Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio, Hello Unhappy Friday. I am Holly Frye and
Speaker 1: I'm Tracy V.
Speaker 2: Wilson.
Speaker 1: And we talked about Margaret E.
Speaker 2: Knight this week.
Speaker 1: We did Okay, we got to talk about the picture.
Speaker 1: I Yeah, if you do a search anywhere for Margaret E. Knight,
Speaker 1: there's one picture this shows up, and it's not her.
Speaker 1: It seems to me like, obviously not her. It's a
Speaker 1: very beautiful woman who looks very glamorous but also casual,
Speaker 1: and she looks like she's wearing like a shirt from
Speaker 1: maybe the nineteen forties, long after Margaret had passed. I
Speaker 1: don't know where this photograph came from or why it
Speaker 1: proliferates as the image of her. I found exactly one
Speaker 1: image of her.
Speaker 2: Ever.
Speaker 1: It was from a very very old newspaper, and it's
Speaker 1: when she was quite advanced in years, and it's like
Speaker 1: her standing in her workshop, surrounded my machinery. And it
Speaker 1: is obviously not a woman that looks like the woman
Speaker 1: in this photograph.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and the woman in the photograph all her hair,
Speaker 1: her top, everything, it is not from the era that
Speaker 1: this woman actually lived in. It is like nineteen forties,
Speaker 1: is what it looks like. I don't know why that happened.
Speaker 1: I kept I was starting to think I had taken
Speaker 1: crazy pills, because I was like looking all over going
Speaker 1: who is this woman doing reverse Google image searches for her?
Speaker 1: I don't know who that woman is in the photo
Speaker 1: that is used all the time. I only found one
Speaker 1: instance of like a reputable place going, hey, we took
Speaker 1: that picture down because that seemed wrong, but we don't
Speaker 1: know what it is. And that was like on an
Speaker 1: article by the Smithsonian. I don't know why that picture
Speaker 1: became the one. Someone shared it somewhere and everybody picked
Speaker 1: it up, but that's it. Not I went down the
Speaker 1: same rabbit hole that you did, because I was like,
Speaker 1: this looks like it would have been a picture of
Speaker 1: one of my grandmothers, which is decades too recent to
Speaker 1: be this person. Yes, And so I went down a
Speaker 1: very similar rabbit hole of like the Google image search
Speaker 1: and the like. There's a website called teni dot com
Speaker 1: where you can search images and try to figure out
Speaker 1: and the earliest results that I saw there were from
Speaker 1: like twenty fourteen, and all of them were supposedly they
Speaker 1: were all they were supposedly hurt, and I was like, this,
Speaker 1: this seems like a real it's a real person.
Speaker 2: This doesn't it. It's not this person.
Speaker 1: I found exactly one article that seemed to be trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who this person was, and speculated that
Speaker 1: it was a different Margaret E. Knight, who did exist
Speaker 1: and served in probably the Women's Army Corps or something
Speaker 1: similar during World War Two, which would have been the
Speaker 1: right age for this person.
Speaker 2: But I found the same thing.
Speaker 1: But it's like, we think, shrug, yeah, but and like
Speaker 1: nothing I could find that actually identified who this person was.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's a little bit different from the conversation
Speaker 1: that we had about Rebecca Crumpler, who we talked about.
Speaker 1: There are no known pictures of her, but there are
Speaker 1: other There are pictures of other women that are used
Speaker 1: as pictures of her. Those other women, though, are at
Speaker 1: least contemporary the same era as her, and had other
Speaker 1: common traits. Like most of the other women that, like
Speaker 1: the pictures are used, they're all black women, all from
Speaker 1: about the same area, all working in medicine or nursing
Speaker 1: in some way. But here we have Margarety Knight and
Speaker 1: we don't know who from a different time period that
Speaker 1: came from. We don't know where. It's weird, it is weird,
Speaker 1: and it's there are a few different things that I
Speaker 1: think part of the problem is that I mentioned in
Speaker 1: the episode towards the end, like I wish we knew
Speaker 1: more about her from her own perspective, and we don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of that, And so I think people
Speaker 1: have really pieced a lot together over the years, you know,
Speaker 1: Like I found myself looking at a lot of patent
Speaker 1: filings to get essentially her own language, which was all
Speaker 1: very mechanical and technical, but like, and that one interview
Speaker 1: from Woman's journal is really the one that like is
Speaker 1: the foundation of a lot of other articles about her,
Speaker 1: but they don't really articulate anything beyond you know, sort
Speaker 1: of her recollections of things, right, And so it is
Speaker 1: a little bit tricky, which is why I found myself
Speaker 1: down many rabbit holes of like when was the Eastern
Speaker 1: paper Bag Company founded? And there have actually been two,
Speaker 1: because there was another that was founded later, which gets
Speaker 1: confusing also, and there was like a patent court case
Speaker 1: different from the kind that she was embroiled when with
Speaker 1: Charles Annon, where the paper bag company sued another bag
Speaker 1: company for a process that they were using that Eastern
Speaker 1: said it had patented, but Eastern wasn't using that patent
Speaker 1: and they weren't using that process, and so the other
Speaker 1: company was trying to argue, like, you can't tell us
Speaker 1: we can't do it, you're not even using it. And
Speaker 1: actually the judgment was like, no, they can't tell you
Speaker 1: you can't do that, And it doesn't matter if they're
Speaker 1: making the bags or not. It's just another fascinating thing.
Speaker 1: But again, that's not about her. So it was a
Speaker 1: little bit a little bit kooky and tricky to try
Speaker 1: to find stuff like even the name of the person
Speaker 1: that she went into business with to found that company.
Speaker 1: His name is never mentioned in anything like anything, so
Speaker 1: I don't know who that was. If we knew that,
Speaker 1: we could trace down some other stuff, I think, which
Speaker 1: explains in many ways why Margaret Knight's story gets a
Speaker 1: little muddled in various places, like even in her obituaries.
Speaker 1: They didn't have enough to go on that they didn't
Speaker 1: feel compelled to make some stuff up or fill in
Speaker 1: some blanks themselves, right, which I understand, But also it
Speaker 1: is I love her story because I love the idea
Speaker 1: of someone that just can't help but make stuff and
Speaker 1: invent things. I hate that that started because she had
Speaker 1: to witness something horrific when she was just a kid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I certainly admire the fact that her reaction was
Speaker 1: not like, Okay, I'm going to live in this trauma forever.
Speaker 1: I'm going to figure out a way to try to
Speaker 1: fix this, which is really admirable in a twelve year old.
Speaker 1: Look at you, they're shuttle in hand. There is so
Speaker 1: I don't. This is a piece of my desk decor.
Speaker 1: But as we started working on this, I was like,
Speaker 1: I literally have a shuttle which I think is from
Speaker 1: a machine loom. It definitely has like metal points on
Speaker 1: either end. It looks exactly like others I looked at
Speaker 1: during the process.
Speaker 2: It's heavy.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine that getting shot off of a machine
Speaker 1: that had like pneumatic power to it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, to your face.
Speaker 1: Like, this is like lawn dart level of head injury. Yesh,
Speaker 1: scary Yeah, scary. Now people are gonna be like, Tracy,
Speaker 1: show me the thing I don't. You can find pictures
Speaker 1: of antique machine looms online super duper easy. Tracy does
Speaker 1: not need to show us. But it's exactly like the
Speaker 1: or her shuttle. Yeah, I mean it's I hope nobody
Speaker 1: was like, why are you explaining how a loom works
Speaker 1: to us? But like, I feel like if you don't
Speaker 1: understand what's happening with the weave, it's hard to understand
Speaker 1: what the shuttle does, right, And so it's like the
Speaker 1: thought of this shuttle just whipping off of there because
Speaker 1: a thread snapped is because what that means too, is
Speaker 1: that if you're the one working that machine, it's probably
Speaker 1: not you that's getting hit. It's probably the person to
Speaker 1: your right or left on the line. Yeah, it's your
Speaker 1: neighbor on the next machine, which is really upsetting to
Speaker 1: think about because then like a machine has failed and
Speaker 1: you feel like it was your fault that they got injured. Like,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of layers of things that she
Speaker 1: kept people from having to experience because as a twelve
Speaker 1: year old, she's like, why has nobody fixed this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, a twelve year old having to work in a mill.
Speaker 2: That is just heartbreaking to me.
Speaker 1: I know that is not an uncommon story, yeah, but
Speaker 1: it still just breaks my heart. And I really I
Speaker 1: don't want a dog on people who talk about like
Speaker 1: she died with less than three hundred dollars. Like, if
Speaker 1: you've listened, there is a Memory Palace episode about her,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of part of the end, and it
Speaker 1: is pitched is very sad. But to me, I'm like,
Speaker 1: what do you mean she lived independently? She didn't, She
Speaker 1: wasn't carrying debt nobody. She lived her life exactly that
Speaker 1: she wanted at a time when like if she had
Speaker 1: said I want to be an inventor when I grow up,
Speaker 1: and I just want to live independently and I don't
Speaker 1: want to get married, I don't know if she wanted
Speaker 1: to get married. We know nothing about her personal life,
Speaker 1: but like, you know, I'm just gonna do my thing
Speaker 1: forever and live in my machine shop and make stuff.
Speaker 1: People would have been like, honey, you can't do that, right,
Speaker 1: Well I did. Look, I did totally did that thing
Speaker 1: you said was impossible. Right to me, it's maybe that's
Speaker 1: a point of view thing where I'm like, that doesn't
Speaker 1: sound sad to me. That sounds like now, No, I
Speaker 1: would have been sadder if she had amassed a great
Speaker 1: deal of wealth and then had no obvious air and
Speaker 1: people fought over it and it got squandered away on
Speaker 1: nothing or like given to companies. Yeah, we've occasionally talked
Speaker 1: about various people on the show before who like they
Speaker 1: wanted to do a thing and they spent their life
Speaker 1: doing a thing and they never got rich off the thing,
Speaker 1: but like they were doing it. And we've like occasionally
Speaker 1: heard from people who were like, I don't know why
Speaker 1: you framed this as a failure, And I'm like, I
Speaker 1: don't think we did right, Like, uh, you know, not
Speaker 1: with incredible wealth doesn't feel like failure to me.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I think.
Speaker 1: The reason it probably feels like a failure when people
Speaker 1: are considering it is that today that's the gold standard
Speaker 1: of achievement. Right, you got rich because you were so smart,
Speaker 1: but like there's wealth and richness that has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with dollars and like having the life that you
Speaker 1: wanted and apparently, I mean that doesn't sound like she
Speaker 1: would have been suffering or struggling in any way financially.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a pretty sounds that sounds rich to me.
Speaker 1: Like she got to enjoy her life, do what she wanted.
Speaker 1: She answered to no one essentially, I mean, that's like
Speaker 1: that's unheard of today. There aren't that many people that
Speaker 1: can make a life where they they don't have to
Speaker 1: work for somebody else. There are a handful, and that's great.
Speaker 1: But like that and supporting yourself that way, doing the
Speaker 1: one thing you have loved since you were a little
Speaker 1: kid sounds great. That sounds like success to me. I
Speaker 1: hope we find another picture of her that is really
Speaker 1: of her. I think that one that I mentioned earlier.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure about the rights on it, because I
Speaker 1: feel like there's like the newspaper thing sometimes causes other
Speaker 1: Oh it should have expired theoretically, but it may have
Speaker 1: been part of like renewals on group batch images and stuff.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, but I do really love and
Speaker 1: I hope maybe we use one of the sketches from
Speaker 1: one of her patent applications. Maybe the blanket, because it's
Speaker 1: so funny to me to see the horses kicking up
Speaker 1: dirt as part of the illustration of how it works.
Speaker 2: I think it's great.
Speaker 1: The skirt would be great, except it just looks like
Speaker 1: a big round thing with buckles on it. So Margaret Knight,
Speaker 1: I salute you because you sound incredibly smart, and I
Speaker 1: hope you were a delight to be around. We don't
Speaker 1: know much better personality, Like I said, but I'm very
Speaker 1: thankful because I mean, we're still using, you know, machine
Speaker 1: made flat bottom shopping pegs today. They are a standard
Speaker 1: part of life. And I'm sure somebody may have figured
Speaker 1: it out, but she was the one who did it,
Speaker 1: so I'm very grateful. This week, one of the things
Speaker 1: we talked about was Henry Martin, Robert and Robert's Rules
Speaker 1: of Order, brought on just by my curiosity of like,
Speaker 1: who was this Robert person. There were some moments during
Speaker 1: research that I almost slowly backed away from all of this, Right,
Speaker 1: was it all the we don't really know their thing
Speaker 1: about slavery and a lot of people have made this
Speaker 1: kind of a fairy tale. Yeah, that's one of the
Speaker 1: I read a whole paper again. The paper was written
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve. There is a biography that came out
Speaker 1: after this where the whole thing was like, this is
Speaker 1: a giant hole. Not all of his papers are in
Speaker 1: the Library of Congress. Some of the papers seem to
Speaker 1: have been closely guarded by the family. There are some
Speaker 1: parallels to me between Henry Martin, Robert and Emily Post.
Speaker 1: So Emily Post, big bestseller of etiquette stuff. She and
Speaker 1: descendants made the Emily Post Institute, who like continue sort
Speaker 1: of putting out those works and also maintaining the image
Speaker 1: of Emily Post. Right, So the Roberts Rules Association was
Speaker 1: formed by his direct descendants in nineteen sixty. It is
Speaker 1: still made up of direct descendants and seems to have
Speaker 1: been very protective of, like Henry Martin Roberts's image, what
Speaker 1: papers have been available for historians and biographers to have
Speaker 1: access to. So this new biog that just came out
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago, the writing on it started
Speaker 1: back in the fifties by somebody who was talking directly
Speaker 1: to family members and had more access to family papers
Speaker 1: than anybody else has. But that person died and then
Speaker 1: the work was finished much more recently by somebody else.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that the things that were pointed
Speaker 1: out in this paper from twenty twelve, the Elusive Henry
Speaker 1: Martin Robert a Historical Problem in the Journal National Parliamentarian
Speaker 1: by Donald Fishman, I really felt like this new book
Speaker 1: did not resolve any of the things that that paper
Speaker 1: pointed out, is like stuff that we just don't know.
Speaker 2: We don't know what he thought about any of this.
Speaker 1: So that was a thing that made me kind of
Speaker 1: want to back away slowly because I was like, is
Speaker 1: there something happening here that is being concealed?
Speaker 2: Don't know.
Speaker 1: Next thing that made me want to back away slowly,
Speaker 1: there is stuff that has been put out by the
Speaker 1: current Robert Rules Association that refers to Henry Martin Robert
Speaker 1: just as the General in a way that had a
Speaker 1: tone of like a lot of deference and almost hero
Speaker 1: worship to me, and also sort of the implication that
Speaker 1: everybody knows who the General is without specifically naming him.
Speaker 1: And I was like, that's a little weird. Next thing
Speaker 1: that almost caused me to back away slowly. There is
Speaker 1: a brief biography of him that was written in nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty five and reprinted in nineteen ninety three by someone
Speaker 1: named Ralph C. Smedley, And I was like, who is
Speaker 1: Ralph C. Smedley? And the answer is the founder of
Speaker 1: Toastmasters International. Now, if you are in Toastmaster's International, I
Speaker 1: am not criticizing you personally. However, especially in the years
Speaker 1: after Holly and I joined the podcast, we got emails
Speaker 1: from people who described themselves as active in toast Masters
Speaker 1: International and rather than listening to and engaging with the
Speaker 1: content of our podcast. They had counted the number of
Speaker 1: filler words that we used and sent us an email
Speaker 1: with the total number of the filler words and an
Speaker 1: explanation of how bad filler words are. And that caused
Speaker 1: me to have preconceptions about Toastmaster's International.
Speaker 2: And so when I realized that.
Speaker 1: This biography was by the founder of toast Master's International.
Speaker 2: Also by the.
Speaker 1: Way it is titled The Great Peacemaker, I was like, oh, no,
Speaker 1: am I going to upset the toast Masters people and
Speaker 1: the Roberts Rules people. And I had sort of a
Speaker 1: and then I was like, the only way out is
Speaker 1: through continuing on with this. There's just a lot of
Speaker 1: writing about him that has a tone that I would
Speaker 1: call almost fawning in how it talks about him, and just.
Speaker 2: This careful, careful control of his image seems a little
Speaker 2: fishy to me.
Speaker 1: In this biography, Ralph Smedley also frames him as having
Speaker 1: prevented or stopped a million fights, and I was like, hey,
Speaker 1: Ralph Smedley, did you never see two people get into
Speaker 1: a big fight about some point of parliamentary procedure? I
Speaker 1: would argue, sure, he prevented a lot of fights by
Speaker 1: giving people an organized way to have meetings and disagree
Speaker 1: with each other. But they're sure are people that have
Speaker 1: big arguments about the finer points of parliamentary procedure.
Speaker 2: Something I had in.
Speaker 1: The episode that I took out because it is funny
Speaker 1: to me, but I also did not feel like it
Speaker 1: was actively contributing to the episode in the way that
Speaker 1: I wanted. It is a pair of Webster's defines. Webster's
Speaker 1: defines parliamentary law as the rules and precedents governing the
Speaker 1: proceedings of deliberative assemblies and other organizations. Webster's defines a
Speaker 1: deliberative assembly as a non legislative organization that conducts meetings
Speaker 1: according to parliamentary law. And I was like, Webster, you
Speaker 1: just went a circle there. Again, there are legislative bodies
Speaker 1: that do use Robert's rules, not Congress.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: Have you ever played Nomic? That's all I could think
Speaker 1: of through this whole episode. Now, So Nomic was do
Speaker 1: you know what it is? No? It was a game
Speaker 1: that was created in nineteen eighty two by Peter Suber,
Speaker 1: and it kind of makes me think about Robert's Rules
Speaker 1: of Order in a different way because the point of
Speaker 1: nomic is that the participants in it can change the
Speaker 1: rules as they go to essentially craft whatever they want.
Speaker 1: But it's all based on like kind of a parliamentary
Speaker 1: procedure of participation, where it's like, I move that this
Speaker 1: immutable rule, which means that would take precedence over a
Speaker 1: mutable rule, be made mutable. Everybody can vote on it,
Speaker 1: and then that rule can then be changed on the
Speaker 1: next round. I'm doing a very simplified version. It's the
Speaker 1: point of it. The point of the game is to
Speaker 1: show kind of the problem of sets of rules, right,
Speaker 1: because as you continue to develop and massage the rules,
Speaker 1: it is always at some point going to contradict itself. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: because once you know, you start getting into especially specificities
Speaker 1: of like no, when player three turns to the right,
Speaker 1: all other players have to consider this, you know, point
Speaker 1: of order whatever, and eventually things like that are just
Speaker 1: going to lock into themselves in a way that doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense anymore. But that's all I could think of
Speaker 1: with Robert's Rules of Order, and wondering whether or not
Speaker 1: he ever reached a point during the various new version
Speaker 1: and revisions he did where he was like, uh, oh,
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta rework my parameters here because I
Speaker 1: have gone too far.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There, I read some descriptions of him that that you know,
Speaker 1: described him as a little pedantic, which I mean, if
Speaker 1: if a thing you want to do is write rules
Speaker 1: about how to have good meetings, it makes sense.
Speaker 2: I was like, did we need that description?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: We have it in the in his body of work.
Speaker 1: But then also it does seem like during his lifetime
Speaker 1: he was like, like, what, whatever your organization organization is,
Speaker 1: this is like a template for you to use. If
Speaker 1: something in it is not working for your organization, you
Speaker 1: don't have to stick to it just because it's what
Speaker 1: I said in the rule.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot.
Speaker 1: There's some stuff that is outlined in Robert's rules that
Speaker 1: you'll see on quick Reference, the guides and stuff that
Speaker 1: makes total sense to me that I feel like can
Speaker 1: be a really good way to structure a meeting, like
Speaker 1: calling the meeting to order. Having an agenda can be
Speaker 1: very helpful to make sure things are on track. Uh,
Speaker 1: dealing with the old business or stuff that was from
Speaker 1: the prior meeting, dealing with anything remnants from that before
Speaker 1: moving on to the new stuff. Having any debates any
Speaker 1: other thing that's happening and then adjourning the meeting makes
Speaker 1: sense to me when you get into the different types
Speaker 1: of motions that can be introduced, and which ones can
Speaker 1: be debated, and which ones can be amended, and which
Speaker 1: ones take precedence over other ones. A lot of times
Speaker 1: in some of the quick references, there's basically a table,
Speaker 1: and that is where my brain starts to kind of swim.
Speaker 2: In terms of how this all actually works.
Speaker 1: In our four age meetings back in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: we were not down in the nitty gritty of different
Speaker 1: types of motions to be introduced. To me, it was
Speaker 1: more like practice for the kind of business meetings we
Speaker 1: might have as an adult, which is kind of funny
Speaker 1: because my adult life has included i think think zero
Speaker 1: zero organizations that have been running their meetings with Robert's rules.
Speaker 1: Because even though I live in Massachusetts, I've only lived
Speaker 1: in cities in Massachusetts, not in a town that is
Speaker 1: having town meeting. I haven't been in an hoa. Like
Speaker 1: there was technically an HOA in at the neighborhood that
Speaker 1: I lived in when I had a house outside of Atlanta,
Speaker 1: but like that was a very laid back hoa, it
Speaker 1: was not running any kind of specific meeting like that in.
Speaker 2: Terms of Robert's rules.
Speaker 1: I do, however, know people who are like on the
Speaker 1: board of a nonprofit or they are part of a
Speaker 1: really established organization that has been around for one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty years that is conducting business meetings using Roberts rules.
Speaker 1: Like there are are people and still just kind of
Speaker 1: ironic to me that my four h meetings were preparing
Speaker 1: me for something I didn't actually use. Well, I think
Speaker 1: here's here's my takeaway always on Robert tools, because I
Speaker 1: remember I don't remember what class it was in high
Speaker 1: school that I think we had to like really study them.
Speaker 1: And I remember at the time thinking, as a rebellious
Speaker 1: kind of a jerk kid, what the hell are we
Speaker 1: doing this for? And my teacher, who was very very patient,
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, like I get it. You're probably you know,
Speaker 1: not going to govern some meeting like this, but there
Speaker 1: could come a time in your life where you have
Speaker 1: a work meeting or you have this and you don't
Speaker 1: have to follow these rules, but just knowing them is
Speaker 1: going to make you better prepared to even do those
Speaker 1: And I was like, right, all right, all right, yeah, and.
Speaker 2: She was not wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say the culture of our workplace does
Speaker 1: not include having agendas for meetings in many contexts, which
Speaker 1: I often think having an agenda might would help.
Speaker 2: But that's just me sometimes just me anyway.
Speaker 1: I I don't know what person I would have thought
Speaker 1: would be the author of Robert's Rules of Order. Now
Speaker 1: that I know that it was an army engineer, that
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense to me because there are
Speaker 1: aspects of it that are sort of applying an engineering
Speaker 1: mindset to like social behavior. I think one of the
Speaker 1: papers that I read for this had something similar also,
Speaker 1: So yeah, was not what I was expecting in hindsight
Speaker 1: makes sense. So happy, Happy Friday. Whatever's happening over your weekend,
Speaker 1: I hope it is great. You know, if you have
Speaker 1: a meeting to go to, I hope nobody in your
Speaker 1: meeting is abusing Robert's rules to get their own way.
Speaker 1: I hope any rules following in the meeting is leading
Speaker 1: to the end of having a better meeting. We'll be
Speaker 1: back with a Class Aassic episode tomorrow, which I think
Speaker 1: is going to be the Pig War, and we'll have
Speaker 1: something brand new on Monday. Stuff you missed in history
Speaker 1: Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.