Cyclists on pavement

Euan said:

One thing's certain. If you stay on the foot path you will never

I think there's one source of misunderstanding right there: no one is
advocating cyclists should stay on the footpath. Some (many) cyclists,
like moi, are perfectly happy on the road when the road is the
suitable place to be, all things considered. I do not commute 30km on
the footpath, for instance, and anyone would have to be a fool to
suggest it. Equally foolish is to suggest that a cyclist (any,
particular, actual, individual, real life person) should never use a
footpath (at any time for any reason), regardless of the particular
conditions (on which it is not up to us to judge). Yet this is what
the "law" (in some less enlightened places) purports to do (something
which it is impossible to do).

Quoted message said:

realise the full potential of being a cyclist and you will continue to
be a law breaker.

Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean like
Jesus? Or, for a contemporary example, Fr John Dear (ex con and
convicted felon) (see: http://www.johndear.org/)? Imagine a criminal
like Jesus Christ or John Dear or Gandhi being a role model for
anyone... perish the thought.

The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or wrong to do,
and the simple proof of that is that laws vary from place to place,
even on non-issues like riding bicycles on footpaths. When you get to
more important things than where-is-a-good-place-to-ride-a-bike, it
becomes every individual's moral duty to break any law that is morally
wrong.

Quoted message said:

That may be OK with you and that's your choice

Good to see some libertarian principles coming out here. It is,
indeed, everyone's individual choice.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense
that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!
How vile and despicable seems war to me! I would rather be hacked in
pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of
the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have
disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been
systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting
through the schools and the Press.

-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The World As I See It, 1934

TimC said:

On 2005-06-16, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gah! I hate stupid people 🙁

I'm told that half of us are of below average intelligence.

Not quite. Don't make me get all statistical on yo' ass!

Don't let the fact that this has nothing to do with bicycles get in
your way! ;-) Go for it!

I understand that in a normal distribution, the mean is also the
median, so you're saying that the distribution of IQ is not normal?
Bimodal, skewed? Hey, educate us, we need to know! :-)

Cheers,

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Who would Jesus bomb?

"David Trudgett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

One thing's certain. If you stay on the foot path you will never

I think there's one source of misunderstanding right there: no one is
advocating cyclists should stay on the footpath.

However there is a law change being advocated - and I've said it before, the
'thin edge of the wedge'.
Next step is compulsion.

Quoted message said:

Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean like
Jesus?

Your decision, as long as you're happy to wear the fine, or the magistrate's
harsh words to a repeat offender.

Quoted message said:

The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or wrong to do,

Come again? As far as I can see it does that. Don't confuse law with morals
or ethics.

Cheers
Peter

On 2005-06-18, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

On 2005-06-16, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

> Gah! I hate stupid people 🙁

I'm told that half of us are of below average intelligence.

Not quite. Don't make me get all statistical on yo' ass!

Don't let the fact that this has nothing to do with bicycles get in
your way! ;-) Go for it!

I understand that in a normal distribution, the mean is also the
median, so you're saying that the distribution of IQ is not normal?
Bimodal, skewed? Hey, educate us, we need to know! :-)

Must be skewed, because you can't have an IQ of below 0 (unless you
drive 4WDs[1] 🙂, but there is nothing stopping you having an IQ above
200.

[1] HAW HAW! Back on topic!

--
TimC
"I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors."
-- Plorkwort, 26 September 2004 on alt.religion.kibology

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "David" == David Trudgett <<[email hidden]> > writes:

David> Euan <[email hidden]> writes:

David> Equally foolish is to suggest that a cyclist (any,
David> particular, actual, individual, real life person) should
David> never use a footpath (at any time for any reason), regardless
David> of the particular conditions (on which it is not up to us to
David> judge). Yet this is what the "law" (in some less enlightened
David> places) purports to do (something which it is impossible to
David> do).

Not at all. If you want to use the foot path while using a bicycle you
are legally entitled to do so; trick is you have to get off the bicycle
and wheel it. According to the law, that's what you should do so guess
what I do?

David> Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean
David> like Jesus? Or, for a contemporary example, Fr John Dear (ex
David> con and convicted felon) (see: http://www.johndear.org/)?
David> Imagine a criminal like Jesus Christ or John Dear or Gandhi
David> being a role model for anyone... perish the thought.

For every rule there's an exception eh? If you're that comfortable
making a decision to break the law on something as ``trivial'' as riding
on the pavement then where does it stop? What law is beyond your
expertise and experience that you won't make a decision as to whether
to obey it or not.

