European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

poemless:

The ability to laugh each day is not a right, but a skill.

Have to disagree with you there, poemless.

Laughter is one of the most potent and subversive weapons in our armoury. Few governments (or religions) can survive widespread laughter.

The despots and fundies realise this of course: how many lock up (or worse) those who poke fun at them? So that's why the right to laugh is probably one of the most fundamental we have.

And while the ability to laugh certainly arises out of experience, it is an innate ability, certainly not a "skill" IMHO.

How do you teach people to laugh? The very idea is laughable.

With humour people either "get it", or (Mrs Thatcher comes to mind) they don't.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We learn about laughter by being surrounded by laughter in our childhood environment. Yet another trait we share with the great apes.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some skills are self-taught.

And we must not conflate "weapons" with "rights."

I think what you might be getting at is freedom of speech : freedom to laugh at. I agree that expression, which includes laughter, is a right and a weapon. But why specifically laughter? The ability to laugh, which is what Sven said, requires first the ability to find humour in things. No, not all people can do this, or do it well. It requires some skill. Not a skill taught in school. No more than defending yourself on the playground is "taught."

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My belief is that everyone is born with the response of laughter to a feeling of love in all its many forms. It is the disability NOT to laugh that is taught.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to go off topic... (4.00 / 2)

...but where does sense of humour come from ("Why, the stork brought it, of course!")? I mean, clearly we are creatures of our environment (for example, topics that may be considered taboo in some instances, like sexuality, might become a source of humour), but I can't help but think that there's an innate component to it.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not to go off topic... (4.00 / 3)

Of course there is a genetic component, though I think it is not well understood. Laughter can be seen in a baby at about the time the indiscrimate noise of sensateness starts to come into focus. More chuckles of contentment than laughter - but that is what laughter builds upon. After 24 months you can hide things and bring laughter with their reappearance. And so it goes on, in an ever more complex set of games within a relationship.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quality of Life (4.00 / 6)

I agree with you - it is wonderful to watch small children laugh, just out of joy and fun. I remember how as I kid I was told in many situations that it was not approriate to laugh, thus I also agree that we un-learn laughter. I think laughter and humour are not necessarily identical. Though humour often can make us laugh it is not a prerequisit for laughter.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

<blockread>Laughter is one of the most potent and subversive weapons in our armoury.</blockread>

Absolutely. One use of laughter is as a tool to deescalate social tensions - to note to others that there are no ill intentions involved and that the current situation is harmless. In this use, too, it is largely unconscious, and speaks to others unconsciously, meaning suppressing it takes a lot of effort.

If some authoritarian is going on and on about a topic that they claim is extremely important, and someone blurts out a "there is nothing critical going on here" laugh, the whole house of cards comes down in an instant. Authoritarians are rightly terrified of laughter.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol, got my blockquote tag mixed up with a code command I use at work...

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'a broad church' is a common literate English expression used to 'refer to secular political organizations encompassing a broad range of opinions'. I'm surprised you do not know it.
Agreed. It was not my intention to exclude.
Disagree.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quality of Life (none / 0)

Wow, no, in fact, it appears to be a distinctly British idea and a term used to describe people still through the lens of religion. So, no, I don't think describing ET using an obscure and horribly outdated British terminology or any terminology seated in religious context (even if it means something secular - it is a way of describing the secular through religious means) is appropriate or correct. Though I'm not shocked a Brit would be shocked the whole world doesn't know about British stuff. Your surprise is very British indeed!

~Source:OED

I also find it quite curious that anyone is lecturing me on the place of laughter and quality of life. I've seen little in the way of a connection between the two. In fact, any connection seems to be inverse. Heh. We will have to agree to disagree.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

small 'c' church (4.00 / 3)

A church is an association of people with a common belief system.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (none / 0)

A word with undeniable and distinctly religious origins.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The word hierarchy also ;-)

but the connections are obviously more easily made in the US. 'Broad church is quite a common phrase in English politics, with no religious connotations at all. It is especially applied to the Labour Party.

as here:

Return of the broad church
A leadership contest would be good for our democracy - and good for Labour too
John McDonnell
Monday April 30, 2007
The Guardian
As the prime minister leaves office, what could be more natural than Labour party supporters wanting a say in where the party should go next, especially after 10 years in power? Why then do Gordon Brown's supporters appear intent on avoiding a leadership election in which party members and trade unionists can participate? Perhaps it isn't the fear of losing that worries them but anxiety about what a leadership election could bring forth.

If an organisation is described as broad church, it is tolerant and accepting of different opinions and ideas.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 02:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 3)

You might have tried "big tent".

