String theory is an elegant mathematical construct that attempts to describe the universe as we currently understand it. So far, (John?), it is not amenable to practical testing. Once the state of the art has advanced sufficiently to do so, it will stand or fall. That's science.
phn said:
Ah, ok.
Yah, that's a stretch. String theory is not a fraud. And it is not an attempt to "save" science. It is part of the evolution of it.
Consider a proton..it is made of smaller particles, two up quarks, one down.
A proton mass is .938 Gev/c2
An up quark has .005 Gev/c2, times 2 is .01.
A down, .01 Gev/c2
Sum the parts, total .02 Gev/c2....where is the other .918 Gev/c2??
That is a HUGE anomoly. Where does the mass of a proton come from??????
No matter how far we get, we uncover more questions. String theory is one method being used to answer these things.
If one thinks of this state as proof science is either dead, or foundering, consider this: a century ago, an experimenter proved the electron was a particle, and could be deflected from it's path by a magnetic field. 100 years.
Now, look what we do with that particle..
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
But great many people seem to think it is. I don't think science has been on the ropes like this since the Dark Age, or as the creationsts call it, the Golden Age. Hence we get books like this: http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-...id=1167845072/ref=sr_11_1/104-5737969-7365528
phn said:
A "great many people seem to think it is", must be taken with a grain of salt. The internet allows access to the masses by the few. Now, a single voice can be heard.
It's not because more think that way, but rather, now we are more likely to hear them.
Cheers, John
J-neutron,
Some people, in their ignorance, have rejected the major scientific theories in spite of overwhelming evidence that they accurately describe reality.
Why do you think that YOU can convince someone who has rejected the teachings of every major scientist and mathematician in history that they are wrong to do so?
You can't talk an ignoramous into being smart. It's like trying to talk a green-eyed person into having blue eyes instead. They simply are not equipped to make the change.
Give it up.
I_F
Some people, in their ignorance, have rejected the major scientific theories in spite of overwhelming evidence that they accurately describe reality.
Why do you think that YOU can convince someone who has rejected the teachings of every major scientist and mathematician in history that they are wrong to do so?
You can't talk an ignoramous into being smart. It's like trying to talk a green-eyed person into having blue eyes instead. They simply are not equipped to make the change.
Give it up.
I_F
SY said:
ummm, 42 pounds ?😉
I included everything which has mass.
Gluons are zero, according to the big cheat sheet in the lobby. What, you tink I knows diss stuff????
Cheers, John
I_Forgot said:
The fact that somebody disagrees with me (or things I happen to believe) does not make them an ignoramus. If I convince somebody of something, it doesn't make them smarter either. A little more knowledge perhaps, but not necessarily smarter.
Humanity needs the alternative viewpoints. I think of it as checks and balances. Somebody needs to ask the question...why is it impossible.
On a seperate note, we had a guy here to give a lecture about string theory..this guy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-gates.html
He was exquisitely eloquent in his talk about string theory. Anyone who can, should listen to a talk by him.
In this link, he says something I absolutely concur with:
""Gates: Einstein made the statement once that imagination is more important than knowledge.""
Is there anybody here who thinks that KBK does not have an imagination?
That does not mean ostracize him.
Cheers, John
John, you are more optimistic than I. It may be a loud-mouth minority. But it is a minority that gets its point across. And they use all means, including lie, as in the pathetic Terri Schiavo case.
I_F, it's probably less about "ignoramous" than science has become increasingly complicated. It's no longer about dropping two objects from a tower in order to prove a theory. The Newtonian mechanism people can understand. Even Einsten's theory is something you can grasp even if you don't really understand it. But the 5, 6, 7... dimensions the "string scientists" talk about aren't.
I repeat myself here. The truth is complicated. The lie is simple. The lie is always darker, emptier, simpler than the truth. Every cop on the planet knows that.
In this age of sound-bits and "you're either with us or against us" (a logical fallacy, by the way), it gets increasingly difficult getting complex messages across.
I_F, it's probably less about "ignoramous" than science has become increasingly complicated. It's no longer about dropping two objects from a tower in order to prove a theory. The Newtonian mechanism people can understand. Even Einsten's theory is something you can grasp even if you don't really understand it. But the 5, 6, 7... dimensions the "string scientists" talk about aren't.
