Amazon.com Widgets

« Drag Me To Health | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Links With Your Coffee - Thursday

coffee.gif


 

Comments

re: the boston globe i.d. article and it's "debunking"- i was surprised at how lame the debunking actually was. half his arguments were against "young earth creationism" and at the end there's a correction: meyer (author of the globe article) is not a young earth creationist. which, indeed none of the quotes would lead one who wasn't jumping the intellectual gun to assume. i could have done better, and a daresay some of you better than that.

i liked this quote from the globe article, tho:

Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

is that so hard to understand? i have seen HUGE levels of obtuseness on this point here in the past.

see? cherry picking is really the only way to go. :)

This is an excellent example of how religious apologists use ambiguous terms and then conveniently jump from one meaning to the other. The term here is design. But what kind of design. We need a definition. The implication is that design requires an intelligent designer. They use the same word in two different ways, what is it we call that. Oh yes equivocation, "directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning." This is the same tactic used in discussing God. They remove all the supernatural in the argument but leave it in by using the term God in a traditional way. It's annoying, and it's dishonest. I call bullshit.

welcome back norm. so, what is this other definition of design that doesn't imply a designer? do we refer to the pattern of ice crystals on our windows as "designed"?

do we refer to the pattern of ice crystals on our windows as "designed"?

Design as in pattern. The ice crystals form an interesting pattern. Patterns may arise from causes that are not intelligent.

So the quotation:

Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

in order to avoid the confusion I alluded to would use the word pattern to avoid the problem of attributing intelligence to anything referred to as designed.

Patterns may arise from causes that are not intelligent.

patterns, yes. designs- not so much. there's nothing hazy or equivical about this. i d'rs aren't just claiming they see patterns everywhere, anyone can do this, they're claiming they see design.

i can't prove that vonnegut wrote cat's cradle. having read his other books, i can tell you it fits the pattern. i can only infer that he "designed" it.

i'm not sure this is a good example of what i'm trying to say, but any decent dictionary definition of "design" should set us on the right track. that is, the one i'm already on. :)

What Norm is saying is that there are these two definitions of "design", and these people use one (the "pattern" definition) and then surreptitiously insert the other (the "designer required" one) later on as if they were interchangeable. It's dishonest.

And about this:

Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

How is "design from a designer" an inference from biological data? How is "design from a designer" not a deduction from religious authority?

i think what norm is saying is he doesn't want to be bothered with this. he's been there, done that. it's all blah blah to him now.

there's a time in an old warriors life when he prefers not to unsheath his sword at all, and if he does, it's only to kill as efficiantly as possible. play or sport no longer enter the equation.

i think norm doesn't think i'm worth killing, and he doesn't want to play.

that's what i think. i wish him well.

and if it's too gag inducing to admit that the greatest scientific theories and discoveries in history have been made, and continue to be made by men and women assuming apriori an intelligence behind the natural order of the universe (whether true or not) well, i don't want to pee on anyone's parade.

and if it's too gag inducing to admit that the greatest scientific theories and discoveries in history have been made, and continue to be made by men and women assuming apriori an intelligence behind the natural order of the universe (whether true or not) well, i don't want to pee on anyone's parade.

Why would it be gag inducing? But to the point what does that have to do with what's true. Is it some sort of appeal to authority?

I also suspect that the recent history of scientific discovery is tilted toward scientists who don't necessarily believe apriori, in an "intelligence."

You're right about one thing I find it tiresome. I refuse to have a serious discussion with anyone who is not willing to go through an extensive definition of terms before we begin. God .his name is equivocation.

And a thanks to Andyo for putting my jumbled thoughts in a more intelligible form.

I would tend to concur with Norm. That those that want to argue religion and at the same time say it defines definition aren't really worth arguing with as no reason can be applied to such a discussion. You can't create an argument against something that can't be argued for.

As for scientists believing, yes the majority likely have believed in an number if deities. I would defy anyone to find a scientist that used a religious lens on the world to discover theories of how the world really works.

As for evidence that biology is designed. There really isn't any. I have never heard anyone successfully argue any tiny piece of evidence to such a point. On the other hand the appendix and many other items show that biology has developed through a process and not built from a plan as "design" would imply. Pretty much every organism on earth is a work in progress and it shows.

