More OT Political Stuff

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by Richard, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:leplkvo2o0t7g7sotgnffqa7uu9m3b7tl2@4ax.com...
    >
    > To you, if we destroyed most or all sentient live, we haven't
    > destroyed the Earth, because there are still rocks, certainly some
    > chemicals and possibly some very simple bioforms.
    >

    First of all, humans are the only known sentient (self aware) life, so I
    think you are confusing yourself by trying to use big words to sound like
    you know what you're talking about. Second, life is a boolean property when
    referring to planets, they either have it (bLife == 1 or true) or don't
    (bLife == 0 or false), but it cannot be a necessary part of the planet,
    because we can observe many planets, but the only one on which we have
    observed life is the earth. Without life, the earth is still a planet, very
    much like Mars (but with more water).

    > I contend that if we destroy all sentient life, and all is left is a
    > planet of primordial goo, it is no longer "the Earth". It's just
    > another planetary object, and may as well have a number, rather than a
    > name.
    >
    > We are damaging the Earth, and we are capable of destroying the Earth.
    > Word.
    >

    So Jupiter is not "Jupiter", it is just a glob of primordial goo because
    it contains no life? It wouldn't have a name or even a number without
    someone naming it, so again, this is just a red herring designed to evoke an
    emotional response. The life on this planet is inconsequential from a
    planetary perspective. It matters only to itself (the things living here),
    and has no bearing on matters of planets in general, except in so much as to
    state that life, in fact, does exist here (oEarth.bLife == 1). While I would
    agree that we are capable of destroying the life-sustaining properties of
    the earth, the earth itself is not destroyed, just the single boolean
    property (bLife) is changed to make it more like many other planets we have
    observed (such as Mars).

    Incidentally, I do view the earth as an organism-like entity, not
    "living" in the traditional sense, but having a "life process" of sorts. All
    planets have underlying processes that make them what they are, or at least
    most of them had these processes at one time or another. The development of
    life is only one of these processes. The overall affect of life on the
    surface of the planet seems to be a buildup of atmosphere, an abundance of
    water, and a buildup of organic materials in the substrate (from the
    biological processes taking place), which does tend to protect the surface
    of the planet from certain things, such as solar events, small and micro-
    meteorite impacts, etc. So, while I do agree that the existence of life on
    earth could be seen as a defensive mechanism of an entity that, while not
    technically "alive", exhibits attributes of a living system, I still see
    this as an optional parameter to the validity (for lack of a better word) of
    a planet in terms of your assertion that the earth without life would not be
    the earth. The earth is the earth, with or without us. I would prefer that
    we continue to live here, and would prefer that we kill as few of the other
    inhabitants as possible, but these things really only affect the specific
    content of the atmosphere and the organic residue in the substrate in the
    long run, and have a negligible impact on the planet itself.

    ryanm
  2. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:0drlkv8galngavbfe14sbol4v1eu2q7dv3@4ax.com...
    >
    > Easy. Because we have it within our oh so powerful abilities to
    > destroy that which began it's evolution far before we were here. It's
    > not just us, it is the biosphere we evolved into. It was created long
    > before we got here, but we have the ability stamp it out in, as you
    > say, this tiny bump on the meter. It's not just our time--it is our
    > effect on that which evolved over a much longer period than we have
    > been here.
    >

    Life has not been here longer than life has been here, so your logic is
    contradictory. Because we can observe planets "thriving" without life, the
    only possible conclusion is that life is not a necessary part of planetary
    evolution. It may be a greatly beneficial process in the evolution of
    planets, we don't know, but it is obviously not necessary. That we may be
    able to make the planet uninhabitable is not really as big a deal as you are
    making it out to be. A stray meteorite or unusually large solar flare could
    make the planet uninhabitable also, and with a lot less effort. It is often
    asserted that these kinds of things have happened before, and that the
    planet simply started over. Stray meteorite, large solar flare, human
    stupidity: all natural processes potentially capable of making the earth
    uninhabitable. The earth's response to any of those would be the same, keep
    circling the sun and maybe more life will develop.

    > See my reference in another post re: how the rate of extinction has
    > greatly increased in our more recent history.
    >

    Very few natural processes happen at a continuous rate without regard to
    outside influences. They are expected to either accelerate or decelerate,
    depending on the applied stimuli.