I repeat myself here. The truth is complicated. The lie is simple. The lie is always darker, emptier, simpler than the truth. Every cop on the planet knows that.
In this age of sound-bits and "you're either with us or against us" (a logical fallacy, by the way), it gets increasingly difficult getting complex messages across.
I-F I wish you would stop calling people ignorant and stupid when you have made the least useful contibutions to this thread overall. There has recently been a good discussion of point of philosophy, and you wade in with taunts of "stupid". If you can't be constructive then shut up.
Shoog
Shoog
Despite all beliefs to the contrary I have actually achieved free energy.
I have just completed "Big Bertha - the Lard burner", a fully functioning (almost) WVO burner !!!
Shoog
I have just completed "Big Bertha - the Lard burner", a fully functioning (almost) WVO burner !!!
Shoog
KBK,
You appear to be unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between science and the scientist.
The former is a methodology; the latter a person who applies it.
You call science 'insane', and state:
These sure sound like human traits to me.
pm
You appear to be unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between science and the scientist.
The former is a methodology; the latter a person who applies it.
You call science 'insane', and state:
These sure sound like human traits to me.
pm
Hang in there, KBK. I haven't learned much from this interchange, either.
Science, scientists? They are one and the same. Scientists do science. Science is the sum result of what scientists do, and sometimes scientists slow progress, rather than support it. For example: "X-rays are a hoax." What scientist said that in 1900?
Science, scientists? They are one and the same. Scientists do science. Science is the sum result of what scientists do, and sometimes scientists slow progress, rather than support it. For example: "X-rays are a hoax." What scientist said that in 1900?
"My car is too fast. 190mph. My daily driver. Winter too. my record is 145~150mph for about 40 minutes straight, at -25c in the winter, of course....and the car looks innocent. " - KBK
Unless you have had a professional racing career, I have a feeling that I may be somewhat more qualified than you to drive very fast; but my experience and FIA competition license never gave me the right to drive like that on public roads!
I suspected that you had a serious personality disorder before this statement; now I am certain. This type of reckless endangerment is criminal and your belief that you are somehow above the law in this regard is proof of your psychopathy!
Jneutron, I admire your patience and persistence. But you know that all of this is futile. It does not matter to KBK that he is so utterly wrong - every rational argument that you make will be twisted beyond recognition in his mind. That is why he believes that he has rebutted your criticism of his wacky BS when all he does is avoid the subject.
Shoog, since physics is foreign to your understanding, you shoud not tell anyone to "shut-up" - especially I_Forgot. Instead, maybe you should take your own advice.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman
Unless you have had a professional racing career, I have a feeling that I may be somewhat more qualified than you to drive very fast; but my experience and FIA competition license never gave me the right to drive like that on public roads!
I suspected that you had a serious personality disorder before this statement; now I am certain. This type of reckless endangerment is criminal and your belief that you are somehow above the law in this regard is proof of your psychopathy!
Jneutron, I admire your patience and persistence. But you know that all of this is futile. It does not matter to KBK that he is so utterly wrong - every rational argument that you make will be twisted beyond recognition in his mind. That is why he believes that he has rebutted your criticism of his wacky BS when all he does is avoid the subject.
Shoog, since physics is foreign to your understanding, you shoud not tell anyone to "shut-up" - especially I_Forgot. Instead, maybe you should take your own advice.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman
John,
You wrote:
I fail to see the logic in your first statement. Science is an investigatory framework - a process and not an outcome. Anyone can do anything in the name of science, just as I could go out today to play cricket and call it baseball.
Re the latter. Some scientists slow progress, some are pig headed and narrow minded, and some are just plain wrong - that is my exact point !
pm
You wrote:
I fail to see the logic in your first statement. Science is an investigatory framework - a process and not an outcome. Anyone can do anything in the name of science, just as I could go out today to play cricket and call it baseball.
Re the latter. Some scientists slow progress, some are pig headed and narrow minded, and some are just plain wrong - that is my exact point !
pm
It is always interesting to note that western religion hauled the earlier attempts (western attempts) at science into the dark ages via supression and outright destruction. It then...turned around..afforded their own caste with the tools of science to play with, and the free time to do so. Science again arose....from the church itself..and...began the the slow erosion of the church.