Ooops, that might mean meeting tent.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There you go, walking blindly off the deep end. You begin with tent, you might end with tentacles, and then where would we be.

I think ET is the Hanging Man of Tentacles, but perhaps i haven't studied the Book of Duodenum enough. Do i need help?

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The horror.

I've just Googled for 'church of cthulhu' and found there isn't one.

Not a proper one, anyway.

If there had been a Church of Cthulhu it would have been just the ticket.

Since there isn't, it's going to have to be plenty of wandering around in the wilderness and lamenting loudly.

(Not that we ever do that on ET. Dear me no.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"big tent", direct from revivalism.

The darn thing is embedded everywhere :>

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 12:52:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Then there's the

Church of Reason

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A flood of memories here, Chris.
Good ones.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to wade into the middle of this... (4.00 / 5)

...or to argue the etymology of "church", but aren't words redefined all the time? "Gay" oftentimes mean something entirely different than it did 50 years ago. "Computer" used to be a human profession. Language evolves (or devolves, if you will).
Besides, the ability of Christianity to spread across the globe is largely founded in its ability to reappropriate themes from other cultures and religions. And so we dance around the yule tree during midwinter, neither of which have anything to do with Jesus.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 3)

A church is an association of people with a common belief system.

Yes, yes, yes, but no. Sven, don't use that word.

You have to realize that church is a profoundly offensive word to many of us here. I mean really offensive.

Plus, I don't do belief.

I do opinions and judgements, many of them, I'm aware, deeply flawed, biased and uninformed. All of them, at best, provisional, all far too contingent to the limits of my present knowledge. I also do ignorance a lot but that, at least, I try to know.

But no, I don't do belief. I leave belief to religious faith, that socially promoted, often mandated yet deeply crippling form of cognitive impairment.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Offensive"?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 7)

Excuses for the length, but there are lots of connections through history (these must be a third of the links at the etymology site):

Exodus 3:15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to

church
O.E. cirice "church," from W.Gmc. *kirika, from Gk. kyriake (oikia) "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord." For vowel evolution, see bury. Gk. kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Gk.-to-Gmc. progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it was probably used by W.Gmc. people in their pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic, via Gmc. (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages use variants of L. ecclesia. Slang church key for "can or bottle opener" is from 1950s. Church-mouse, proverbial in many languages for its poverty, is 1731 in Eng.
antidisestablishmentarianism
1838, said by Weekley to be first recorded in Gladstone's "Church and State," "in reference to a scheme directed against the Church of England," from establishment in the sense of "the ecclesiastical system established by law; the Church of England" (1731). Hence, establishmentarianism "the principle of a state church," and disestablish (1598) "to deprive (a church) of especial state patronage and support," first used specifically of Christianity in 1806. Rarely used at all now except in examples of the longest words, amongst which it has been counted since at least 1923.
unchurched
1681, from un- (1) "not" + churched "committed or belonging to a church" (see church). A verb, unchurch "to remove or exclude (someone) from membership in a church" is recorded from 1620.
kirk
c.1200, northern England and Scot. dial. form of church, from O.N. kirkja "church," from O.E. cirice (see church).
malignant
1568, in ref. to diseases, from L. malignans, prp. of malignere (see malign (adj.)). Earlier in the church malignant "followers of the antichrist," from L. ecclesiam malignantum in early Church writing, applied by Protestant writers to the Church in Rome (1542).
eremite
c.1200, learned form of hermit (q.v.), from Church L. eremita. Since mid-17c. in poetic or rhetorical use only, except in ref. to specific examples in early Church history.
Montanist
1449, millenarian and severely ascetic sect that believed in continual direct inspiration of the spirit and offered prominent church roles to women, from Montanus, Christian-inspired prophet in the wilds of Phrygia c.160 C.E. The heresy persisted into the 6c. and helped bring prophecy into disrepute in the established Church.
cathedral (n.)
1587, "church of a bishop," from phrase cathedral church (1297), translating L.L. ecclesia cathedralis "church of a bishop's seat," from Gk. kathedra "seat, bench," from kata "down" + hedra "seat, base, chair, face of a geometric solid," from PIE base *sed- "to sit" (see sedentary).
gallery
1500, from M.Fr. galerie "a long portico," from M.L. galeria, of uncertain origin, perhaps alteration of galilea "church porch," which is probably from L. Galilaea "Galilee," the northernmost region of Palestine; church porches sometimes were so called from being at the far end of the church. Sense of "building to house art" first recorded 1591; that of "people who occupy a (theater) gallery" (contrasted with "gentlemen of the pit") first by Lovelace, 1649, hence to play to the gallery (1872).
"Super altare Beatæ Mariæ in occidentali porte ejusdem ecclesiæ quæ Galilæ a vocatur." [c.1186 charter in "Durham Cathedral"]
Presbyterian
1640, as name of Scottish church governed by elders (as opposed to bishops), from presbyter "an elder in a church" (1597), from L.L. presbyter "an elder," from Gk. presbyteros "an elder," also an adj. meaning "older," comparative of presbys "old," possibly originally "one who leads the cattle," from *pres- "before" + root of bous "cow." Presbytery "a part of a church reserved for the clergy" is recorded from 1412. Meaning "body of elders in the Presbyterian system" is recorded from 1578.
Lateran
1297, popular name of cathedral church of St. John Lateran at Rome, which is built on the site of the palace of the Plautii Laterani, a Roman family. As a papal headquarters, it was the site of five general councils of the Western Church.
sexton
c.1303, sekesteyn, "person in charge of the sacred objects of a church," from O.Fr. segrestien, from M.L. sacristanus (see sacristan). Sense of "custodian of a church" first recorded 1582.