    > What you keep missing is that in our tiny bump in the meter, we have a
    > choice, because the very power that we've been granted, within the
    > realm of so-called higher intelligence, also offers us responsibility.
    > We think, we act, we destroy, but we know better.
    >

    That's mighty arrogant. Maybe nature knows better and that's why we were
    built: to destroy all life on earth.

    > It's not inconceivable that you could argue against the damages of
    > rain-forest destruction, global warming, ozone depletion and other
    > biosphere affecting human interactions. I don't feel that I need to
    > offer an agrement here--you're entirely aware of these issues, I'm
    > sure.
    >

    We (current life on earth) are the only ones that care about rainforest
    destruction, ozone depletion, and other biosphere affecting human
    interactions. If the ozone layer were gone tomorrow, new life would develop
    that could live in those conditions. If the rainforests were destroyed,
    newer, less oxygen-dependant life would form (probably in the oceans). And
    so on. These issues affect only us (life on earth), not the earth itself.

    > [] You can talk about killing the parasites
    > [] that live on the surface all day long, but as far as I can see, that

    would
    > [] only benefit the earth.
    >
    > I don't remember ever talking about such parasites--care to remind me?
    >

    Humanity. All life on earth. I was working under the assumption that you
    understood the symbiotic relationship all life has with the earth. It's
    surface collects radiation, which we use in many processes to promote
    growth. We use it's resources to live. All we contribute, in the end, is
    small amounts of organic waste, the byproducts of respiration, digestion,
    and decomposition. That the planet uses these byproducts to regulate it's
    surface temperature, and thereby it's surface composition, shows that it is
    in fact a truly symbiotic (of mutual benefit) relationship.

    ryanm
  3. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    > > > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from

    trying to argue
    > > > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on

    with stuff
    > > > that I can do something about.
    > > >

    > > That would be because you are reacting emotionally

    rather than
    > > intelligently. You're not thinking about it, that's all.

    >
    > Opting out of a circular discussion with you, because I

    doubt I'll
    > find it informative, is not the same thing as not thinking

    about it.

    Did you try thinking about it hard? Think about it. Hard.
  4. As "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net> so eloquently put:
    [] "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    []
    [] > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    [] > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    [] > that I can do something about.
    []
    [] In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.

    No, but "we" can.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  5. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    [...]
    [] > I agree completely. That's why when somebody says "we're damaging
    [] > the earth" most people know the speaker is referring to the whole kit
    [] > and caboodle and not just the rock.
    [] >
    [] Most people aren't generally what I would call intelligent, and react
    [] more to emotional triggers than intellectual ones.

    It must be comfortable for you to be able to dismiss entire groups of
    people who don't agree with your viewpoints as "not intelligent" and
    "reacting emotionally".

    [] > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    [] > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    [] > that I can do something about.
    [] >
    [] That would be because you are reacting emotionally rather than
    [] intelligently. You're not thinking about it, that's all.

    I can't for the life of me imagine how you could have reasoned that
    from his words, so I have to call "troll".

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  6. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    [] news:9cplkvk7hq56r8fr1tl41j9nfe0urhf4dd@4ax.com...
    [] >
    [] > But mostly, to most people I know, "the Earth" is more than this rock
    [] > shell encasing a molten center. It is a planet with a complex,
    [] > evolving biosphere. In the time we've been here (a long time,
    [] > regardless of how small compared to the entire history of the planet),
    [] > we've mostly managed to live in this balance.
    [] >
    [] So the planet Jupiter, which, as far as we have been able to determine,
    [] has never had a complex, evolving biosphere, is not a planet also?
    [] The earth was not a planet before it had a complex, evolving biosphere? In my opinion,
    [] that defenition is too limited, as it would not include the millions of
    [] other planets that we know exist, some of which may be capable of sustaining
    [] life, most of which cannot.

    Um, Ryan to planet Earth, Ryan to planet Earth. Let me summize:

    1) we're talking about the planet Earth, as it is now, no other
    planet, no other time.

    2) we are not talking about the planet Earth as it was millions of
    years ago--we're talking about the current biosphere we inhabit.

    [] > What damage we've done was little more than what animals do to their
    [] > habitat (e.g. elephants destroying scarce resources in some areas
    [] > compare to nomadish people causing desertification in some areas).
    [] >
    [] And what makes you think that industry is not a natural part of the
    [] progression of our species? What gives you the impression that humans coming
    [] along and destroying all other species is not the intention of the earth?
    [] Just a question...