You can't keep a good man down. Not all of them, anyway.
Perhaps I will post a point of personal understanding I have been thinking of letting fly here, on the forum. One of many, many personal episodes which illustrate my point quite well.
OK. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, and of course, miscommunication does develop on some things. The book mentioned, was merely stating that: Beginning In the 1890's to the early 1920's... a group of theologist-cum-scientists..attempted to discern, via yogic meditaiton and methods, the visualization of the shaping of atomic structure. This, before it was even remotely mapped, via any scientific method of measurement.
Turns out, they got it right, from the reports of the gentleman (the physisist) who put the stated following book together which was based on the earlier yogic texts/efforts. They (yogi's) seemingly also mangaed to get the shaping and look of the 'superdeformed' atomic structutres (deforrmed electron orbitals) correct as well. The report on the book states 'startling accuracy, on both counts'. Ie, not chance. Not chance at all. Far too much correleation. Far too much accuracy to be fantasy. That is the sole point that I brought to the table. Nothing more. It is one that, after some investigation, is quite difficult to ignore.
Point being, I believe in those capacites of yogic discernment, for some very powerful reasons. Which reasons I have stated, earlier in this thread. That is the point of understanding that the individual must cross for themselves. It is also a fact that in the terms that science deems to be credible and provable, and must exist as point of validity in the eyes of science and scientific method....those proofs do not yet exist.
To some scientists, the multipledisicpliarian ones (some of them) these points of correlation and data are just fine, as they are attempting to find framework and validity in that 'slippery mouse to catch' and kill..and bring the corpse home for the rest of science to ponder.
This is no easy task..and in the meantime, science, overall, ridicules those attempts and the people involved. For the reasons stated, as I see. Blinkered and blind, some can be.
John you yourself stated that 'action at a distance' gives you grief, in some manner.
Perhaps you should consider that such understandings about the nature of 'action at a distance' or the musings of it's orign..are not the sole perview of 'science' itself and also belong to other ares of edeavor as well. Other areas of investgation that desire validity and validation (and strive for) within the scope of propers scientific methodology, as well. They too want to bring that slippery little mouse home- for all to see - as well.
Action at a distance is likely to be shown as a minor player in a far larger game of multiple dimensionalty or as Hudson and crew seem to put it, 2-d fields (similar to the superstring theories) of what may be considered a 'superconductive' (part of their arguement is the superconductive consideration explains the lack of temporality observed in the effects-the superstring part-action at a distance-zero time passed) state of sorts. This, for lack of a better label-within their less scientifically oriented attempts to name the conditions they observe.
Not fraud, no, just they don't use the same language. For that they should not be condemmed, but applauded for reaching out powerfully, against many odds and trying to bring something useful home. To rail against them without investigation - is the point of immature folly.
THese components I know on a deep level, from personal expereince, akin to the yogic considerations. And within the investigation of that, a scientist may find things that can and likely will tear down their existant personal wold view.
The pshycology and philospohy parts rear their head, throughout such investagations. This is due to the pandora's box nature of the investagatin of such, as it will unfold. As I said, the hindbrain, the inner animal, is powerful creature, stronger than the intellect,as it rules the base considerations of the very fabric of the given person. And that inner animal, so to speak, is the sole creator and maintanor of the given psyche. That puppy is a very emotional creature and has total control, no matter WHAT the intellect may believe. The very foundation of the given peson. Me, you, anyone else.
It is only with deep inner reflection and the actual recogntion of that inner character that one can be free of it's controlling influence, that limits the psyche, and steers the intellect. It is in all of us, lurking in the background, whether you beileve it so, or not.
To get to clarity on the very multiple-dimensionality of existence of the creature we call 'human', the individual must calmly and clearly investigate...but one must also gently break that inner critter down to see it clearly. Not break it down really, but alter the layering to maintain a constant state of ever evolving understanding of that critter..so as to get to a clear understanding the universe we stand in and multidimensionally exist within. These things (reaching clarity) happen slowly, not all at once.