Jonathan, as for Norm's Old Warrior syndrome, I can't see any steady pattern of reduced passion that you seem to imply. Instead his interest in the site seems balance with other things going on in his life, and I imagine the weather in Utah has been pretty nice this month. Routinely he doesn't chime in on discussions for days sometime and frequently with only brief remarks. It has never been his MO to answer every challenge to criticisms of religion or other views shared here.

If you want a more vigorous debate you may need to wait for a rainy day in September. Although it is in 50's here in MN.

norm and red7: norm is right, this is kinda tiresome. i haven't said anything about religion or god or whether they can or cannot be defined. i haven't said anything about "believers", either scientists or anyone else. i haven't mentioned biology specifically, though i did refer to the "natural order of the universe"- something much bigger than biology. and i haven't tried to claim any truth for the idea of an intelligent designer. so i really don't know what you guys are talking about.

i'm only trying to make two points. one, that inferring a designer from the vast accumulated evidence of structure in the universe is perfectly legitimate, though it remains a mere inference. not a fact, certainly not the "truth", and it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis or a theory.

but- and this is my second point- if a scientist, or anyone else wants to proceed with their investigations into the nature of things AS IF it were a theory, that person will find it extremely effective in pointing them in the right direction, since the universe behaves in many if not most ways AS IF it had been designed.

my dad, a professor of general science who's phd was in the history and philosophy of science and who doesn't believe in god or any other designer to the best of my knowledge told me when i was very young that the MOST EFFECTIVE question a research scientist can ask himself, as a research technique, is "how would i make this work if i were god?" the fact that this question WORKS does not prove the existence of god or a designer, of course, and i'm not trying to say it does. but denying that this question has produced a huge body of anecdotal evidence is just silly, imho.

how would i make this work if i were god

What does that mean? What would you be like if you were like god, and how would that be helpful. Define this god you're talking about, that we should emulate, and explain how the method is unique to a god. What is this natural order of which you speak and what does it have to do with being like god? It sounds like just more of the same gobbledygook that apologists for religion use when they want to defend it. While claiming that they are not talking about religion or a personal god at all.

all those questions are very important if you're arguing with a religious apologist, but totally irrelevant to what i'm talking about. this is a perfect example of the obtuseness i mentioned. i didn't have any problem understanding what my dad meant by that when he told me, when i was about 7 years old and determined to become a paleontologist.

the question means simply this: what would i do if i were designing this thing? in this context, if i were god i'd be just like me, except with the power to design the universe.

if you want to turn me into an apologist for religion, why don't you take on the challenge i threw to JoAnn at the other thread. who knows, maybe i'd be good at it.

i like it when you're around, norm, it's very comforting. i hate thinking i'm in a virtual universe with no one in charge. even if you're mean to me :)

the question means simply this: what would i do if i were designing this thing? in this context, if I were god i'd be just like me, except with the power to design the universe.

What you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we pretend like we're really really smart and powerful and it's within our power to accomplish the task at hand. So why all the god talk? Why is it necessary?

You understood your fathers statement in a metaphorical sense, and you would have understood it equally well if he'd made the statement in a different way leaving out the mention of god.

I keep an eye on all my children :)

why all the god talk? Why is it necessary?

because when i talk i like to be understood. and i'd prefer to be understood by the entire english speaking world except for perverse, obtuse, persnickity atheists, rather than the reverse.

try it yourself:" how would you design this if you were really, really smart and powerful and had the power to accomplish the task at hand?"

doesn't have the same ring to it. i bet in this form it causes a completely different set of tiny inspirational electrical bursts in the brain, too.

i can just see you as a hindu child. your father says "son, when doing scientific research, try to imagine that you are krishna". and 7-year old hindu norm is thinking " i wonder if he means i should pretend i have blue skin and eternal youth?" sheesh.

in other words, the point is to imagine an intentional design, rather than speculate about the nature of the designer. if you, as a scientist, operate according to the ASSUMPTION that the universe was intentionally designed, just like every other complex machine we know of (you know, the watchmaker thing) you won't go wrong- certainly not as a result of this assumption, anyway.

btw:>What is this natural order of which you speak

are you serious? i'd really like to know.