    Which I addressed greatly in a subsequent post, not far from here, and
    I see that you entirely dodged it.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  7. As "Odin" <res0jmoj@REMOVEverizon.net> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    []
    [] > [] Again with the egocentric "destroying everything". Why is the tiny
    [] bump
    [] > [] on the meter that we call life on this planet "everything"?
    [] >
    [] > Easy. Because we have it within our oh so powerful abilities to
    [] > destroy that which began it's evolution far before we were here. It's
    [] > not just us, it is the biosphere we evolved into. It was created long
    [] > before we got here, but we have the ability stamp it out in, as you
    [] > say, this tiny bump on the meter. It's not just our time--it is our
    [] > effect on that which evolved over a much longer period than we have
    [] > been here.
    []
    [] And you know this how?

    Know 'what' how?

    [] > [] Many more
    [] > [] species became extinct before we even existed than we have caused to
    [] become
    [] > [] extinct.
    [] >
    [] > See my reference in another post re: how the rate of extinction has
    [] > greatly increased in our more recent history.
    []
    [] And you know this how?

    Accumulated (and continuing accumulation of) knowledge. HTH.

    [] > [] And what makes you think this isn't simply a part of nature, which
    [] > [] you claim we have the upper hand over? Maybe this is all in accordance
    [] with
    [] > [] nature, and is happening exactly as intended.
    [] >
    [] > I've pondered it greatly. Our rise above all lesser life forms, the
    [] > intelligence granting us the ability to do these things, is natural.
    [] > Well of course it is. It is within the very nature of our evolution to
    [] > go through this phase. This is elementary.
    [] >
    [] > What you keep missing is that in our tiny bump in the meter, we have a
    [] > choice, because the very power that we've been granted, within the
    [] > realm of so-called higher intelligence, also offers us responsibility.
    [] > We think, we act, we destroy, but we know better.
    []
    [] Or maybe we don't really have a choice at all, maybe everything is
    [] predetermined and chosen for us.

    You may, of course, continue to believe that. Somehow, this doesn't
    jibe with the average Mattes mindset.

    [] > No other species had this. No other species capable of changing
    [] > planetary evolution has ever had the ability to choose. We do.
    []
    [] And you know this how?

    Know what, that other species on this planet don't have nuke
    capabilities? That other species on this planet have never been
    capable of the extinction rate that we have?

    Perhaps I shouldn't use that dirty word, "science".

    [] Maybe on a planetary scale of 1-10 in intelligence,
    [] humans rate a 2 or something.

    Okay, I give. Who trumps us on this scale of yours?

    [] > [] You still haven't shown how
    [] > [] we're damaging the earth, either.
    [] >
    [] > It's not inconceivable that you could argue against the damages of
    [] > rain-forest destruction, global warming, ozone depletion and other
    [] > biosphere affecting human interactions. I don't feel that I need to
    [] > offer an agrement here--you're entirely aware of these issues, I'm
    [] > sure.
    []
    [] We're all aware of only what we are able to comprehend. Maybe there is
    [] much that humans are unable of comprehending that contradicts all that we
    [] think we know.

    What was that middle thing again?

    [] I think the best reason for being conservation minded and trying to avoid
    [] further pollution of the Earth boils down to a quality of life issue for
    [] humans. Let's not make this planet worse for us, let's make it better for
    [] us and enjoy what little time we have here.

    Word. We have concordance. I'm amazed and delighted. Could you speak
    to your brother about this?

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  8. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message

    > [] > I don't sense any illumination coming my way from trying to argue
    > [] > that one, so I'm just going to let it stand and get on with stuff
    > [] > that I can do something about.
    > []
    > [] In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.
    >
    > No, but "we" can.


    Only if "we" is an awful lot of us. And then only marginally and
    temporarily.
  9. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message

    > [] > Easy. Because we have it within our oh so powerful abilities to
    > [] > destroy that which began it's evolution far before we were here.

    It's
    > [] > not just us, it is the biosphere we evolved into. It was created

    long
    > [] > before we got here, but we have the ability stamp it out in, as you
    > [] > say, this tiny bump on the meter. It's not just our time--it is our
    > [] > effect on that which evolved over a much longer period than we have
    > [] > been here.
    > []
    > [] And you know this how?
    >
    > Know 'what' how?


    Any of the above.