David> The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or
David> wrong to do, and the simple proof of that is that laws vary
David> from place to place, even on non-issues like riding bicycles
David> on footpaths.

I disagree. If the law says it's wrong then it is wrong. You may or
may not agree with that but that's what the law states. If you don't
like it, work to get it changed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may be OK with you and that's your choice

David> Good to see some libertarian principles coming out here. It
David> is, indeed, everyone's individual choice.

Everyone makes choices in life, not everyone's willing to wear the
consequences of those choices.
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

Good to see some libertarian principles coming out here. It is,
indeed, everyone's individual choice.

David

So when you plough into the side of someone coming out of their driveway who
didn't have a prayer of seeing you, you'll be personally and privately
paying for all medical and associated expenses rather than relying on public
health care, public emergency services etc? Or do you expect to have your
"individual choice" publicly funded?

TimC said:

On 2005-06-18, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

On 2005-06-16, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Gah! I hate stupid people 🙁
>
> I'm told that half of us are of below average intelligence.

Not quite. Don't make me get all statistical on yo' ass!

Don't let the fact that this has nothing to do with bicycles get in
your way! ;-) Go for it!

I understand that in a normal distribution, the mean is also the
median, so you're saying that the distribution of IQ is not normal?
Bimodal, skewed? Hey, educate us, we need to know! :-)

Must be skewed, because you can't have an IQ of below 0 (unless you
drive 4WDs[1] 🙂, but there is nothing stopping you having an IQ above
200.

In fact, IQ testing is deliberately constructed to produce a normal
distribution for the majority of the population. However, IQ is not
the same as intelligence, and we get into the whole area of the
validity and meaning of IQ testing. IQ in children is also known to
vary wildly because of differences in development rates.

Without getting into all that, it is perfectly true to say that half
of us are of below average intelligence, and you can read any number
of sources that tell you so. How you interpret the meaning of the
statement might be a different matter, but it doesn't make the
statement not true.

Incidentally, one's IQ may differ noticeably depending upon what
type of IQ test(s) you take, and how the raw scores are processed to
create a desired distribution (for example, different standard
deviations will produce greater or lesser spread in the resulting IQ
scores). There is also a difference between ratio IQ scores and
deviation IQ scores. All these differences, however, only really
matter to those with quite high or quite low IQs -- for the 50% of us
with an IQ score between 90 and 110, there is hardly any difference
between the different methods of measurement.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

"To make the kind of society where it is easier to be good," as Peter
[Maurin] always said so simply, is our own task. These are the things
[Harry] Bridges cared about, though perhaps he has never read
Kropotkin or Marx, or Ferrer on education, or Malatesta, or any other
of the theoreticians of anarchism. Peter used to quote Lenin as
saying, "There can be no revolution without a theory of revolution."
The most important thing to Peter was first of all, clarification of
thought, and he would have been a great talker at the Anarchist
conference yesterday, had he been alive, finding many a concordance
with them there.

-- Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, May 1974

(Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)

On 2005-06-19, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, one's IQ may differ noticeably depending upon what
type of IQ test(s) you take

Swinburne have developed some kind of EQ (emotional quotient) test,
and our director apparently went downstairs one day, took the test,
then proudly told the centre at "director's coffee" that he failed.
Heh. Ooh, blocktext!

And now to offset this blatant off-topicness, I shall post a BR(52)
report.

--
TimC
"32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an
8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a
2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition." --unknown on M$

Euan said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "David" == David Trudgett <<[email hidden]> > writes:

David> Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean
David> like Jesus? Or, for a contemporary example, Fr John Dear (ex
David> con and convicted felon) (see: http://www.johndear.org/)?
David> Imagine a criminal like Jesus Christ or John Dear or Gandhi
David> being a role model for anyone... perish the thought.

For every rule there's an exception eh?

I'm sorry, I missed where I said that. Others might say that: for
example, they might say that it's OK to murder if you're a soldier and
you've been ordered to do it. Good exception, that one, don't you
think? But it is not an exception, and all soldiers commit murder when
they kill, albeit a small(?) fraction do so in good faith, not realising
they have been deceived. Others do so because they like to kill
legally, and many so much as admit this.

Quoted message said:

If you're that comfortable making a decision to break the law on
something as ``trivial'' as riding on the pavement then where does
it stop?