I'm assuming you are using it in the philosophical sense, natural order as opposed to divine order. But given your penchant for blurring lines I thought I'd ask.

in the philosophical sense, natural order as opposed to divine order.

in the philosophical sense there's no damn difference. what sort of force i may believe created this order is completely irrelevant to the order itself, which is real and demonstrable. if i thought the world was designed by the fsm, or a little kid with blue skin and a mischievous streak, or a jealous and confused old jewish man in the sky with dried gefilte fish stuck in his beard makes

NO DAMN DIFFERENCE

to philosophy or science. that's theology.

Hmmm, actually if there was a all powerful naughty blue kid in the sky that would actually have pretty profound effects on Philosophy and Science.

What would chaos look like to you if you think the universe is orderly?

I think what people mean when they say orderly or designed, they often are just identifying that the world is familiar and consistent.

I think what people mean when they say orderly or designed, they often are just identifying that the world is familiar and consistent.

hmm. i had to think about that for a minute to figure out what bothers me about it.

i haven't been talking about "people", but rather scientists and philosophers. to "people" without access to science or philosophy- or religion for that matter- the world doesn't look "familiar and consistant". it looks frighteningly chaotic and unpredictable. i'm pretty sure the root of science, philosophy and religion is this singular fact. historically speaking, the roots of science are so tangled up with magic and religion that they're very hard to untangle. a philosophical task that norm and co. tackle fearlessly, and i admire them for it.

as for your question about chaos, well, that's a good one. i could probably come up with syllabus for, say, a second-year philosophy course based on that question alone.

Some folks may only have access to basic science (what they can figure out on their own) but it just takes two people and a campfire to come up with philosophy and religion.

But I am only attributing Familiarity and consistency to those that describe the world as "designed and orderly", not the bush people of the Kalahari etc. I suppose a few of these people also call themselves scientists.

"What would chaos look like to you if you think the universe is orderly?"

I LOVE this question. Simply and profoundly awesome.

Jonathan,

here is some of that evidence against theories of order or design for biological lifeforms

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-08/st_best

If you worship a god then you are apparently worshiping a being that wants slugs to chew off their own genitalia.

If you worship a god then you are apparently worshiping a being that wants slugs to chew off their own genitalia.

yeah, and...?

why is it, red, that at this thread and especially this one:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2009/07/linkswithyour_1071.html

i am constantly getting the feeling that i'm arguing with a bunch of fundamentalists, complete with huge helpings of obtuseness, misdirection and a list of talking points you guys don't like to stray from? for instance, inference of design from biological data becomes a "theory" which must be "proven". the "theory" becomes "belief in a god". "belief" becomes "worship". "worshiping a god" becomes "worshipping the christian god". and voila, we're back on familiar and easy territory where you have your talking points all lined up.

and as for the other post, i'm completely baffled. some of you were courageous (or bored) enough to take up my gauntlet, but the level of misdirection to get back on familiar ground is just depressing. no one dealt at all with my main points. the best you could do was "prove it, nya nya nya". i was treated like some fundie christian trotting out dusty old arguments that are beneath you jaded wariors, when in fact the first thing i did was show how the "sinai event", while being the basis for all western religion, and being completely unique in important ways among origin legends, has not been dealt with at all, either by new atheists or old. one would think this would at least spark curiousity. i made this point repeatedly, challenging anyone to prove me wrong. it was like talking to christian zombies who, when trying to think out of their "box" start gasping like fish out of water.

it is BECAUSE i find you all reasonably intelligent, informed and open minded that i am profoundly disappointed.

I think I missed your main points.

This was where you started

Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

is that so hard to understand? i have seen HUGE levels of obtuseness on this point here in the past.

I think I had addressed your point by saying that I have never seen convincing arguments presented that inferences were drawn from genuine knowledge of biology. You never responded to that remark. If you want to make the argument please proceed so I may refute it or be amazed by the revelation.

