Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
rAdam, that's a great flash file! Just saved it. Thanks.
.....
Crodog, amended it some:
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not sure it needs to be stated... and what I think bothers non-scientists is the degree to which the world around us becomes susceptible to scientific inquiry.
The origins of the universe, for instance, and the driver cosmology. In some ways these things are becoming more and more addressable by observation and experimentation. But as that happens it starts to infringe on other traditional ideas of how, what, when and why these things happened. It might seem that scientists are barging in uninvited to this particular party, but it is really just an extension of their work in much less noticeable and more arcane areas of thought.
Another example is evolution, which in its modern form is a potent framework to understand life, it just also happens to make claims about human origins that are hard for many traditions to accept. The science is solid, it is predictive, and it is consistent with what we observe. So the empirical basis of this work succeeds to provide a manner in overcoming our traditional "common sense" because we demonstrate understanding through this empirical procedure, this even though we have very different personal beliefs and experiences than what we come to after being lead by this empirical procedure.
You can say that science isn't doing what some scientists claim its doing. But I'd say it is a quibble, not a substantive criticism, because there is no philosophical refutation to the validity of the process. Worrying over whether or not this is "the truth" is a side show, and a very dreary one at that, when under the big top the real show is the detailed understanding of the universe that we have gained.
We aren't going to wake up from a dream... we haven't dreamed these things... they are real, and they are as true as you wish to make them, empirically.
The position of humans in the universe take a big hit at each major advance in this show. First we learn the earth is not the center of the universe. That was the first "revolution" (and the origin of the meaning of that word used in that way). We learn later that we got to where we are the same as all the other life forms around us... our sun is banished to the outer edge of a galaxy, one of a huge number... that the matter we are composed of is a tiny fraction of what makes up the universe, most of which we are puzzling over to figure out... we exist in a few dimensions of a multidimensional space and that we may be one of a very large number or coexisting universes...
We've been pushed way under the couch, even the dust bunnies seem to be more important that us...
...and so people feel threatened by the further interpretation of this world view on us. I never understood why.
Do you, madbolter1 have any criticism of substance? Science works, it continues to work, it produces knowledge that is applied in many forms, wonderful to terrible. But that path starts with our experience and formulates a set of empirical tests... and guides us to a description of what happens.
If something cannot be tested in this manner, it is beyond science. But what is that?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
i got a good definition of philosophy from a classical greek philosophy class i took:
philosophy is the discussion, among friends, about the way things are.
it'd be nice to engrave that in granite somewhere, within reading distance of camp 4 fire circles. when discussion turns to argument turns to shoving your former friend into the fire, you can no longer claim to be a philosopher.
albert baez was an interesting figure, authoring a textbook which became a standard of the day, participating in a number of inventions thought to be ahead of their time, including the electron microscope, producing many films for physics education. i wonder if they skipped over the formulas. his scrupulous conscience transferred directly to his family's activism, which wasn't limited to joan's. i happened to meet john bachar's dad earlier this year and found he had traveled a similar route, quitting an aerospace job and devoting his life to the teaching of mathematics at about a 50 percent cut in pay at the time. he also marched against the war. perhaps such parents produce brilliant and independent-minded children.
father guido--heard him on a latino radio "garage show" a couple years back. he casually mentioned that pope john paul 1 had been assassinated. strictly fictional, of course. everyone knows that's just a conspiracy theory.
if you read "father sarducci's guide to the confessional," it'll help you remain catholic, get right with god, and go to heaven--and still lead a fairly normal life.
___
"but god does not play dice!" -- albert einstein
"yes he does, you mofo!" -- niels bohr (rough translation from the danish)
|
|
bestill
Trad climber
s. ca.
|
|
Seems to me most of you have overlooked something apropos to this discussion and that is that the Giants won the series. The Giants hail from the supposedly most "gay" city in the U.S. While these games were going on I noticed people praying for their team to win in both cities. So my question is was it dark matter that presided over the games played in San Francisco or was dark matter also present in Texas? An inquiring mind wants to know. brian
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
God Plays Dice
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.
Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
"...but i have found that in real life religion and what someone believes about this stuff is the least important thing to who we are and what kind of person we are."
Couldn't disagree more.
It's time people dealt with it. (Instead of leaving it in the closet or under a rug.) Perhaps now that it is an internet-driven info age - supported by science - they will.
Beliefs matter. Beliefs (i.e., mental holdings) are "behavioral" drivers. They are a HUGE determinate in one's practice of living, walk of life, chosen lifestyle, however you prefer to say it. -Whether it's individual or group (community) or nation or species at large.
.....