This question does not make any sense, I'm afraid. How can not obeying
a particular trivial law, like the one against j-walking, taping TV
programs on the VCR, making backup copies of CDs and DVDs, and so on
and so forth (which makes just about everyone a criminal, by the way),
have any bearing whatsoever on whether one obeys a non-trivial law,
such as the law against murder? I think you're clutching at straws
there. In any case, I don't have the foggiest what you're trying to
get at.

Quoted message said:

What law is beyond your expertise and experience that you won't make
a decision as to whether to obey it or not.

I'll tell you a secret, Euan. This is something that the people who
want to control you don't want you to know, and so they do their best
to keep it from you your entire life through a pervasive system of
social engineering. The secret is this: we are all, of our *essence*,
free and sovereign individuals possessing free will, intelligence and
love. These things may be possessed in varying degrees, perhaps, but
they are there in each one of us, nevertheless. A free and sovereign
individual is not a slave to anyone or any thing, including any law,
unless it is the law of God written in our heart (such as the law
against murder).

This fact scares the proverbial out of your "masters", which is why
they will never tell it to you. However, once you know it, you can
never unknow it. *You* are the one who is responsbile for your
actions, and no law has anything to do with that. You cannot say you
were "just following orders" if you were the one who pulled the
trigger or flipped the switch on the electric chair. I do not need to
convince you or anybody of this because you know it is true in your
heart.

What this means is that none of us is a slave to the law. If we follow
the law, it is either because we agree with it, or we agree that
following it is better than not following it, or because we have not
yet formed an opinion and follow the law as a sort of default
behaviour, hoping or expecting that the law is generally
reasonable. We do *not* follow the law simply because it *is* the
law. That is a *religion*, which puts the law in the place of God, and
in the process abdicates our own personal freedom and sovereignty. For
that reason, it is a *false* religion, because we can *never* truly
abdicate our freedom and personal responsibility, no matter how much
some of us would like to.

Quoted message said:

David> The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or
David> wrong to do, and the simple proof of that is that laws vary
David> from place to place, even on non-issues like riding bicycles
David> on footpaths.

I disagree. If the law says it's wrong then it is wrong.

You need to reconsider that opinion, because it most certainly is
incorrect. Perhaps you would inform on your own parents? Or do
anything else whatsoever, so long as the law says you must? I hope
that's not what you're saying.

Quoted message said:

You may or may not agree with that but that's what the law states.
If you don't like it, work to get it changed.

Working to change the law is not what I do. The law itself is based on
a system of violence, and so I will have nothing whatsoever to do with
it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may be OK with you and that's your choice

David> Good to see some libertarian principles coming out here. It
David> is, indeed, everyone's individual choice.

Everyone makes choices in life, not everyone's willing to wear the
consequences of those choices.

They do so wear the consequences whether they are willing or not.

Bye for now.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Hypocrisy in our day is supported on two sides: by false religion and
by false science. And it has reached such proportions that if we were
not living in its midst, we could not believe that men could attain
such a pitch of self-deception. Men of the present day have come into
such an extraordinary condition, their hearts are so hardened, that
seeing they see not, hearing they do not hear, and understand not.

Men have long been living in antagonism to their conscience. If it
were not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life. This
social organization in opposition to their conscience only continues
to exist because it is disguised by hypocrisy.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

Resound said:

So when you plough into the side of someone coming out of their
driveway who didn't have a prayer of seeing you, you'll be
personally and privately paying for all medical and associated
expenses rather than relying on public health care, public emergency
services etc? Or do you expect to have your "individual choice"
publicly funded?

There are a number of fallacies implied by those questions, not least
the assumption that I will one day "plough" into someone coming out of
their driveway, when you don't have the foggiest idea how I ride or
the conditions under which I ride. It's strange that people think they
are in a position to judge others, when they don't know nearly enough.

Another fallacy is to assume that I would have the slightest
hesitation in selling my home and everything I own in order to pay
someone's medical expenses if that were ever necessary. I would have
no such hesitation.

Yet another fallacy is the use of the old argument from greed and
selfishness. The hope in this "argument", like the ad hominem
argument, is to deflect people's thinking away from the actual logic
and onto something else. In the case of the argument from greed and
selfishness, the idea is to make people think how their taxes might be
spent to support someone's "law breaking" <shiver/>. This is supposed
to trigger the greed and selfishness instinct in people by leading
them to think about where their tax money might be spent, and encouraging
them to hate those whose opinions differ from their own. We can see,
then, that this is a form of hate speech, whether intended as such or
not. The further fallacy in this hate speech is that no one chooses
how their tax money is spent, nor indeed do they choose to pay taxes,
since it is the product of their labour stolen from them against their
will. One cannot make a virtue out of compulsion.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

And it cannot be otherwise. To compel the lower classes, which are
more numerous, to oppress and ill treat themselves, even at the cost
of actions opposed to their conscience, it was necessary to deceive
them. And it has been done accordingly.