Properly thought out questions heve the seemingly strange habit of having the anwser fully formed within them. What I'm saying is that, to understand the infinite as science is attempting to do, first you must understand yourself, otherwise--you aren't going--anywhere. First you must hoist yourself,by your petard,and stare into that bellybutton, very intently and closely. Then you will being to acielve clarity on the infinite.
Point being, is that it is very painful, the kind of thing the inner creature will not stand for. It will do anything, anything at all to avoid being torn down or altered. It is the very emotional force of who and what we all are, internally, that has developed and slowly become the very solidified creature you are today. It begain at birth and earlier, and it's a very nasty and enraged little child. We are all that child. And it fights to the death, to maintain it's state of illusion or position. For it to change, it will have to die a death of sorts.
This has everything to do with the subject at hand, as the subject at hand..is pounding on the door of that world.
Hense the difficulty of it's grasp. The mind itself blocks the understandings. And you do not realize it, unless you truly understand the workings of and are deeply familiar with that inner critter, to a very deep degree.
Once again, you may not think that knowing anything about over unity, string theory, quantum physics, multi-dimensionality, action at distance, psychic phenomena, etc, are all intertwinded, but I tell you that they are.
100% so.
Hense the difficulty of the conceptual logic of it all...and the fight with the inner critter we all have.
Welcome to the battleground. It is deep inside.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Due to that, there is very great chance that arguments about what I say or have said in this post or thread at all, will center on and revolve solely around the point that my science is wrong, in terms of accuracy, point of orign, etc. What happens is, I sadly sit here and watch the whole point I'm attempting to illustrate being ignored and denied, by your inner creature. And that is the very nature of the situation itself, you don't even realize it is happening. Which is what I mean, when I say, 'hoisted by your own petard'. No-one is wrong here. No-one is right here. There is merely misunderstanding, lack of clarity, and lack of communication, or lack of realization of points delivered.
And when you get, in the very materialistic (physical) view and window that science seems to have, to that understanding of the infinite you seem to be striving for --- you will be greeted at the door, by +15,000 years of shamen, alchemists, pyschics, buddhists, intellects, Rennisance men, etc. (Descartes will wave you over, 'have a seat, a beer, you must be famished!')
Welcome, they will say. You took the long way home.
You can't keep a good man down. Not all of them, anyway.
Perhaps I will post a point of personal understanding I have been thinking of letting fly here, on the forum. One of many, many personal episodes which illustrate my point quite well.
OK. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, and of course, miscommunication does develop on some things. The book mentioned, was merely stating that: Beginning In the 1890's to the early 1920's... a group of theologist-cum-scientists..attempted to discern, via yogic meditaiton and methods, the visualization of the shaping of atomic structure. This, before it was even remotely mapped, via any scientific method of measurement.
Turns out, they got it right, from the reports of the gentleman (the physisist) who put the stated following book together which was based on the earlier yogic texts/efforts. They (yogi's) seemingly also mangaed to get the shaping and look of the 'superdeformed' atomic structutres (deforrmed electron orbitals) correct as well. The report on the book states 'startling accuracy, on both counts'. Ie, not chance. Not chance at all. Far too much correleation. Far too much accuracy to be fantasy. That is the sole point that I brought to the table. Nothing more. It is one that, after some investigation, is quite difficult to ignore.
Point being, I believe in those capacites of yogic discernment, for some very powerful reasons. Which reasons I have stated, earlier in this thread. That is the point of understanding that the individual must cross for themselves. It is also a fact that in the terms that science deems to be credible and provable, and must exist as point of validity in the eyes of science and scientific method....those proofs do not yet exist.
To some scientists, the multipledisicpliarian ones (some of them) these points of correlation and data are just fine, as they are attempting to find framework and validity in that 'slippery mouse to catch' and kill..and bring the corpse home for the rest of science to ponder.
This is no easy task..and in the meantime, science, overall, ridicules those attempts and the people involved. For the reasons stated, as I see. Blinkered and blind, some can be.
John you yourself stated that 'action at a distance' gives you grief, in some manner.
Perhaps you should consider that such understandings about the nature of 'action at a distance' or the musings of it's orign..are not the sole perview of 'science' itself and also belong to other ares of edeavor as well. Other areas of investgation that desire validity and validation (and strive for) within the scope of propers scientific methodology, as well. They too want to bring that slippery little mouse home- for all to see - as well.