So "church" for some has as much religious significance as "mosque" for others, and "temple" for others--or maybe the same person.

I saw a singer in a band (a good band, great bass player); the singer had a shiny cross around his neck, and I thought, "Oh....no"; but I didn't mention it, I thought about it but I thought, "He probably attaches no more significance to this object than he does to a smiley pendant:

Lots of history going on with a word like "church". I dunno, why deny your ancestors were religious? Odin has no more power over us (well, maybe there are a few); "the name that cannot be named" still has power,

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations

Moses still has power, there was an ad on the right of that page: "2008: God's final witness"

At first I thought it was an ad for a film or a TV show, but then a second take:

"<u>2008: God's final witness</u> -- Unprecedented destruction will come in 2008, leading to America's fall."

Website name: the end dot com

Could it be a spoof? I don't dare to click it! I want to say, "Can everyone just calm down a bit?

But the church, yeah, has still a bad feeling attached to it. Temple has done better (for me); I understand "shrine"; "community"; I still like "commune";

commune (n.)
1792, from Fr., "small territorial divisions set up after the Revolution," from M.Fr. commune "free city, group of citizens," from M.L. communia, orig. neut. pl. of L. communis, lit. "that which is common," from communis (see common). The Commune of Paris usurped the government during the Reign of Terror.

common
1297, from O.Fr. comun, from L. communis "in common, public, general, shared by all or many," from PIE *ko-moin-i- "held in common," compound adjective formed from *ko- "together" + *moi-n-, suffixed form of base *mei- "change, exchange" (see mutable), hence lit. "shared by all." Second element of the compound also is the source of L. munia "duties, public duties, functions," those related to munia "office." Perhaps reinforced in O.Fr. by Frank. descendant of P.Gmc. *gamainiz (cf. O.E. gemæne "common, public, general, universal"), from the P.Gmc. form of PIE *ko-moin-i- (see mean (adj.)). Used disparagingly of women and criminals since c.1300. Commons "the third estate of the English people as represented in Parliament" is from 1377. Common sense is 14c., originally the power of uniting mentally the impressions conveyed by the five physical senses, thus "ordinary understanding, without which one is foolish or insane" (L. sensus communis, Gk. koine aisthesis); meaning "good sense" is from 1726. Common pleas is 13c., from Anglo-Fr. communs plets, hearing civil actions by one subject against another as opposed to pleas of the crown. Common prayer is contrasted with private prayer.

How about "laboratory"? Lots of people find that scary. It's bombs and experiments and dangerous chemicals and crazed scientists--a big BEWARE! DANGEROUS AREA! sign

laboratory
1605, "building set apart for scientific experiments," from M.L. laboratorium "a place for labor or work," from L. laboratus, pp. of laborare "to work" (see labor). Shortened form lab first attested 1895.

heh....I love the etymology site!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep, offensive.

Once you've lived long enough in the US, church and anything even vaguely connected with it become truly offensive.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 3)

Well here we go on another semantic roller-coaster ;-)

But I have to say I am profoundly offended by any limitations on the use of the words in my language. I try my best to use them in a way that will convey my intended meaning to a particular audience, but I'd rather use the richness of language than its paucity.

I also watch Bill Hicks. I want to be cognitively impaired. That doesn't mean I want religion. I want to see things differently. And as anyone who knows me will tell you, I am an atheist.