    > [] > [] Many more
    > [] > [] species became extinct before we even existed than we have caused

    to
    > [] > [] become extinct.
    > [] >
    > [] > See my reference in another post re: how the rate of extinction has
    > [] > greatly increased in our more recent history.
    > []
    > [] And you know this how?
    >
    > Accumulated (and continuing accumulation of) knowledge. HTH.


    But everything that you think you know (because of science) may be
    disproved by science tomorrow, negating all that you know.


    > [] > What you keep missing is that in our tiny bump in the meter, we have

    a
    > [] > choice, because the very power that we've been granted, within the
    > [] > realm of so-called higher intelligence, also offers us

    responsibility.
    > [] > We think, we act, we destroy, but we know better.
    > []
    > [] Or maybe we don't really have a choice at all, maybe everything is
    > [] predetermined and chosen for us.
    >
    > You may, of course, continue to believe that. Somehow, this doesn't
    > jibe with the average Mattes mindset.


    I don't believe that at all, I was just offering another point of view that
    may or may not be true.


    > [] > No other species had this. No other species capable of changing
    > [] > planetary evolution has ever had the ability to choose. We do.
    > []
    > [] And you know this how?
    >
    > Know what, that other species on this planet don't have nuke
    > capabilities? That other species on this planet have never been
    > capable of the extinction rate that we have?
    >
    > Perhaps I shouldn't use that dirty word, "science".


    Science isn't always correct. So you have faith in a particular school of
    thought that leads you to believe this even though it cannot be proven.
    Which is fine, it just precludes you from claiming to be correct.


    > [] Maybe on a planetary scale of 1-10 in intelligence,
    > [] humans rate a 2 or something.
    >
    > Okay, I give. Who trumps us on this scale of yours?


    Nobody. Or everybody. Who knows?


    > [] We're all aware of only what we are able to comprehend. Maybe there

    is
    > [] much that humans are unable of comprehending that contradicts all that

    we
    > [] think we know.
    >
    > What was that middle thing again?


    Yes.


    > [] I think the best reason for being conservation minded and trying to

    avoid
    > [] further pollution of the Earth boils down to a quality of life issue

    for
    > [] humans. Let's not make this planet worse for us, let's make it better

    for
    > [] us and enjoy what little time we have here.
    >
    > Word. We have concordance. I'm amazed and delighted. Could you speak
    > to your brother about this?


    No, I'm busy trying to break open the earth.
  10. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    [] news:leplkvo2o0t7g7sotgnffqa7uu9m3b7tl2@4ax.com...
    [] >
    [] > To you, if we destroyed most or all sentient live, we haven't
    [] > destroyed the Earth, because there are still rocks, certainly some
    [] > chemicals and possibly some very simple bioforms.
    [] >
    [] First of all, humans are the only known sentient (self aware) life, so I
    [] think you are confusing yourself by trying to use big words to sound like
    [] you know what you're talking about.

    Apologies, to be sure, for using big words.

    But your definition of sentience is narrow. Please, look it up.

    [] Second, life is a boolean property when
    [] referring to planets, they either have it (bLife == 1 or true) or don't
    [] (bLife == 0 or false), but it cannot be a necessary part of the planet,
    [] because we can observe many planets, but the only one on which we have
    [] observed life is the earth. Without life, the earth is still a planet, very
    [] much like Mars (but with more water).

    You're missing my point (re:eek:ur sentient definition of what
    constitutes "The Earth"). When the Earth's current biosphere is gone,
    especially due to our actions, then we have destroyed the Earth as we
    know it. Or damaged.

    Please, I see your attempts to explain this in binary terms, but it is
    not reasonable. When humans lament the passing of the Earth as we know
    it, they're not comparing it to other planet's biospheres, or a long
    gone biosphere of this planet, they're speaking of the here and now.

    [] > I contend that if we destroy all sentient life, and all is left is a
    [] > planet of primordial goo, it is no longer "the Earth". It's just
    [] > another planetary object, and may as well have a number, rather than a
    [] > name.
    [] >
    [] > We are damaging the Earth, and we are capable of destroying the Earth.
    [] > Word.
    [] >
    [] So Jupiter is not "Jupiter" [...]

    Sorry, I don't follow you here. We don't live on Jupiter.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  11. "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote

    > [] In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.
    >
    > No, but "we" can.


    "We?" You gots an inflatable sheep in yer pocket?