As for it being hard to understand. No, I find it really easy to understand. My problem is that every time I see it argued its some fool pointing at an eyeball saying,"look at this eyeball, it is so complex and if any part of it didn't work it would be useless. It has to be designed." Its inference by ignorance. That's what I have trouble understanding.

i was treated like some fundie christian trotting out dusty old arguments that are beneath you jaded wariors, when in fact the first thing i did was show how the "sinai event", while being the basis for all western religion, and being completely unique in important ways among origin legends, has not been dealt with at all,

I make up my arguments on the spot really so I don't know how I came off as trotting. I did respond to your initial comment first with humor and then with some reasons I would have trouble believing the claim.

The discussion ended here..

no, although the non-first hand accounts are pretty fucking old- old enough. but that's the point- if the idea was introduced after "it" happened, how was that done? i mean, if it didn't happen, how was the legend introduced without some jew saying "hey, as far as i know this never happened to MY ancestors."

To which I would respond that it seems like in a culture with limited written records and short lifespans I think you could tell them the world was born onto the back of a turtle given a thousand years to cover your tracks.

I doubt that it is that unique I would assume Greek and Roman gods rallied the occasional army in battle. I would also assume that millions of Egyptians must have witnessed the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea being but non of them wrote down anything about those occurrences. Has that lack of corroboration meant Jews have stopped sharing that myth? If 3000 years ago the old testiment writers told that story to the people and then someone mentioned that they could trace their lineage 500 years through oral history and no one ever mentioned that... what would have happened? Would they have been believed? Would religion been a bigger draw than skepticism? Would they have chipped a stern letter to the editor in stone and left it for the more reasonable people of the future?

If you want to believe that god is the kind of guy that used to do miracles and cause virtual mountains to explode, but he knocked all that off right before the printing press photography and film started creating accurate records of the human experience, I think you ignoring acoms razor.

Would they have chipped a stern letter to the editor in stone and left it for the more reasonable people of the future?

yes, absolutely. these are JEWS, i tell you, JEWS! do you realize the significance of this?

:)jk sort of

I would also assume that millions of Egyptians must have witnessed the plagues..

well, this is actually a pretty good argument. one which i would refute by pointing out that the reasons why the egyptians lack such an oral tradition isn't the issue, but rather why the jews have one, and how it could have been falsely introduced.

surrounding this "pretty good argument" we have the "greek gods rallying the occaisional army" (not even close) and the "egyptians at the red sea" (according to the story they were all killed).

i know this is just a tiny part of your post. i appreciate both the thought you put into it and the seriousness of your reasoning. i think i made a mistake trying to combine the two issues (sinai and design) at this post since a serious attempt to handle both issues at once would necessarily spiral out of control. :)

If you want to make the argument please proceed so I may refute it or be amazed by the revelation.

my argument was only that inferring design, (without any reference to "god" or it's nature) from biological data is a logically legitimate thing to do. not a theory, not a proof, but logically legitimate.

i thought to call strawman on your eyeball example but you know what? it's fair enough. it just reminds me of how, when i first heard that argument 25 five years ago, i thought "what's the problem with the eyeball argument? that's a perfectly legitimate inference. not theory, not proof, etc etc."

To which I would respond that it seems like in a culture with limited written records and short lifespans I think you could tell them the world was born onto the back of a turtle given a thousand years to cover your tracks.

so you're saying you place no trust whatsoever in the idea of an oral tradition, based perhaps on the "telephone" concept where after the info passes thru more than x number of people it's garbled beyond recognition?

it's an excellent point, what can i tell you, and not easily refuted. i would have to convince you of the extensive series of jewish laws protecting the integrity of both the written and oral tradition, especially the integrity of the text itself (not referring to moral integrity..). we'd have to get pretty deep into specific jewish issues that probably don't interest people here. can't we just leave the "telephone" question in the area of "anthropological philosophy" or something? :)

again, red7, in the context of the response or lack of it i've been getting here, i appreciate that you at least take the issues themselves seriously, not to mention your humble scribe.

why the Egyptians lack such an oral tradition

oh, come now they used to write these pictures on tombs and there was this library in Alexandria so I think they likely had some recorded history. perhaps a group of escaping slaves and a bunch of crickets might have missed the surviving texts, but the Pharaoh's adoptive son? the Pharaoh's first born sun dieing with every other first born sun? Rivers turning red?