But is it your opinion or judgement that the sun will come up tomorrow? Or is this just a silly semantic argument?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I also watch Bill Hicks. I want to be cognitively impaired.

genius! I heard, I swear! On the holy steps of the fountain of youth, I heard Bill chuckle.

"Hi, I'm rg. I also watch Bill Hicks. I want to be cognitively impaired.

precognition
"foreknowledge," 1611, from L.L. præcognitio, from L. præcognitus, pp. of præcognoscere "to foreknow," from præ + cognoscere "to know" (see notice).
recognition
1473, from L. recognitionem (nom. recognitio) "act of recognizing," from recognit-, pp. stem of recognoscere "to acknowledge, know again, examine" (see recognize).

Ah, some Bill is called for! (This must be that learned response--I 'think' I am choosing to go watch some Bill Hick's clips and choose one, but in fact as soon as I see the words "Bill Hicks" I am drawn by huge neural autobhans, at the centre of which whizz six hundred and eighty miles-per-hour trains, I think I'm choosing but really....I must offer some Bill Hicks!

((youtube

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 6)

Based on experience and some basic knowledge of mechanics, it is my judgment that the Sun will show up tomorrow morning. Not that it makes much of a difference for the Sun itself, but if you ask me, that's my judgment.

Now, the Sun could go nova, but that is very, very unlikely - again a judgment based on a vague understanding of astrophysics. Not the right conditions for that. And I could imagine that the Sun would decide to go nova just to spite us all, but that would neither a judgment nor even an opinion, a guestimate or a gut feeling but something I just pulled of my arse in a flight of anthropomorphic fancy applied to a stellar body.

I also watch Bill Hicks and no, I don't want to be cognitively impaired. We do that easily enough by default to actually want it. You'd have to be really knurd to actually want that with a good reason.

And no, it's not just a silly semantic argument.

Belief does mean something. It is the tool of the builders of systems, of the seekers of absolutes. It is the excuse of all human evils, the ever-handy absolution for those too lazy and too vain to simply say "I don't know".

It is a sickness and a sickening word, one of the vilest words in human language.

And that is a judgment.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right on (4.00 / 2)

Fully with you, François.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on (4.00 / 3)

I knew the Parisians would come through for me!

;)

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on (none / 0)

I'm not so sure it's the Parisians but rather the survivors of the French preparatory school system, the poor souls who got whacked often and early for using the wrong connective in their proofs.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on (4.00 / 10)

No, you're both dead wrong.

'Broad church' - note the small 'c' - is idiomatic English. It means having a wide spectrum of values and different ways of looking at the world.

It doesn't suggest the creation of a church, of a belief system, or any affiliation with religion.

'Broad church' has as much to do with religion as 'big tent' has to do with circuses in US politics.

[pause for thought]

Okay - maybe that wasn't the best example. Never mind.

Seriously - I can understand that people might be offended by the use of the word 'church', but in context it's nothing more than a widely used idiom, which atheists use regularly without implying that they're steering themselves a course back to the bosom of Jesus.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right on (4.00 / 6)

I have to second this, seeing the stick this little idiom has come in for here. Ordinarily the phrase 'broad church' is never going to be construed as offensive by native English speaking athiests or agnostics. This is the first time in my life I have ever seen this phrase objected to like this. In fact I'm startled by what has been said here.

I might ask, how can anyone stay sane in what are still nominally 'Christian' societies if the mere word 'church' offends even when mentioned in a secular idiom? What does the sight of real existing cathederals, bishops, parishioners and so forth occasion?

It's a perfectly normal and inoffensive English idiom and Sven is correct to defend his right to use it.

by wing26 on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 01:11:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: small 'c' church (4.00 / 4)

You'd have to be really knurd to actually want that with a good reason.

From the link:

Knurdness is the opposite of being drunk; not sober, but as far from sober as drunkenness, except in the opposite direction. It strips away all the illusion, all the comforting pink fog in which people normally spend their lives, and lets them see and think clearly for the first time ever.

For me that's part of it, but cognitively impaired is having four beers with your mates. At the end of the session, I--and not just I--am cognitively impaired. I despair of ever getting rid of all those people who need to drive at night, when the streets are fully of happy cognitively impaired individuals....