    --
    Toook!
    Never mind THATshizzat! Lift the car off me!
    toucan@mailblocks.com
  12. Odin

    Odin Guest

    "Don't forget to bring a TOWEL!" <touscan4kin@com-diddley-castaway.net>
    wrote in message

    > > [] In the big picture you really can't do anything about anything.
    > >
    > > No, but "we" can.

    >
    > "We?" You gots an inflatable sheep in yer pocket?


    That's Howlpie.
  13. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:a0eokv4qg533cffk0hbuik6tu42thdq08s@4ax.com...
    >
    > Accumulated (and continuing accumulation of) knowledge. HTH.
    >

    Which may or may not be correct. HTH.

    > [] Maybe on a planetary scale of 1-10 in intelligence,
    > [] humans rate a 2 or something.
    >
    > Okay, I give. Who trumps us on this scale of yours?
    >

    Dolphins. Didn't you read the Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Quick,
    give me 12 uses for a towel, and no cheating...

    > Word. We have concordance. I'm amazed and delighted. Could you speak
    > to your brother about this?
    >

    I don't disagree. I'm just for honesty in language, rather than this PC
    bullshit we call English these days.

    ryanm
  14. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    news:9tcokvc97ci3g64ns8dmgeuhn8l0qktb78@4ax.com...
    >
    > 1) we're talking about the planet Earth, as it is now, no other
    > planet, no other time.
    >
    > 2) we are not talking about the planet Earth as it was millions of
    > years ago--we're talking about the current biosphere we inhabit.
    >

    Ah, I see. The old usenet technique of limiting the current discussion
    to a topic so narrow as to only allow your particular viewpoint to be
    considered. I am, and have been, speaking on a planetary scale, by which the
    only possible comparison is other planets, or a time frame covering the
    entire "life" of a planet. Jupiter would be one of those, on both accounts,
    because it is also a planet and has also been around a similar amount of
    time. So here on earth, killing some small part of the complex entity which
    is the earth is "killing the planet", but on Jupiter the rules suddenly
    change? I'm just trying to get some perspective on your argument, which so
    far seems to wander all over the place to avoid logic.

    > Which I addressed greatly in a subsequent post, not far from here, and
    > I see that you entirely dodged it.
    >

    I must not have seen it. I'll look for it.

    ryanm
  15. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Not A Speck Of Cereal" XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote in message
    news:5reokvo8sgvr7mjp7ajevpe8dp7f772jrj@4ax.com...
    >
    > But your definition of sentience is narrow. Please, look it up.
    >

    From Websters: sen┬Ětience - The quality or state of being sentient;
    consciousness. "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's
    stage"- T.E.Lawrence

    Websters seems to agree that sentience is having conciousness, which is
    also called being "self aware". If you look back, "self aware" is precisely
    how I defined it within the paragraph, because I had a feeling you might
    disagree.

    > You're missing my point (re:eek:ur sentient definition of what
    > constitutes "The Earth"). When the Earth's current biosphere is gone,
    > especially due to our actions, then we have destroyed the Earth as we
    > know it. Or damaged.
    >
    > Please, I see your attempts to explain this in binary terms, but it is
    > not reasonable. When humans lament the passing of the Earth as we know
    > it, they're not comparing it to other planet's biospheres, or a long
    > gone biosphere of this planet, they're speaking of the here and now.
    >

    It sounds to me like *your* definitions are too limited. When human
    lament anything it is an emotional response, having nothing to do with the
    scientific reality of the matter. If Gibson closed it's doors I could lament
    "the death of guitars as we know them", and be considered correct from my
    perspective without being scientifically accurate. I was never speaking from
    the perspective of individual perception (which varies too much to be
    described by any one viewpoint), I was speaking from the scientific
    perspective on a planetary scale. So I'm unreasonable for being scientific
    about this issue, simply because it contradicts your point of view.

    ryanm
  16. As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
    [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
    [] news:9tcokvc97ci3g64ns8dmgeuhn8l0qktb78@4ax.com...
    [] >
    [] > 1) we're talking about the planet Earth, as it is now, no other
    [] > planet, no other time.
    [] >
    [] > 2) we are not talking about the planet Earth as it was millions of
    [] > years ago--we're talking about the current biosphere we inhabit.
    [] >
    [] Ah, I see. The old usenet technique of limiting the current discussion
    [] to a topic so narrow as to only allow your particular viewpoint to be
    [] considered.

    Yer hopeless Ryan.

    Chris

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Share This Page