Action at a distance is likely to be shown as a minor player in a far larger game of multiple dimensionalty or as Hudson and crew seem to put it, 2-d fields (similar to the superstring theories) of what may be considered a 'superconductive' (part of their arguement is the superconductive consideration explains the lack of temporality observed in the effects-the superstring part-action at a distance-zero time passed) state of sorts. This, for lack of a better label-within their less scientifically oriented attempts to name the conditions they observe.
Not fraud, no, just they don't use the same language. For that they should not be condemmed, but applauded for reaching out powerfully, against many odds and trying to bring something useful home. To rail against them without investigation - is the point of immature folly.
THese components I know on a deep level, from personal expereince, akin to the yogic considerations. And within the investigation of that, a scientist may find things that can and likely will tear down their existant personal wold view.
The pshycology and philospohy parts rear their head, throughout such investagations. This is due to the pandora's box nature of the investagatin of such, as it will unfold. As I said, the hindbrain, the inner animal, is powerful creature, stronger than the intellect,as it rules the base considerations of the very fabric of the given person. And that inner animal, so to speak, is the sole creator and maintanor of the given psyche. That puppy is a very emotional creature and has total control, no matter WHAT the intellect may believe. The very foundation of the given peson. Me, you, anyone else.
It is only with deep inner reflection and the actual recogntion of that inner character that one can be free of it's controlling influence, that limits the psyche, and steers the intellect. It is in all of us, lurking in the background, whether you beileve it so, or not.
To get to clarity on the very multiple-dimensionality of existence of the creature we call 'human', the individual must calmly and clearly investigate...but one must also gently break that inner critter down to see it clearly. Not break it down really, but alter the layering to maintain a constant state of ever evolving understanding of that critter..so as to get to a clear understanding the universe we stand in and multidimensionally exist within. These things (reaching clarity) happen slowly, not all at once.
Properly thought out questions heve the seemingly strange habit of having the anwser fully formed within them. What I'm saying is that, to understand the infinite as science is attempting to do, first you must understand yourself, otherwise--you aren't going--anywhere. First you must hoist yourself,by your petard,and stare into that bellybutton, very intently and closely. Then you will being to acielve clarity on the infinite.
Point being, is that it is very painful, the kind of thing the inner creature will not stand for. It will do anything, anything at all to avoid being torn down or altered. It is the very emotional force of who and what we all are, internally, that has developed and slowly become the very solidified creature you are today. It begain at birth and earlier, and it's a very nasty and enraged little child. We are all that child. And it fights to the death, to maintain it's state of illusion or position. For it to change, it will have to die a death of sorts.
This has everything to do with the subject at hand, as the subject at hand..is pounding on the door of that world.
Hense the difficulty of it's grasp. The mind itself blocks the understandings. And you do not realize it, unless you truly understand the workings of and are deeply familiar with that inner critter, to a very deep degree.
Once again, you may not think that knowing anything about over unity, string theory, quantum physics, multi-dimensionality, action at distance, psychic phenomena, etc, are all intertwinded, but I tell you that they are.
100% so.
Hense the difficulty of the conceptual logic of it all...and the fight with the inner critter we all have.
Welcome to the battleground. It is deep inside.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Due to that, there is very great chance that arguments about what I say or have said in this post or thread at all, will center on and revolve solely around the point that my science is wrong, in terms of accuracy, point of orign, etc. What happens is, I sadly sit here and watch the whole point I'm attempting to illustrate being ignored and denied, by your inner creature. And that is the very nature of the situation itself, you don't even realize it is happening. Which is what I mean, when I say, 'hoisted by your own petard'. No-one is wrong here. No-one is right here. There is merely misunderstanding, lack of clarity, and lack of communication, or lack of realization of points delivered.
And when you get, in the very materialistic (physical) view and window that science seems to have, to that understanding of the infinite you seem to be striving for --- you will be greeted at the door, by +15,000 years of shamen, alchemists, pyschics, buddhists, intellects, Rennisance men, etc. (Descartes will wave you over, 'have a seat, a beer, you must be famished!')
Welcome, they will say. You took the long way home.
psych&sound. Had the same thoughts, thats why I had to ask him about his car. Usually only those types of personalities will brag about their car (as apposed to an off-road performance vehicle).