My experience tells me that "sober" is a most dubious state in which to permanently reside--it seems that most moral authorities are sober, or pretend to be maybe. I'm thinking of cognitively impaired in the sense that the rational mind has been stopped in its relentless forward motion. obstacles appear, paths to the left and right--

But maybe I'm reading "impaired" skew-wiff, I'm seeing humour that maybe isn't there.

impair
c.1374, earlier ampayre, apeyre (1297), from O.Fr. empeirier, from V.L. *impejorare "make worse," from L. in- "into" + L.L. pejorare "make worse," from pejor "worse." In ref. to driving under the influence of alcohol, first recorded 1951 in Canadian Eng.

But, flipping it round, a very sober person is impaired in other environments--I dunno, can you be sober and fall in love? There's an approach to sober that sounds like knurdness with all the emotions switched off...for me!

Re: belief

Shakespeare's sonnets. The text 101 - 154.

belief
c.1175, replaced O.E. geleafa, from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).

I can get a better sense of what (I think) you mean from the word "faith". Do I have faith that the sun will come up? To be honest, I don't ponder it. Never have. I mean I can ponder it, but it takes no faith for me and the sun to move through the days.

But belief as "dear, esteemed", then yes--I think it is impossible to live without belief, because to act there must be beliefs about the world. Some people believe the world has just passed a tipping point where climactic changes will do away with our current modes of living. Others believe that we may be perhaps heading in that direction, better stop our bad habits now.

And another person thinks, "What are the facts? What do we know?" But we don't know enough, maybe, and an offer comes through the door for an eco house in a place where they're growing their own food...and the person thinks, bah, hippies!

If there is no pause for thought, then I ascribe to that person the belief that we have not passed a tipping point. As none of us can know the future, but we can make ever more shrewd guesses about it, our beliefs are honed, fine tuned, so that "old" beliefs seem strange, until one examines what we did and didn't know back then, and how...way back when we ascribed personality to non-human places, events, objects....I dunno. I liked the part where "faith" went roaring ahead while belief developed with the latest knowledge.

So by Shakespeare's time it meant 'mental acceptance of something as true'

(Francois, I hope you don't mind me talking to you like this, it's not everyone's cup of tea I know!)

I just wanted to find a Shakespeare sonnet with the word belief in it, see how it sounded. So here goes:

(Well, it turned out that 'belief' doesn't appear in any of them. But as I was typing belie--"believe" turned up.

CIX

O! never say that I was false of heart,
Though absence seem'd my flame to qualify,
As easy might I from my self depart
As from my soul which in thy breast doth lie:
That is my home of love: if I have ranged,
Like him that travels, I return again;
Just to the time, not with the time exchanged,
So that myself bring water for my stain.
Never believe though in my nature reigned,
All frailties that besiege all kinds of blood,
That it could so preposterously be stained,
To leave for nothing all thy sum of good;
For nothing this wide universe I call,
Save thou, my rose, in it thou art my all.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But, flipping it round, a very sober person is impaired in other environments--I dunno, can you be sober and fall in love?

Love? Good biochemistry and its existence makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point given that us humans are just furless, clawless, long-gestating, slow-growing and generally rather meek and defense-self mammals who just happen to benefit of a handful of somewhat unusual cognitive abilities that tend to manifest themselves pretty late in life. Without love, none of us would be there to talk about it for cause of devastating infant mortality and the subsequent complete inability to survive as a specie :>

That being said, being sober about something doesn't mean you can't appreciate it...

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 12:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We are a what?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

poemless:

Wow, no, in fact, it appears to be a distinctly British idea and a term used to describe people still through the lens of religion. So, no, I don't think describing ET using an obscure and horribly outdated British terminology or any terminology seated in religious context (even if it means something secular - it is a way of describing the secular through religious means) is appropriate or correct

Standard issue English in this part of the world. Nothing obscure or horribly outdated about it at all.

Also, not used literally. There are quite a few idioms and metaphors in English which have a religious background. They don't imply that you're signing up to hand over your soul to the C of E - any more than saying that someone has a strong suit suggests they're going to spend the rest of their lives playing bridge.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Meh (none / 1)

'Church' means what it means. And you know what you're doing. and so do we.

yes, "we".

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh (4.00 / 4)

Do explain, because 'we' sure as hell don't.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh (4.00 / 2)

Is there a private tussle going on here.

I think we should be told....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

poemless (none / 0)

perfect comment!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poemless (none / 0)

thanks

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2. The right to bear children may be inalienable (I'm actually conflicted about that). But so is the right NOT to bear children.

I think the right to bear children is inalienable from any one person or group. If we choose as a society to limit reproduction, then I suppose that many men and women would be alienated from that right, but not as a result of some characteristic (such as disability, sexuality, or race) inherent in themselves.