Those seem like events that might have been written down.

Also when the army chased slaves to the sea and then never came back, I think someone would have noticed that too, even if no one was able to hold their breath.

you place no trust whatsoever in the idea of an oral tradition

What was that % of Americans that believed Saddam planned 9-11?

No, people can't find their country on a map how are they going to repeat stories that are centuries old?

I could recite my grandfathers war stories to you. I think they might be better than 60% accurate. If I researched them for a book I could probably get that up to 80%.

If I just told them to my future children they would likely drop to 40% or less.

Go ask your average joe to write a history of the last 100 years, see what you get.

If you want to believe that god is the kind of guy...

please i can't emphasize this enough: what kind of guy god is isn't the subject of either of these threads. it's exactly what i'm trying NOT to talk about. it's theology. a non-science.

Well if there is no god, there is no designer. The rest of the convo is sort of pointless.

Your respect for the Jewish oral tradition is nice celebration of heritage but not dependable evidence that miracles really happened especially when compared to written history.

i really wanted to let that stand as kind of a final word on this here, but i'm too much of an asshole. :)

Your respect for the Jewish oral tradition is nice celebration of heritage but not dependable evidence that miracles really happened especially when compared to written history.

i really wanted to let that stand as kind of a final word on this here, but i'm too much of an asshole. :)

and i never, ever, fucking EVER ignore occam's razor. :) seriously, it's practically my religion. i'ts why i'm willing to even entertain the notion of the "revelation at sinai".

heres the kicker with the design thing, to get this thread back on track:

you guys could have been taking me to task for my insistance on the term "inference" as opposed to theory. in fact, you would be right. the membrane that separates inference from theory is a fine one indeed. so i'm saying a scientist who operates according to the "theory" of design will be richly rewarded in terms of discovery and understanding. indeed, the examples of a scientist getting anywhere without at least the implied assumption that the world makes what we call "sense" can probably be counted on one hand. discoveries of things that don't make sense (and i admit there are some doozies) are basically accidents, where the scientists in question are actually surprised by the evidence they are presented with.

I wouldn't take you to task for using inference. It seems more accurate then theory does. The only point I have taken you to task on is the "from biology" part.

Like I have said, I have never seen this argued past the eyeball strawman.

But the idea that some scientist who see the world as designed have made discoveries does not provide evidence that the inference is correct unless a working theory was used to find them.

Columbus did find America while looking for East Asia, lets not forget.

norm said to jonathan:

I'm assuming you are using it in the philosophical sense, natural order as opposed to divine order. But given your penchant for blurring lines I thought I'd ask.

Indeed. His penchant for blurring lines is why is so in love with the Kuzari 'proof' (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/kuzari.cfm)

The Kuzari principle (KP) is a formal argument (whose ambiguous nature will be discussed further on

jonathan, Everything you've said so far is nothing more than talking points, so you shouldn't be wagging your finger at people here for using talking points.

Does this sound familiar? (http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/burdenofproof.htm)

Belief in G-d – do not accept the total burden of proof. It is rationally required to believe the proposition with the most evidence [rough formulation], even if the evidence is not an irrefutable proof.

JoAnn, i gotta tell you, i knew that this argument i'm making is in the "sefer kuzari". anyone with a few years of yeshiva study under their belt knows this, which is one reason i'm so amazed that the "new atheists" don't seem to deal with it. but i had no idea it had it's own name ("the kuzari principle") and it's own wikipeia article, even. thanks for pointing this out.

anyway, from wiki:

A modern statement of the Kuzari Principle is as follows: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred. [1] Therefore, if people believe that E occurred, it is only because it actually did.

if you look over the way i've presented this thing, i hope you'll realize that this is simply an incorrect formulation, which misses the main points. it also doesn't really do the version from the sefer kuzari justice, either. don't be so quick to assume this thing has been debunked. if it has, i want to see it. i'll keep looking, but you're better at the research than me. let me know if you come across something that doesn't just claim it's been debunked, but actually does it. and no straw men, like the wiki thing.

which is one reason i'm so amazed that the "new atheists" don't seem to deal with it.