NVMDSTEvil said:
That is, as a point of endeavor, is dangerously weak of you.
I considered you might be genuinely interested in such. I was also trying to take some of the pressure of miscomunication out of the discussion via some sort of identification with John's talk of risking himself and his sons (I'm guessing sons John, pardon me..best to you all-and revel in your distractions-whatever they may be-I'm sure you take precautions- as much as one can) on a black diamond trail, which is no less ludicrious or dangerous than any given vehicle. Which I note he did fail to consider when attempting to speak down to me.
Note the point(s) that John Curl mentioned - have struck home. I knew they would. The attempts at baiting and word twisting. I'm working hard at remaining neutral. I'm seeing bits of that here and there, but overall, not as much as should be. For the reasons stated.
Ego speaks. Be careful of it. You shame yourself, sir.
No, a double black diamond trail is not even close to wreckless driving.
Your prose and grammar are giving you away most overly, however. You always speak of position on high with statements clouded by verse. It is a most tangled web only seconded by poli/laywer speak and quite bluntly, it makes me sick reading it because no real statements are ever made.
This is what gets you into trouble. You claim to makes statements but the rest of us can barely read the drivel falling off your fingertips. Its horrid.
My point in case is nearly everything after the text quoted below.
Your statements after this are mish mash and wishy wash. None of them connect very well while an idea can be seen lurking in the background. That idea is not affirmed until nearly the end of your entire post which means one must go through and read the entire thing (gotta call it a thing, cant give it a name) again with respect to the final comments in order to place everything in perspective and context.
This is the reason for Essay format. It greatly decreases the amount of work needed to do to understand the topics being delivered between debaters. I would suggest that should you wish to appear to be on level with everyone you choose a more coherent writing format and refrain from telling us you get adrenaline highs from risking your life.
I know the gofast effect. I was there one time. Now I need a new one 🙁
Your prose and grammar are giving you away most overly, however. You always speak of position on high with statements clouded by verse. It is a most tangled web only seconded by poli/laywer speak and quite bluntly, it makes me sick reading it because no real statements are ever made.
This is what gets you into trouble. You claim to makes statements but the rest of us can barely read the drivel falling off your fingertips. Its horrid.
My point in case is nearly everything after the text quoted below.
Your statements after this are mish mash and wishy wash. None of them connect very well while an idea can be seen lurking in the background. That idea is not affirmed until nearly the end of your entire post which means one must go through and read the entire thing (gotta call it a thing, cant give it a name) again with respect to the final comments in order to place everything in perspective and context.
This is the reason for Essay format. It greatly decreases the amount of work needed to do to understand the topics being delivered between debaters. I would suggest that should you wish to appear to be on level with everyone you choose a more coherent writing format and refrain from telling us you get adrenaline highs from risking your life.
I know the gofast effect. I was there one time. Now I need a new one 🙁
Same here dude. It is an old freind. I bought the car of my dreams, I did the go fast, and generally speaking, over the past year of ownership, have rid myself of the desire.
I am now going to do my best to use the vehicle as a tool to illustrate how it is possible to met things half way, in the immediate sense. To rid gasoline powered vehicles of the destruction of the environment, which their effluent brings down upon us.
I offer apologies.
Do we agree to do the Rodney King thing, and just get along? 🙂
Edit. The tale I am thinking of adding in here, is not one I have included yet. It is a sad tale but still incredibly uplifting, in it's point of understanding. It is of a great person, a wonderful soul.
It surrounds the sheer beauty of her life..and her death.
Miscommunication - Misunderstanding, is sadly the norm. At least we strive to communicate.
I am now going to do my best to use the vehicle as a tool to illustrate how it is possible to met things half way, in the immediate sense. To rid gasoline powered vehicles of the destruction of the environment, which their effluent brings down upon us.
I offer apologies.
Do we agree to do the Rodney King thing, and just get along? 🙂
Edit. The tale I am thinking of adding in here, is not one I have included yet. It is a sad tale but still incredibly uplifting, in it's point of understanding. It is of a great person, a wonderful soul.
It surrounds the sheer beauty of her life..and her death.
Miscommunication - Misunderstanding, is sadly the norm. At least we strive to communicate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.