However, I do fully agree with your point that there is also the right not to bear children, nor indeed to be expected to bear children. Women are put under a great deal of cultural and societal pressure to see the production of children as an activity that is core to their life experience. Personally, I would love to have children, but that's my choice if and when it happens. I've spoken to several mothers who basically admit that childbearing is an imposition they would have rather avoided.

But, the right was phrased 'to have children', which leaves it open to interpretation as to what this might entail. I can well imagine that if the birth rate falls and many people do not end up biologically becoming parents, they may be a redefinition of exactly what parenthood is, and what it means to raise a child.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I personally cannot consciously support the idea that people who harm children should be allowed to have or continue to have them.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that would be covered under the general idea that your happiness shouldn't cause the deprivation of others from their happiness...

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quality of Life (none / 0)

In that case it is the rights of the child (or potential child) being weighed up against the rights of the 'parents' to have a family ie to have children.

If they were to cause harm to children then it would proportional to limit their right to have or keep their children. In the same way that it is proportional to limit some rights of prisoners ie remove their freedom, when they become convicted and sentenced, since the rights of others to live safely would trump the prisoner's right to freedom.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 04:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW It was not my intention to merely paraphrase UN declarations, but if possible to find other definitions.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST

Re: Quality of Life (4.00 / 6)

To have children

Are we not reaching a point where this right conflicts with many of the others?

Many of these rights cost money. What we argue about is the best way to provide these universal rights. That is why we discuss economy, energy, arts, photography, bridges etc.

isn't that this one?

To have access to free education about the world as long as you want and need

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST

Having children as a right (none / 1)

Only to the extent that it would not conflict with Sven's universal maxim, then. If you can't function as a parent and it would be in the best interest of the child to be placed elsewhere, ideally there should be social services and foster care that doesn't screw up the kid more badly than leaving him or her with his or her parents.
But should it be a right? If you want to adopt, you have to first prove yourself fit to be a parent (and socialist hedonist secular progressive Finland is only now getting around to the matter of same-sex couples adopting).

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having children as a right (none / 1)

But (almost) anyone can function as a biological parent. Should there be any social requirements for them?

Bearing children in the over-consumed world is gonna be a big discussion, whether we like it or not. Some people are already pondering whether having a second child would contribute to global warming.

Meanwhile, the following is bad news for quality of many lifes:

1 in 4 Teen Girls Has Sexual Disease
At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.
A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls--nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

by das monde on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, here's a serious addition, at least from my end.

I have the right to alter my own consciousness. No one has the right to forcibly alter another's consciousness.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 02:46:14 PM EST

Good one!

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quality of Life (3.85 / 14)

What are Sven's points worth if we live in an exhausted, devastated planet, where we'll have eliminated all the other species except for dogs, cats, cows, rats and mosquitoes, burnt the remaining forests to power our cars, fished out the oceans to sustain - supreme irony - our fish farms, etc, etc, etc ?
Which is exactly the course we are embarked on, at full speed.

The concept of 'quality of life' is only operative after the 'quality of the planet' - for all living things - is first considered.

IMHO.

by balbuz on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 03:02:49 PM EST

That is why I added the last point: one universal maximum, that your own happiness should never be built on the deprivation of others.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As such I think the point on children needs to add the caveat that any person can participate in the creation of two people total. The planet is full, and arguably very much overcrowded.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quality of Life (none / 0)

That still narrows it down to society.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, could you elaborate?

Do you mean that the entropy of happiness resides within cultural borders?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 06:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I took the "others" in happiness should never be built on the deprivation of others. to mean other humans, with the rest of the biosphere coming in only via other humans' dependence on it.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 02:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right. That is an omission, but a tricky one to frame. Any suggestions?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 04:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sven : That is an omission, but a tricky one to frame. Any suggestions?

I submit that this whole concept of 'quality of life' is only valid if some prerequisites are met.

Like, what is my freedom worth if I don't have any bread on my table, or if I just burnt the last tree on the hill besides my house, fished out the last fish in my lake, exhausted the soil, so much so that I now have to pack my things and try to move elsewhere ?
This is what's happening right now, everywhere except for some oasis.

Just about when we have managed to create approximate peace and 'quality of life' in Europe, the first globalized clouds of Chinese pollution reach us.

I see myself more and more reframing the previously useful concepts of right, left, justice, growth, progress, more in terms of where we are going with the planet. It is real soon now, and it is not pretty.

by balbuz on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you read my list - as it was intended - it is addressed to the rest of the world. Most of the quality of life list already applies, for instance, in Finland. We don't need it - but we need to know that others need it.