Its not like we have our own schools on Sunday

If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.

This is the silliest basis for religion and yet probably the most common. If people believing things meant they are true, than I would need to go join quite a few religions. Because if you replace event with experience than many things are true.

Acupuncture works, several billion people couldn't be wrong!

yes, i agree. that's not the argument i am making, it's wikipedeas version which is, as i said, incorrect.

This is the silliest basis for religion and yet probably the most common

Wait, you don't understand Red7. The myth which jonathan speaks of is very very special and not at all common. The Sinai event proves that G-d exists and that the Jews are G-d's pets.

Mass self delusion is actually more common than childhood obesity amongst Americans.

I can understand wanting to be god's pet and all. At the very least it would mean you would live a comfortable and peaceful existence.

Mass self delusion is actually more common than childhood obesity amongst Americans.

wait, aren't you guys americans? is this supposed to make me trust you? :)

i'm guessing your use of the spelling "g-d" that you've been checking out some actual jewish sources. congratulations, you're the only one here who had the courage, or took this seriously enough to do so. a am truly sorry if you feel fucked with. i know i do plenty of fucking with people here, but not in this case. i was really just hoping for a good counter-argument i could use to fuck with my orthodox friends. i still haven't seen one.

JoAnn, i gotta tell you, i knew that this argument i'm making is in the "sefer kuzari". anyone with a few years of yeshiva study under their belt knows this, which is one reason i'm so amazed that the "new atheists" don't seem to deal with it.

well, you were perfectly goddamned aware of the fact that i don't have "a few years of yeshiva study" under my belt. You could have clearly spelled out what you were talking about and thus made this discussion easier. But nooo! Your motive is to muddy the waters and bullshit. I'm sick and fucking tired of this fucking discussion with you because you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest and that pisses me off enough that I realize that you're just fucking with me and I won't put up with it anymore.

Don't worry Joann, years of internet deiscussions has lead me to believe that fucking with people on the internet is a largely unfulfilling pursuit. At the end of the day its just you sitting by your computer thinking, oh jeez well i pissed them off, no one understands me. Which is why my goals are to either a) make people laugh b) commiserate with like minded or c) fight people to a draw when they try to fuck with me so the pursuit seems as hopeless as it is.

you know what, kids? go lick your wounds and commiserate. i'm sorry for making you feel "fucked with".

i made an honest challange here, hoping someone could debunk this thing as i have laid it out- not as wiki or some website lays it out. i've been trying to do this for years, i was hoping your royal smartnesses could help me, uncontaminated as you are by any real knowledge of judaism. i thought this would be an advantage. i have not been dishonest just because i didn't mention that i didn't make this thing up. i didn't know that in the 25 years since i first heard of it it had been given it's own name and encyclopedia entry on the web, or of course i would have said so.

i have been gentle. i tell you, you guys would be ripped into little pieces in the intellectually rigorous environment of a yeshiva. more disappointment for me, oh well.

Oh , you haven't been too bad.

Its just you seem to find some convenient work arounds on our challenges, which makes the conversation sort of frustrating.

But yes, we aren't religion scholars. We don't want to be any more then I want to be able to be able to recite the lord of the rings trilogy from memory.

We don't need to refute the claims of religion one by one. The whole thing is pretty silly especially when the various religions contradict each other. If all but one religion is wrong, don't all the wrong religions basically prove man's capacity for believing make believe when it makes them feel better and gives their life structure? Yes.

Your respect for the Jewish oral tradition is nice celebration of heritage but not dependable evidence that miracles really happened especially when compared to written history.

Your respect for the Jewish oral tradition is nice celebration of heritage but not dependable evidence that miracles really happened especially when compared to written history.

i really wanted to let that stand as kind of a final word on this here, but i'm too much of an asshole. :)

(somehow when this comment wound up further up on the thread and i repost it now to put it into it's proper place. and no, it is not lost on me that i have now referred to myself as an asshole 3 times here. poetic justice, you might say.)

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives