider them as a friend. Those are two very different views. We respect them as a company. We just think we make better software. Q: Can you tell us: how many downloads of Shape? A: One-fifth as many as BricsCAD. When V20 ships, it will include Shape. When the trial license of BricsCAD ends, Shape will continue working. [BricsCAD V20 began shipping last week. -Ed.] Q: How many seats of BricsCAD? A: We sold over 300,000 in the last five years. Over 100,000 active users, growing at high double digits; probably Q3 will be low triple digits [100% or more]. Q: Last year you were talking about selling the Intergraph product [CADWorx] on top of BricsCAD, and then sell to people like Bechtal, saying, 'Get rid of your AutoCAD, because you don't need it anymore.' How is that going? A: It is going a bit slower than everyone thought. In those large companies, doing a change is change. We have some large companies that have already done it, and if you look at the pipeline [future sales] then [unintelligible].  We saw some pushback at BricsCAD, because it didn't have a black background [theme]. If they are pushing back at that level, then what about ripping out AutoCAD and replacing with BricsCAD? That is a huge leap. We have been able to show them in 90 minutes or less that it is a very seamless transition. Parametric working model of am escalator running in BricsCAD Q: The only thing missing is structural. You are doing site, civil, architectural, manufacturing... A: We will not do structural on our own. The Collective [new name for the Bricsys developer network] is a key element here. Autodesk has over 3,000 third-party apps; we have 1,500 already on BricsCAD. The Collective is only for those whose software integrates deeply into BricsCAD. We expect 30, 40, 50 Collective solutions that integrate deeply, along with regional ones. BricsCAD will be like iOS: installing an app takes 1-2 minutes. Because BricsCAD is based on DWG, everyone can share drawings with any sub-vertical. The model is there; the analysis might be in a separate file. The other guys still have not cracked the manufacturing-building nut, without export and re-import. We have the ability to do all this inside BricsCAD. Scan to BIM At the conference, Bricsys announced a scan-to-BIM initiative with Leica laser scanning and HOK design firm. The plan is to 3D scan buildings, and then eventually create IFC-compatible 3D solid models. --- Q: Scan-to-BIM doesn't exist. It is a complete ass. It's scan to sh-tloads of work and then you get BIM at the end. Scan-to-skin [surfaces] is doable. A: You scan every room, then you scan the outside of the building: the void that is created is the model.  Q: It's negative CAD. A: That's right. We are going to derive geometry, using intelligence, then derive solids, and then use Bimify to get BIM. Scan-to-BIM is not one step, but several steps, and most of them are automated. [Bimify identifies solids in a 3D model and classifies their IFC status, such a slab, wall, opening, or door. - Ed.] Q: Bimify works only with solids? A: Yes. Q: So you can take geometry from anywhere, like a nasty mesh with holes and all, and then things are separated, then you make solids from it, and Bimify it?  A: Yes, that is the flow that we have in mind. It's not that you scan and automatically have a BIM model -- of course not! But the steps will be 95% automated. What we see in that area is too many man-hours. Q: Scan-to-skin is a reference point: do the inside and the outside. We have some voids where we have no idea what is in the inside.  A: We will have to get rid of some rubbish. If there are sculpted walls-- it depends what you want to do with them. If you want to [unintelligible], then you better be sure you have all the details. But if you want to re-purpose them for structural reasons, I want those walls clean to do my design work. A firm doing renovations and replacing portions of substructures is talking about material accuracy of 0.25% [using BricsCAD]. They've never been able to get anywhere near that, because now they are modeling in solids, so everything is accurate. We are talking about 6mm accuracy in the space. That's more than enough for AI to look at rooms and make intelligent decisions about how this room is laid out, and then flag areas where there are discrepancies. Conference attendees during coffee break Q: How many people do you have working on AI? A: Ten. That's the advantage of the [small] size of company we have: the communications lines are really short. An AI guy talks to a BIM guy, and they literally sit next to each other to have a philosophical conversation. http://www.bricsys.com   Letters to the Editor Re: Readers Respond -- Why Does CAD Hate CAM? I enjoyed reading the comments from Bob McGill. Bob and I go way back to our days at Point Control (SmartCAM) and CAMAX (Camand) where we had many conversations on this topic.  As Bob observed with the advent of additive manufacturing (AM) it seems we have lost interest in the whole topic of CAM from a traditional subtractive perspective.   A number of years ago, I wrote a series of articles for Desktop Engineering explaining CAM to a CAD audience so that CAD folks might understand the fundamental differences between the two.  With the introduction of AM, some may think that the Design to Manufacturing chasm has been resolved.  AM may have shifted the emphasis of some of manufacturing’s challenges, but it is not a panacea.  We still have issues of fit, finish, and fixturing with AM though it has nuanced how these come into play. When PMI [product manufacturing information] was added to Autodesk Inventor it was with the intention to ultimately facilitate automating machining for mechanical parts.  The vision of driving manufacturing from non-nominal data (i.e. GD&T [geometric data and tolerancing]) has still not been realized, even with Autodesk’s acquisition of CAM companies. Other MCAE [mechanical computer-aided engineering] companies have made progress in this area, but it is still ripe for significant advances, particularly in terms of AI or knowledge-based systems. And thankfully technology continues to advance. One area that offers considerable potential is graphics (GPU) hardware which is being harnessed to perform computationally intensive operations. Machine simulation has relied upon voxel/dexel technology to simulate material removal. With today’s hardware, not only can this simulation be directly supported, but it could become the basis for an entirely new generation of machining algorithms based on material removal volumes. Time will tell! BTW, CAD also works with tolerances, but these are notions of numeric precision -- concepts like coincident points and co-incident angles are fundamental in CAD algorithms. At one point, I had toyed with the idea of expanding these constructs to encode geometric (machining) tolerances (since the numeric tolerances could be way more precise than geometric tolerances), making geometric tolerances a fundamental aspect of the product representation and associated algorithms.  Maybe a future area of development.      - John Callen, director of eTools marketing        Lutron   Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Victor Ferreira  R L Capper  To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of grabowski@telus.net. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada. Notable Quotable "I don't think anyone in the mid-20th century would have predicted China and India would beat all Europe to the moon."     - Richard Fernandez (@wretchardthecat on Twitter)

Readers Respond: Why Does CAD Hate CAM?

Issue #1,031

 

Moderated by Ralph Grabowski   I really enjoyed your newsletter addressing the still-troubling aspects of CAM [computer-aided manufacturing].  Frankly, I was starting to think that no one cared about the subject any more.  As someone who spent many years on the CAM side, but many more on the mechanical CAD side, it always amazed me that the CAD/CAM divide was such a difficult problem to solve. Making tolerancing an easy and straightforward part of the modeling process remains an ongoing CAD challenge. I had an opportunity to speak to several CAM market leaders about the prospects for AI [artificial intelligence] in CAM. I noted a difference between CAM and 3D printing: with 3D printing, there is no CAM programmer. The vendors have automated that task to leverage the strengths of their individual machines.  By contrast, metal cutting is much more complex, but with the advances in AI tools, it seems like a good research area. The quote that sticks out in my memory was “Why would we do that? CAM Programmers are our target customer!” Some of the most exciting developments in CAM are coming not from the CAD/CAM companies, but from manufacturing platforms like Protolabs. I often wonder what would happen if they ever decided to franchise their technology. Thanks for continuing to shine a light on our little industry!     - Bob McGill, president     Engineered Alliances - - -   Your statement “The first CAD systems were developed by McDonnell Douglas (Unigraphics, now NX from Siemens) and Dassault Aviation (now from Dassault Systemes) purposely to output to CAM. “ is incorrect, but I think you just stated it badly.  If you had said “The first CAD systems developed purposely to output to CAM …” then CATIA and Unigraphics might be closer to correct but I think UNISURF would generally be regarded as first. CATIA is obviously not one of “The first CAD systems” since Dassault bought the source code of CADAM (developed by Lockheed) and added 3-D to the top of the existing software. CATIA is short for “Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application,” surprisingly not in French.  I am pretty sure I remember the first CAM applications using G-code were for printed circuit board applications and then parts nesting type applications, and that 3D CAM came several years later. After AutoCAD came out, the typical method for creating G-code was to produce a DXF file and then convert that to G-code. Unfortunately, those systems were notorious for being unmachinable with gaps, zero length lines, etc. I remember writing software in the late '80s to smooth G-code paths, but other than that never really did do much in that realm.     - Scott Taylor, founder     Taylor Made Software - - -   Great article. We’re in a project now where this topic is hitting home. Your quote, "The gulf between CAD and CAM exists because CAD works with mathematical certainty, while CAM works with tolerances, a technical word for "uncertainty," is well said -- nice way to put it.      - Martin van der Roest, president     The vdR Group, Inc - - -   At least the subtractive market (SM) HAD a CAM market. It may have been inefficient, but you could use multiple programs on a given CNC machine. Some work better with some machines than others but... Plus, material properties were well known, so you could be more certain of achieving the desired outcome. In the additive market, it is machine by machine, additive process by additive process, with variations for every material. Plus, they can't even agree on the geometric representation. Voxels anyone?  (Don't get me started about, 'Can AM [additive manufacturing] parts made with a metal have the same properties and performance as SM parts cut from it?' The simulation companies have a lot of work to do and money to make.) I think that is part of what Autodesk was trying to do with their Spark AM initiative a few years ago: provide a more common interface between CAD and AM. It did not survive. This is an area with so much promise but so many complexities to consider. Thanks for being in the middle of it.     - Stan Przybylinski, vice president     CIMdata, Inc The editor replies: Across the pond, Martyn Day has been pounding home the disconnect between BIM and CAM for construction. See, for example, aecmag.com/technology-mainmenu-35/1885-the-generation-game - - - I have to say, your article on CAD/CAM is totally wrong. I have produced manual drawings and proceeded to 3D CAD in 1982, and still produced engineering documentation. They were not drawings but documents directly generated from the 3D model. The selling point of 3D CAD in the beginning was faster documentation. Most of the 3D CAD users in the beginning were experienced draftsman who were trained in documentation, including tolerancing. Around 1988 surfacing was widely introduced with Pro/E and their solids. The common format was IGES. MasterCAD, SmartCAD and SurfCAM were a few of the PC-based CNC [computer numerically controlled] programs.  From that point on we created the documentation from the 3D model (Which I have coined "AID," associated Information document), which defined the tolerancing just as we did pre-CAD. Actually there is little difference: they now have a dead-nuts model to program from. Solids showed up on the PC in 1995 and solid neutral files showed up on IGES and STEP. Soon most of the CAD/CAM packages could read the native files of all the major programs. The standard delivery out of Boeing was the model (IGES/STEP) and the aid delivered as a print until the turn of the century with introduction of the PDF. I sold every Boeing suppler a copy of PC based 3D CADKEY to work with CATIA 2, 3, 4 and 5 from 1987. We sold SurfCAM, CADKEY CNC and now ZW3D. I still support many CNC programmers! I still send many models and AID to machine shops, sheet metal shop, and mold shops and have done so for 30 years. There is no gap between CAD and CAM. Catia, Creo, KeyCreator, NX, Fusion 360 and ZW3D have integrated CAM. Solidworks, IronCAD, and other programs have third party CNC that work with the programs. Today, there is a bit of a problem since Boeing eliminated the draftsman with the intro of PLM [product lifecycle management] and MBE [model based engineering]. The engineers are not trained in documentation and it has been put aside in importance, causing a bit of a problem. CAD and CAM have been working together for decades.  I never used AutoCAD or any Autodesk products until I was hired as a sales/tech manager to sell the Autodesk manufacturing solution in 2012. References: The 1980's - 3D CAD - The Beginning tecnetinc.com/The%201980's%20-%203D%20CAD%20-%20The%20Beginning.html   The Death of the Draftsman or  “Where has all the talent gone?” tecnetinc.com/The%20Death%20of%20the%20Draftsman.html   The 1990s - 3D CAD/CAM Moves to the PC! tecnetinc.com/The%20Age%20of%20CADKEY.html   Expert Review of ZW3D 2019 tecnetinc.com/ZW3D%20Expert%20CAM%20Review.html     - Joe Brouwer, president     Tech-net Inc  - - -   Great post. Can I re-blog this? It does a good job of covering many things I have been thinking about.  