-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

"David Trudgett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Signorini said:

"David Trudgett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think there's one source of misunderstanding right there: no one is
advocating cyclists should stay on the footpath.

However there is a law change being advocated - and I've said it
before, the 'thin edge of the wedge'. Next step is compulsion.

I can sympathise with your point of view, and it certainly is scary to
contemplate the idea of bicycles being banned from the roads. Just for
starters, it would be an affront to personal freedom to _require_ that
people feed the profits of motor vehicle manufacturers in return for
the simple right to get from one place to another.

However, I think the fear is ungrounded, and that we will see an
*increased* use of bicycles in the coming years, rather than a
decreased use of them. I think you can rest easy.

Besides, banning bicycles from the roads will only serve to show who
*really* has the gonads to ride on the road, and who of the current
road users are really just [censored] cats... ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean like
Jesus?

Your decision, as long as you're happy to wear the fine, or the
magistrate's harsh words to a repeat offender.

Quoted message said:

The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or wrong to do,

Come again? As far as I can see it does that.

Thinking that the law tells you right from wrong shows a fundamental
misunderstanding of what the law really is, and confuses the law with
morality. In actual fact, the law is only indirectly related to right
and wrong (sometimes *very* indirectly). The law is concerned with the
legal and the illegal, and not with the right and the wrong. That's
also why the law is not about justice principally, and why the courts
are simply about administering the law (which may and often is quite
unjust). The law is not even interested in the *truth*, for instance,
and courts regularly reject information that wasn't obtained in
accordance with the law. This single fact in itself should tell you
all you need to know about what the law is really about. Truth and
justice do not matter: only the law matters.

The people who say that the law is God (which is what it means to say
that the law is what tells you right and wrong), are the ones who will
inform on their own parents for saying bad things about the
government, so that they can be taken away and tortured. It is only
right, after all, because that is the law.

I hope you can understand my total contempt for this line of
thinking. Hopefully, you yourself do not think that way, and have
simply not expressed yourself properly.

Quoted message said:

Don't confuse law with morals or ethics.

On the contrary, from what you have said, it seems to be you who are
doing that.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Either we have hope within us or we don't, it is a dimension of
the soul, and it's not essentially dependent on some particular
observation of the world or estimate of the situation... Hope,
in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things
are going well or willingness to invest in enterprises that are
obviously headed for early success, but rather, an ability to work
for something because it is good, not just because it stands a
chance to succeed... Hope is definitely not the same thing as
optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out
well, but the certainty that something makes sense no matter
how it turns out.

-- Vaclav Havel

So what, exactly, do you think is the purpose of a judicial system?

"Euan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "David" == David Trudgett <<[email hidden]> >
>>> writes:

David> Euan <[email hidden]> writes:

David> Equally foolish is to suggest that a cyclist (any,
David> particular, actual, individual, real life person) should
David> never use a footpath (at any time for any reason), regardless
David> of the particular conditions (on which it is not up to us to
David> judge). Yet this is what the "law" (in some less enlightened
David> places) purports to do (something which it is impossible to
David> do).

Not at all. If you want to use the foot path while using a bicycle you
are legally entitled to do so; trick is you have to get off the bicycle
and wheel it. According to the law, that's what you should do so guess
what I do?

David> Ooooh, "law breaker"... sends shivers up the spine! You mean
David> like Jesus? Or, for a contemporary example, Fr John Dear (ex
David> con and convicted felon) (see: http://www.johndear.org/)?
David> Imagine a criminal like Jesus Christ or John Dear or Gandhi
David> being a role model for anyone... perish the thought.

For every rule there's an exception eh? If you're that comfortable
making a decision to break the law on something as ``trivial'' as riding
on the pavement then where does it stop? What law is beyond your
expertise and experience that you won't make a decision as to whether
to obey it or not.

David> The fact is that the law cannot tell you what is right or
David> wrong to do, and the simple proof of that is that laws vary
David> from place to place, even on non-issues like riding bicycles
David> on footpaths.