EDIT
Actually, it probably depends on context, that is, on how crazy passionate or casual you are about what you believe. My ancestral family was, and my extended family is, traditional fundamentalist in its beliefs. Obedience to God was fundamental to their daily practice. Everything from sex to procreation to combating atheist Communism and science education (esp regarding evolution) was seen and guided through their fundamentalist lens.
And to this day, 10 years after 9/11 most Americans still don't get how fundamentalist Muslims of the Arab world are - motivated in their behavior by what they think Allah (Jehovah) wants. Over there it's way more what you can do for God rather than what God can do for you. Over there, God is perceived as real as the Arabian camel, he's no allegory or mythical figure. Over there, the Abrahamic narrative is taken for real.
Just as Americans in this election cycle don't get why we're experiencing a loss of jobs, so too, they don't get what motivates the average Muslim of the Arab and Persian worlds.
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
Many people would claim that the boundary conditions are not part of physics but belong to metaphysics or religion. They would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the boundary conditions.
Stephen Hawking - "The Quantum State of the Universe", Nuclear Physics (1984)
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
History is cyclical, it seems like a little visit to the Middle Ages is in order- can the Dark Ages be far behind? Damn, how stupid of me, I completely forgot about the Rapture.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
This election night it occurs to me I can put it this way: Till an "atheist" or "nonchristian" or "irreligious" person can be elected to high public office in America (while not having to lie about it, that is, of course), beliefs matter SIGNIFICANTLY in our age and culture. This could be the so-called "litmus test" proving that one's beliefs are not irrelevant or trivial. And so far in sociopolitical history, one of these types could NOT be elected. That's a way to address the point I was trying to make earlier.
We're fools to overlook the role that religious belief - and moreover all belief - plays in electing the political leadership in this democracy.
.....
By the way, sometimes political pundits aren't so smart: Harry Reid's kickin some Angle butt in Nevada tonight. BigMagic!
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
For a significant portion of Americans, especially in, but NOT limited to, the Bible Belt, religion IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THEIR LIVES, and they often and openly state this... Confidently believing it 'makes God happy' and that they get some extra "God Points" for doing so. They believe it with all their hearts, and it shapes the way they live their lives, and even how they think others should live their lives... So, they organize, lobby, and vote en mass, and the end result is the many "Blue Laws" and practices that all have to live buy.(E.g., "dry counties"; no buying alcohol on Sundays; no buying ANYTHING other than food stuffs or toiletries until after 1PM on Sundays; even just last weekend - no Halloween trick-or-treating on Sunday (the 31st), had to do it on Saturday instead' last 4th of July (also on a Sunday) having North Carolina's largest 4rth of July Festivle Parade on Monday the 5th, not Sunday, voting in Fundie morons to school boards, many of whom who have children that have NEVER even been to public schools, etc.)
Many of these same people confidently smile as they deny or dismiss undeniable facts, also like they believe they are being virtuous and thus rewarded with extra "God Points" for 'maintaining the faith' despite reality. Seems for them, ignorance and denial IS considered a virtue.
Think about that for a moment, as a significant potion of people live their lives guided by the desire to please their own version of a mythical figure... They even work together to try to get ALL others in their community (local and national) to live by what they believe 'pleases their God'.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
I think Carl puts it well, in The Dragon In My Garage:
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Nice discussion between Madbolter and Ed. In fact it has been one of the few discussions where I actually felt like I could learn something. But all up I'll give the victory to MB.
As to the Sagan quote above, it just serves to highlight how scientism and its high priests just don't get it. Its like trying to explain the subtleties of a Shakespeare play to a soap opera addict. Clueless. Its almost amusing to hear Sagan going on and on while so drastically missing the point (the point of reality I would say - but that's another argument).
Humans are accustomed to being the alpha entity in this world. If we see an ant walking across the sidewalk, we can ignore it, or we can bend down and block its path, or pick it up, or burn it with a magnifying glass - as is our pleasure. These actions are all expressions of OUR will, not the ants. But if we stand up and walk away, the ant has no capacity to understand what just happened. Its aware that something touched it. But it doesn't know what or why, and it can't investigate and put us in its lab for further probing so to speak. We as humans are the supreme conscious acting subjects of the material world and accustomed to manipulating the other objects of material reality for our own pleasure or curiosity.
But there are - so the argument goes - dimensions of reality (and willful spiritual beings or being in most religions) where we are no longer the subject but the object of THEIR will. Reality - in the big picture - doesn't have to conform to our will nor our probing, but rather, in certain realms we have to conform to the will of an ontologically higher reality. I know its a great blow to the human ego to acknowledge this but we aren't the biggest baddest smartest thing ever to exist.