The problem is, for us in Europe, not the minimum quality of life, but our exploitation of the maximum. That, and the example it sets, is what is destroying the planet.

I would hope that it would be possible to provide the entire population of the world with the minimum quality of life. but only if the rest of us drastically reduce our maximums and encourage others to do the same. I have no idea what that world might look like, but it is sure going to happen.

The 'previously useful concepts' do indeed need to be challenged. That is what ET is for IMO.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I sure hope so, Sven. That would be my view too. But I see little enthusiasm for even giving up a lot of the toys for the greater good here---that's for someone else to do.

Do we at ET see ourselves as such an elite that we feel immune from our own prescriptions?

Or do we avoid that whole dilemma by just--not making any prescriptions?

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 07:32:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"this whole concept of 'quality of life' is only valid if some prerequisites are met"

Well now you are going to run into trouble I bet.

If there are only a few people, and enough technology, they can eat meat all the time. Gradually, as more people are added, they are forced to make do with grain, with the attendant problems. [reference here to the general malnutrition associated with prehistoric societies that go through this transition] But then refined sugar gets invented, so even more people can live on even less.

Now, what is the trajectory of quality of life in this scenario? High-low-medium? Low-low-medium?

Only the very simplest food and shelter are prerequisites for high quality of life, at least according to Bhuddism. Anything more is greed. Trees and fish and privacy and the like...

Where do you draw the line?

by asdf on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 12:52:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And also why I think we should consider the maximum quality of life ie the upper limits of quality

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well said, balbuz!

why was that comment '2'd', francois?

curious...

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 04:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed, was that just a mouse slip?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 06:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True.
A high quality life for a corpse is an oxymoron, perhaps?

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 07:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I don't know: a nice ebony casket with real silk lining, a proper burial, high status among the neighbours. Sounds like a nice quality of life. Or unlife.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 07:26:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are these factors, or rights, or conditions?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM EST

aims

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, more confusion. What if I don't want one of them?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

tell us which one ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't want the aim to have access to free education as long as I want and need. I want it over with already ;-)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, you learn and learn and then you die. Nothing we can do about it ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vintage ET !

At least it appeals to my sense of humour... ;-)

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reminded me of an old Usenet sig line

You learn something new every day.
Sometimes even if you don't want to.

Learning is not always a joyful experience

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But it reads a lot like a declaration of rights :)

* To have a right to play with rockets and other varieties of very noisy and somewhat dangerous machines whenever the hell I want!

More seriously, I don't think you can codify or even simply enumerate much beyond the negative rights. I'd summarize the whole thing to living in a civilization which is prosperous, peaceful and fair and leave it there.

Beyond that, any form of society and any scarcity implies constraints on individuals, conformance to norms, organizations and structures to perpetuate, etc. Too complicated. In particular, you always bump in the issue that enforcing positive rights or aims for some inevitably constitutes an exaction on others. Plus I completely disagree with the notion that it's a good thing for a society to be strictly neutral or egalitarian to all individuals in respect of political or religious beliefs.

Or you have to reach for the Culture and even that one has its ambiguities(*).

(* a good thing indeed, otherwise we'd miss a good chunk of Iain M. Banks' excellent prose).

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 03:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong with religious beliefs: it's actions motivated by them that can be the problem.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 03:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, beliefs without actions are inconsequential and not a matter in any respect for society. They are part of the most basic (and most disrespected) of all negative rights, the right of personal self-disposition. You can't police somebody's mind.

But even speech can be action, particularly in religion, where the preachers hold such an influence on the followers.

There can be cases to discriminate and repress on factual grounds. Take the ambiguous role of some religious leaders on FGMs or - more routine and closer to western culture - on solicitations of donations (Google for "Gospel of Prosperity" and you'll puke if you are new to it). You can punt and argue that this is not proper religion, but well, how do you know? They really believe in it.

Then, it becomes interesting as you have to balance that against general freedom of speech and pragmatic considerations about religions as a human phenomena, namely that repression against religions is generally counterproductive and that it's generally better to let time and modernity grind them to insignificance. Education can help also. But there are cases where nothing short of active repression can work.

That's why I don't buy the notion that beliefs - political, religious or others - are worthy of specific protection. They can be evaluated in facts and sanctioned or repressed like any other human activity.

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 04:24:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We're analyzing the tree, but missing the landscape here, I think.

Tragically, policing someone's mind is turning out to be far easier than we thought. He who controls the input controls the output, friends. I am in France because that media-educational control seems less advanced here. Though Jerome and others are reeducating me, it IS STILL less advanced here.