I disagree. If the law says it's wrong then it is wrong. You may or
may not agree with that but that's what the law states. If you don't
like it, work to get it changed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may be OK with you and that's your choice

David> Good to see some libertarian principles coming out here. It
David> is, indeed, everyone's individual choice.

Everyone makes choices in life, not everyone's willing to wear the
consequences of those choices.
--
Cheers
Euan

Looking at his replies, I suspect we've fed this troll enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Resound" == Resound <[email hidden]> writes:

Resound> Looking at his replies, I suspect we've fed this troll
Resound> enough.

You think? Have you visited his web site?

I don't agree with David's opinions but it seems he does at least
believe in what he's saying. He's entitled to his opinion as I am to
mine and you are to yours.

All I'm saying is that I'm not hanging troll on him 'cause I don't think
he is.
--
Cheers
Euan

"Euan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Resound" == Resound <[email hidden]> writes:

Resound> Looking at his replies, I suspect we've fed this troll
Resound> enough.

You think? Have you visited his web site?

I don't agree with David's opinions but it seems he does at least
believe in what he's saying. He's entitled to his opinion as I am to
mine and you are to yours.

All I'm saying is that I'm not hanging troll on him 'cause I don't think
he is.
--
Cheers
Euan

Oh ok, I haven't visited the site. He just seemed generically combative and
starting to get well OT and it all seemed to be getting trollish.

Quoted post said:

David Trodgett................quotes stuff

And it cannot be otherwise. ........ it was necessary to deceive
them. And it has been done accordingly.

do you measure CC or CT ?

David Trudgett said:

I'll tell you a secret, Euan. This is something that the people who
want to control you don't want you to know, and so they do their best
to keep it from you your entire life through a pervasive system of
social engineering. The secret is this: we are all, of our *essence*,
free and sovereign individuals possessing free will, intelligence and
love. These things may be possessed in varying degrees, perhaps, but
they are there in each one of us, nevertheless. A free and sovereign
individual is not a slave to anyone or any thing, including any law,
unless it is the law of God written in our heart (such as the law
against murder).

Here's a secret for you, Davo :

You and me baby, ain't nothin but mammals.

Hi Baka,

Baka Dasai said:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:42:29 +1000, David Trudgett said (and I quote):

Quoted message said:

I'll tell you a secret, Euan. This is something that the people who
want to control you don't want you to know, and so they do their best
to keep it from you your entire life through a pervasive system of
social engineering. The secret is this: we are all, of our *essence*,
free and sovereign individuals possessing free will, intelligence and
love.

O you wacky libertarians!

How about this:
Humans have no "essence".

By essence, I mean 'nature', and yes, we do have a nature, it's just
that people disagree about what that nature is. Not having an essence
or nature would mean we don't exist. Some people actually believe
this, but I'm not one of them, and not many are, for that
matter. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by, "Humans have no
'essence'."

Quoted message said:

They are born into a society that not only constructs the choices
available to them, but constructs the way in which they comprehend
those choices.

That's undeniably true, as far as it goes, but some things are
"universal and catholic", to coin a well known phrase. The society
into which one is born does not prevent one from understanding love,
for instance.

Where the statement is false, however, is when it tries to make humans
into machines completely molded by their environment, and hence devoid
of personal worth.

Quoted message said:

Your faith in individual freedom and sovereignty is nothing but an
exaggerated effect of belonging to a supposedly liberal capitalist
society.

The theory does not explain how most people I know, including some of
my best friends, are decidedly fascist/authoritarian in their views,
although, of course, they do not admit the "fascist" part. If my
experience is representative (and there's no reason why it wouldn't
be) then most people in our "supposedly liberal capitalist society"
are authoritarian by character, fascist/capitalist in their economic
beliefs, and believe that violence is a legitimate thing as long as
the ends are "good".

The point is that it is extremely difficult to see how the values of
freedom and nonviolence and community can be an exaggeration of the
values of coercive authoritarianism, violence and selfish
individualism.

David

--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

You can't have a genuine community unless it consists of true
individuals, and you can't be an individual unless you are deeply
involved in community.

-- Thomas Moore

David Trudgett said:

The point is that it is extremely difficult to see how the values of
freedom and nonviolence and community can be an exaggeration of the
values of coercive authoritarianism, violence and selfish
individualism.

You can't have a genuine community unless it consists of true
individuals, and you can't be an individual unless you are deeply
involved in community.

-- Thomas Moore

[font=Times New Roman]This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.--Dalai Lama[/font]