I was recently at a conference listening to a panel of young tech people saying how they're going to fix all the broken and inefficient processes of construction. Not a one of them knew beans, as far as I was concerned. They do not understand the difference between designing and  manufacturing. All the complexities you mention apply to construction, but on steroids.     - Leo Schlosberg, principle     Cary Concrete The editor replies: You have permission to reprint this article with appropriate sourcing, such as: Reprinted with permission from upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. - - - Thanx for the excellent survey of the subject! I can relate to all of it, having reinvented myself numerous times over the years in every way you discuss to keep on par with the competition. I spent the better part of a year learning how to scan, process scan data into CAD data, and 3D print. I wasted a lot of time trying to find a solution for CNC out of BIM data. I even tried automating tank design and other specialty kinds of MCAD, only to find severe limitations without knowledge of VBA (which I'm currently trying to learn, but not doing so well). End result: Not only could I not break into those markets to make a living, but I also could not find a niche to fill with my high-level skills because nobody was willing to pay a reasonable price for this high-level work product. Thanx again for the interesting read, as always!     - Chris Cadman   Letters to the Editor Re: PTC Bought Onshape PTC needs to follow Salesforce's sales structure and system if it wants to be successful in selling a SaaS product. I doubt PTC's existing sales force will be able to do this.     - Bob Mayer, CEO     IMSI Design The editor replies: You are right that PTC has little idea how to sell low-value contracts to small-size businesses. Maybe you should be advising Hepplemann! - - - This brings to mind that perhaps there's a strategic error happening in the CAD market."In the cloud" and "in a Web browser" are not synonymous. For example, you've probably used Zoom or WebEx video teleconferencing software. These applications are in the cloud, but they don't run in a browser. (WebEx does have an in-browser version, but I've never managed to get that to work.) You use a browser up to a point, but once the heavy lifting starts, the browser takes you to a thin client that is purpose-built for the application. That might be a better fit for CAD. They could keep the data and the hard number crunching in the cloud, but continue to do real-time input and rendering locally on the PC. That releases them from the nightmare of trying to build enterprise software in a language and environment (JavaScript/HTML5) that is ill-suited to that task. But it retains the zero-footprint, easy upgrade, cloud data, and SaaS business model that would make cloud-CAD desirable. Similarly on tablets, using a native client to access a cloud service is the norm, because tablet browsers are so terrible. (For example, using the Twitter App on a mobile device, instead of just going to the Twitter Web site.)  In my imagined deployment, only the thin-client would need to be ported to the mobile devices (assuming doing real CAD is even possible in that constrained environment; at least it might be viable for viewing and mark-up).     -Joshua Smith, CTO     Kaon The editor replies: As far as I know, there are only two ways to do CAD by the SaaS method: Do everything on the server and just push raster images of the screen to the browser (like Fra.me, which is an awful experience) Push the vector data from the server to the browser, and then have the browser deal with them. Is there a third method you are thinking of? Mr Smith responds: There is indeed a third option. It’s how apps like Twitter work. Most of work is happening in the cloud, and while you could do the user interface in a browser (and, in fact, there is a mobile Web site that’s similar to the app experience), the native app can do a lot of things that would be impossible in a browser. Simple things like browsing for files, drag/drop from other apps, and supporting various input devices are a mess when you try to put the client in the browser. So instead, you make a thin client that isn’t a CAD program, but it’s also not a general purpose browser. And you can control the software lifecycle of that thin client, which you absolutely cannot with a browser. Imagine you’re a company that has transitioned to a cloud/SaaS CAD solution. A new version of Chrome drops and -- oops -- your CAD program doesn’t work any more. It’s the nightmare scenario, but it’s practically unavoidable. You can’t avoid the browser update, because that exposes you to security threats. But if you do update the browser, your people can’t do their jobs! And you can’t disconnect from the Internet to protect yourself from the security threat of staying back a version, since then your people also can’t do their jobs. A thin client solves that. The vendor can plan new releases and control the deployment, ensuring everything has been tested. - - -   This published story is a good read. Mr. Jon was "spot on" in his comment regarding Autodesk's position on SaaS as the cloud platform when he said, "They [Autodesk] say that the cloud future is SaaS, it's just they don't back it up with the goods yet. We align completely on the idea that you have to have a pure cloud, pure SaaS platform and offering. Autodesk today offers a partial solution, mixing installed software with cloud, partial cloud services, and so forth....."  I can say that I've experienced some "mealy mouth" moments with Autodesk as it pertains to the company's goals and business models moving forward. I digress.  I did want to comment regarding the full-speed-ahead trend we are witnessing moving beyond hardcopy spreadsheets, uncontrolled documentation, 2D or 3D unintelligent models, and as someone stated above, "sharing data by copying files, often thousands of files among different people and tools", and into the buzz of real time simulation, generative design, additive manufacturing, IoT, AR, edge, Manuf 4.0, digital twins, with 5G in there somewhere.  I have begun capturing available documentation and whitepapers in an attempt to wrap my mind around the reason or use of each technology and the play-by-play process in execution. I can say I'm having trouble getting past the security issues of ANYTHING moving to-and-fro on the Worldwide Web.  In researching this topic, I feel like I'm being fed with a fire hose. I appreciate articles like this and the effort I know it takes to publish it. Thanks.     -Stacey Boudreaux, CAD Software Manager     Machine Tech Services - - -   Very interesting issue. It's morbidly entertaining to watch marketing types flail around. I'm sure there are people in the backgrounds of these companies who have been quietly saying, "Let's grow the company by developing products that people need, and selling them at a nice profit."  And the geniuses at the helm jerk the wheel back and forth, chasing every get-rich-quick scheme to grow by buying out other flailing companies and dreaming up new ways to say old things. Somehow, every time I read about SaaS, I think about how obviously ridiculous that would be for every kind of tool that I use. Like if Snap-On barged into my shop every year, took my 19mm deep socket out of the box, and put in a new one just like it, except for some microscopic "improvement" to the logo stamped in it, and then left me a bill for twenty dollars. The engineer's job doesn't change very rapidly. We are still doing the same thing we've always done, figuring out ways to build machinery out of the components that are available.  To imagine that the tools to do that need to undergo radical transformation every couple of years is delusional. I seem to be in a cynical mood, today.  I've now shut the blinds so I can't see the cold, cloudy weather, and I'm going to put some Jimmy Buffett on, and try to do productive work.      - Jess Davis, President        Davis Precision Design  - - - More good reporting! The sell-outs that have been going on over the past 20 years in the CAD software market are appalling, from an American free enterprise capitalism perspective. Americans are supposed to hate monopolies and cartels. Americans even have federal laws with very weighty penalties for forming monopolies and cartels. But they never get enforced against the real perps, that is, the corporate interests which the “idle rich” perpetrate on society. I noted that you said “1997 dollars.” That tweaked me, because it’s a reference to the value that such dollars had back then compared to today (which I’m guessing is your point). Thanx for another informative eZine!     - Chris Cadman The editor replies: I am fascinated by the attacks on the giants of Silicon Valley from some of the Democrats hoping next year to become president, much to the horror of the Googles and Facebooks, who had all along been pandering to progressives over conservatives. "That isn't supposed to be happening," I can hear them muttering. - - - Good analysis and reporting, Ralph. Most of what has been written about this acquisition has been stupid. Your article is a rare exception.     - Steve Wolfe The editor replies: From reading the other reports, they seemed to me largely to be rewrites of the press release as the authors hurried to get out the news. I've been reading PTC conference call transcripts for a decade, and so their "our latest crush" pattern has become quite a regular occurrence.    Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Pat FitzHenry  Ken Etter: "Always enjoy reading your newsletter!" To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of grabowski@telus.net. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada. Notable Quotable "Forgiving a murder from a year ago is baffling to people who can't forgive a tweet from ten years ago."     - Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_ on Twitter)

*5172