Viewed from another perspective, a constitution, in the political-legal sense, is a statement of common principles that together aim at securing a generally "high quality of life" for the general populace. In order to do this, it must limit the scope of human actions to prevent the actions of one from degrading this abstract general quality of life for others. So it's inevitably coercive in nature- mutual freedom through community. It's probably ethnocentric too-- though I agree with Sven's list, I can see that others, non-West Europeans, might well have a very different list.

So, All communities coerce.

But--just where, and when is this unavoidable, or even desirable? Tough nut.
Example: The right to have children without limit is the right to condemn the children of the future to death or misery. Pretty serious abuse, don't you think?
So in the real world, we will find a compromise involving limits on reproductive rights, or die. And on many, many other "rights".
Rights are useless to a dead man.

The constitutional principle of compromise and cooperation is fundamentally opposed to the neoliberal plunder model, and the wholesale, unquestioned adoption of the "competition" meme by the general public everywhere helps to explain why the loss of the U.S. constitution (and therefore the loss of a common idea of quality of life) does not seem to stir much public ire there, and why so many surveys of young students in the U.S. show them willing to discard their bill of rights immediately.

The winners in the grand competition of life get to call the shots--and define "quality of life".
It's natural law, ---aint it?

So it's a great idea-- necessary-- to begin the discussion with a statement of ideal type- but then we need to graduate to the discussion of "other" lists, and how wonderful it is that there are other lists, and then what actually can be done, without losing these differences.
Given the underlying realities of population, energy, resources, environment, ---
NOW what's "Quality of life"?

First, Life.

Second, a search for ideals- Sven's list is a good start, as amended by us all.

Third, a good understanding of the limits imposed by reality (for those who believe in such a thing), and culture.

And last and most importantly, (here's where it gets nasty),
--for any such concept to have power to make lives better people have to believe in it. Deeply.

Aiee. Back, you dogs!
Poemless, cease swinging that cross, and stop fulminating.

There's that nasty word-- hangs out in weird neighborhoods with other spectral entities, like "Love" and "Hope".

Life is not always an intellectual exercise. It's often a statement of belief, an act of faith, a love story. Not all "belief" is brainless. Not all intellectual endeavor has value.
The shrinks speak of "Neurotic Intellectualization"-- a concept with merit. The gist is that one festoons fright-inducing, painful events and concepts with endless analyses and tapestries of words--until they are so picked apart and hemmed about that they no longer seem able to hurt us.
There is precious little real life in the net, friends. It's a thin imitation of experiencing firsthand, and we dare not forget that, or it just becomes another place to hide.

People sacrifice for things they believe in. No belief, no sacrifice. And it has reached the place of "no sacrifice, no people".

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 06:36:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no sacrifice, no people (4.00 / 4)

Thanks for this and your other comments GiP. They contain the basis of the debate I wanted to provoke.

We are going to have to sacrifice a lot - even to sustain a portion our own selfish quality, let alone the unlucky losers of the Warren Buffet's lottery of birth. So, what are we prepared to do without?

To do that, we need to ask ourselves what are the essentials. What can we live without? I think we are facing forced and radical contraction of lifestyle. The question is, can we control the downsizing?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 10:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no sacrifice, no people (4.00 / 5)

I didn't chime in yet... But think about something that could be called a "public space" (yes, as a right)... As most of those basic values "up there" are more "individual" (ok, not all, but I'm too quick or short as I haven't much time just now).

Public space as a concept and not only "physical". Meaning the ability to juxtapose different persons, with different beliefs, without the need for one to persuade the other.

It follows the lead we had with In Wales on communities and collectivities or the french republic vision of a one and indivisible society.

Whether one or the other, they need some "elbow room" to support each other... As Geezzer said, even if there is a "belief" (a project, a dream, for those who can't stand the word) and some constraints (laws among others) there is also a reciprocity (Colman) to get the pill through (call it economy or citizenship, or social benefits)...

Through all of histories utopias, the only one that worked was the City concept... Till now! As our publics spaces are privatized (cameras, DNA, pavements painted for bicycle and not for pedestrians, smokers/non smokers, etc.) and shrink more everyday, we feel the need to express our "rights", while if that "public space" was bigger, tolerance would be higher and the given "rights" would be simpler...

OK I'll develop that later... :-)

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Thu Mar 13th, 2008 at 12:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no sacrifice, no people (4.00 / 3)

I too am short of time- gotta collect the poppets from school-- but those are several great ideas- I'd like to work with them some more. I hope this discussion will continue- seems to me we've only scratched the surface.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Mar 14th, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]