By definition you can't make God an object of your investigation. If he/she chooses to reveal himself he can do so, and if he chooses to leave us to our own devices he can do that. His/her will is superior to ours.
Now of course Sagan (presumably) hasn't had any spiritual experiences and he doesn't believe in the claims of others as to the existence of other dimensions or higher beings, and that is fine. But all he can honestly say is that he hasn't had any experience with such things and he doesn't trust the reports of other individuals. But to make fun of theists and argue that if he can't capture God in his flour trap then God doesn't exist is beyond stupid.
(edit: point taken- he doesn't say God doesn't exist - he ridicules those who don't limit their conclusions to material evidence.)
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Sagan does not say that god(the dragon) does not exist. He says there is no evidence he does exist. Actually he said it over and over again. So you could not accidently miss it.
It is very easy to refute things that were not said. You just make up something you can refute.
Election season does rub off on people, doesn't it?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Rockermike wrote-
"Nice discussion between Madbolter and Ed."
Alright, I'll go there with you. Help me understand. What exactly did you get out of this discussion that was useful? Let's discuss.
My opening view: I think you bullsh'it. Prove me wrong.
.....
Regarding your post, (1) you conflate "higher beings" and (presumably impersonal) "dimensions." Why not talk about each separately so others can better understand you and so you don't sound so ethereal as Madbolter. (2) You speak of God. Again be more clear so the interested reader can respond. "God" is an indefinite term (kinda like the unitless number 17), so are you referring to the God of Moses (Jehovah), some other ancient local Mesopotamian God (e.g. Marduk) or some "God" (higher power) of your own conception. (3) You say, "all up I'll give the victory to MB." This is so vague, please elaborate.
Who are you, are you an evolutionist, a Christian, a Muslim, perhaps a "theistic evolutionist" - tell us, so we can better understand your thinking. And what is your background, might it be philosophy?
Maybe you're the one missing a point or two. Maybe it is okay that others (Carl Sagan to science educators in general to some of us here on this forum) (a) dare to make decisions (e.g., regarding how life works and how the world works and how we anthropes ought to live our lives) for themselves and (b) dare to express them here at the Taco.
.....
So, let's hear what you got. Some specifics.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Rockermike wrote-
"But to make fun of theists and argue that if he can't capture God in his flour trap then God doesn't exist is beyond stupid."
This is actually every bit as sloppy and flippant as Madbolter's lines.
.....
Perhaps it was this gem of Madbolter that was so intellectually or spiritually satisfying to you, that inspired you to "give the victory" to him:
"Ed, I think that you are basically correct in this assessment. But there is another significant difference between physics and philosophy, and that is what the "truth" predicate is doing.
In a robust Tarskian notion of truth: "'Snow is white' is true iff snow is white." At first blush, this seems consistent with what physics is saying: "We know that 'snow is white' is true iff empirical observation reveals that snow is white."
But the physical interpretation of Tarski's truth predicate builds in epistemological presumptions not found in the original. On Tarski's model, we are correlating "is true" with the FACTS in a robust, metaphysical way having nothing to do with any particular empirical bias. That vast majority of philosophers (apart from deflationists, etc.) accept that Tarski's truth predicate is the best account of "truth" that we have: it correlates an assertoric sentence with the way the world REALLY is (leaving the epistemological question of discovery out of the definition).
Physicists buy the Tarskian model of truth, but also build empiricism into their analysis of "the way the world is.""
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
(edit: point taken- he doesn't say God doesn't exist - he ridicules those who don't limit their conclusions to material evidence.)
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion. Nice...
How is what he saying 'ridicule'? Seriously? Do you think the word 'delusion' is a word of ridicule? Would you be 'ridiculing' Fundie Muslims who blow themselves up by saying they had a delusional belief that lead them to it, or would you just be using the correct term to describe the flawed confident belief in somehting that is wrong?
Perhaps this will help:delusion
A delusion is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.
Or, since, by implication, YOU may be in a group that is seen as delusional, and that your belief in a "dragon" isn't taken as seriously as you think it should, and that offends you since you believe it your "dragon" so strongly?
What, and even how, he is saying it is not ridiculing anyone... What I am saying is not ridiculing anyone, however, HOW I say it often does, as I just don't have the patience to try to explain anything to someone who doesn't CARE to understand...
And, as Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
And that belief is "dragons" is NOT distinct... It is nebulous.
I will try though, and show the utmost patience and courtesyif one only even HINTS and wanting to understand.
You know, Russell's Teapot is another great example trying to point out this type of flawed thinking.
Now of course Sagan (presumably) hasn't had any spiritual experiences and he doesn't believe in the claims of others as to the existence of other dimensions or higher beings, and that is fine. But all he can honestly say is that he hasn't had any experience with such things and he doesn't trust the reports of other individuals. But to make fun of theists and argue that if he can't capture God in his flour trap then God doesn't exist is beyond stupid.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I've been giving a lot of thought lately to whether spiritual experiences are created within the brain only, the materialist view, or come from an unseen source. I do believe it is one of the most interesting questions of our times.
Then I came upon an analogy from my own experience in Nepal and it is this. For many years Radio Beijing, Voice of America and BBC South Asia broadcast into Nepal. This was unknown in the villages however because there was no electricity or radios. Radio waves can't be seen, felt, heard, or tasted with the ordinary senses.
Eventually though, the physical technology improved, the first transistor radios appeared in the villages, and people experienced a whole new dimension to life, becoming aware of something invisible for the first time.
Many people were frightened. Others were sure there was a visible, physical explanation. Thus a number of transistor radios were dismantled, poked and prodded, in an effort to discover the little people hiding out in the small plastic box. Some declared listening to something unseen to be evil. Others however were entertained and began learning new things, leading better lives.
So what if the evolved human brain is like the transistor radio? Finally after millions of years of evolution, capable of picking up invisible energy that permeates our universe, though so far not evident to the human sense organs, only to the brain? Can we really be certain that the perception of an experience produced by human induced electrical stimulation could not also be duplicated by other sources ranging from space aliens to God?
Could we not be equally unsophisticated in our understanding of what the source is, so that like the Nepalese villagers, we can't distinguish between the equivalent of Radio Free Europe and Radio Moscow?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rockermike - you do not know whether or not Carl Sagan had a "spiritual" experience, I would presume that he had, as that sort of experience is common, it is nothing special. But the point I would like to make is that Sagan most likely examined that experience and tried to make sense of it, and in the end he obviously rejected a super-natural explanation. That might be difficult for you to understand or believe, but it is not unlike many other people.
Also, Sagan was not a part of scientism, he was a scientist. His interest in making a popular science series about the universe came at the beginning of the period when we were capable of making precise measurements which laid the foundations for the astrophysics that today has made such amazing progress.
You example of our supposed unique mental abilities is also written in a sloppy manner, but certainly orthodox, that we possess free will and a mental capacity that is quite different from the other living beings. That sort of uniqueness may or may not be an advantage, but there are aspects of our mental capabilities that can be found elsewhere in life. And certainly the ants exist now and have existed long before humans were around to be curious about them, and are likely to exist long after our species is extinct. Your world view has humans at the center of everything, an understandable if childish.
As for "where's Waldo(God)" science does not have a program to eliminate God from the universe. It is simply that as we understand more and more about the universe, there is less and less that we need to attribute to some external intelligence with the capability to create and control the universe. It might have already seemed that way to the Deists in the 17th century, whose God does not intervene in the natural world, having configured the natural laws in the beginning. Knowing God, to a Deist, is to understand the natural world through reason.
Now that science is addressing the origin of "natural law," contemplating the physical parameters of "creation" and the fate of the universe, the Deist's God's role as the "grand architect" is starting to look irrelevant... the logical extension of all this is God's "banishment" from the physical universe.
Even that will that you speak of above is the subject of scientific investigation. I have no doubt that its origin can be tracked down and explained, without resorting to any supernatural explanation.
Simply put, there is no reason to invoke the super-natural to explain the natural, and that becomes more and more obvious as we make scientific progress. It was obvious to a few brave thinkers 300 years ago.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
I've been giving a lot of thought lately to whether spiritual experiences are created within the brain only, the materialist view, or come from an unseen source. I do believe it is one of the most interesting questions of our times.
Jan, perhaps you may find some info here, or here.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
rrrAdam-
I am not referring to religious belief which starts from an already established set of premises. I am referring to mystical spirituality where one quiets the mind and waits to see what happens. I am more interested in the experimental than the theoretical.
In my experience so far what I have found is that changes first occur to the biochemistry of the the brain and body, then the electrical activity, and then there are many things that happen unexpectedly even when one is not meditating. Of course this process takes many years and one's world view is changed though one doesn't necessarily interpret these experiences within an established religious framework.
Eventually, things that are said to be scientifically impossible (healings, precognition, intuitions that put a person in the right place at the right time to help someone, maybe even save their life, are experienced which help oneself or others, if one is open to them. Of course a materialist will just write them all off as statistical anamalies but for those who experience them, they are real, and they were worth making the effort for.
Perhaps it is even the wrong approach to ask where such experiences come from. Maybe it is enough to simply be grateful that the human mind is capable of experiencing such things, whatever the source.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!