Re: Believing ...

[John M]

Brent, 

as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception: 
I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', but 
this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - or many 
religious faithfuls can argue among themselves. I never tried to speculate 
about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system' 
must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details. 

John M

  - Original Message - 
  From: Brent Meeker 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:32 PM
  Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny



  John Mikes wrote:
  > Stathis:
  > You, of all people, should realize that one belief system cannot reach 
  > over to
  > another one. Logic - mindset is different, "facts" come in different 
  > shades, "evidence" is
  > adjusted to the 'system', a belief system is a whole world.
  > Brent makes the same mistake: to argue from his 'scientific' (is it 
  > really - in the
  > conventional old sense???) mindset with statements of the faithful, but 
  > it is a
  > geerally committed error - while you, a learned mind-scientist should know
  > better.
  > I am not on top of this myself: I fall frequently into arguing from my 
  > 'rational'
  > worldview into the (rational for them) faith-induced mentality.
  > 
  > We are the (negligible) minority. "They" have less doubts than us.
  > 
  > So I thank [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (whoever he 
  > or she may be) for the
  > valuable intofmation about the Muslim culture and take it as that.
  > We will never get a jihadic self-sacrificer to accept that his 
  > expectation of the
  > huris waitnig for pleasuring him 'over there' is unfounded. It is for 
  > him and who
  > cares (in my view) for 'happenings' of our present (human) copmplexity 
  > after it
  > dissolved (call it death) into disintegration?
  > 
  > A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the list.
  > That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button.
  > Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different?
  > Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles.
  > 
  > Anybody arguing  - MY - point?

  I guess it would be futile to discuss anything with you, since you believe 
each of us is hermetically sealed in their own belief system.  I don't agree - 
but that's my error.

  Brent Meeker



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Believing ...

[Brent Meeker]

John M wrote:
> Brent,
>  
> as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception:
> I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', 
> but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - 
> or many religious faithfuls can argue among themselves. I never tried to 
> speculate about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief 
> system', but 'system' must be more than just shades of individual 
> differentiation in the details.
>  
> John M

If you don't mean something individual by "belief system", but rather some 
general summary of what a group of people think, then individuals within that 
"belief system" will have a variety of views.  Some will have some views in 
conflict with the belief system.  And some can have their views changed by 
argument.  People are converted from Christianity to atheism everyday.  And 
rational argument plays a large part in this.  Most theists are also rational 
people who want to have beliefs that are coherent and consistent with empirical 
observation.  When they become sufficiently uncomfortable with conflicts 
between Church teachings and science and they may simply stop thinking about it 
and rely on faith - or if they are theologians they may assign tortured 
meanings to words to avoid the conflict - or they may reject those aspects of 
Church teaching that are empirically wrong and become agnostics or atheists.

I notice that you frequently imply that there is something wrong with "the Big 
Bang"; but you have never, so far as I know, provided an argument or any 
evidence for this opinion.  Instead you imply that those with a contrary view 
are just too obtuse to see other possibilities.  This shows a certain contempt 
for your readers.

Brent Meeker
"Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
--- George Carlin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Preliminary essay arguing for new definition of infinity using boolean logic and the real world. (add your thoughts and constructive criticism)

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

The word infinity comes from the latin word meaning Unbounded, or
indistinct.

In geometry and the world, what makes something distinct from
something else? Only a few things: Area's, dots and boundaries. Lines
are just merged dots or dots stitched together (merged) or separated
(dispersed).

Now there are many definitions of infinity, but to think of infinity
in the general sense it makes sense if you begin with boolean logic.
In boolean logic this would mean, either filled or not. either you
exist, or you do not. Either on or off, instantaneous velocity or
transmission velocity. There is no sequence of in between movements in
boolean space, you are either in the space (filling it) or not filling
it. You "Jump" instantaneously between areas in boolean space. To help
think about this concept, imagine 2 concentric circles on the ground,
and you jump between them and land exactly in the middle of each one,
except when you make the jump you are instantaneously transported from
the middle of the first circle to the middle of the next. The empty
space in the 2nd circle is instantly transported (displaced) to the
first circle behind you. (it helps to imagine it as 2 spheres
connected by an "infinitely reflective point" (a node of instant
transmission) in the middle.

People try to think of infinity in the real world as a "number", but
it can't actually "be" a "number" in the traditional sense of how we
understand numbers, because a number is a an object and objects are
BOUNDED (have boundaries, have distinction) to mean something. When
mathematicians count numbers or create them in their imaginary
symbolic space, they don't always realize that we use numbers to
describe things that are for the most part could be described with
infinitely many points, it's just where we continue to stop (create a
boundary around and choose a number).  To see how this works in the
real world, imagine you're polishing a mirror for a new space
telescope do you make an object "infinitely" smooth, by dividing and
dividing again the measurements, or do you at some point stop and the
mirror is smooth enough?

Now if you really want to see what it is like to understand infinity,
go get a hand held mirror and cover it partially with a piece of solid
or semi translucent tape that is easy to unstick from the mirror. Then
stand in front of another one like your bathroom mirror and reflect
the mirror back on itself. That is probably the best way to see the
essence of infinity: The point of infinite reflection, something that
unidirectionally reflects back on itself to a central point like a
circle spinning casting rays toward the equidistant center. Infinity
is a surprisingly easy concept to understand once you understand that
its infinitely reflective, or in simpler language  "it just is".

To help us understand imagine boolean conception of infinity, we must
understand by trying to imagine it in the real world the real world as
a *unidirectional* geometric series of "vortex like (spinning) conic
rays towards a point in space, or a surface like your mirror, that
fades (compresses) into a point that merges.  Now back to our mirror
experiment, because all the images when you look off into that "hall
of mirrors" you've just created merges into an area (a completely
filled space near the "Vanishing point" (the point where objects lose
their boundaries and become unbounded)), all the images created from
that eternal reflection, at some point become squished together
"infinitely" (completely filled) where no object is distinguishable
from any other object: all objects merge and lose their boundaries!
(That is to lose distinction or boundedness)

Mathematicians and scientists the symbolic terrorists

Traditional mathematics obscures the concept of infinity because math
is a tool for measurement, but most mathematicians forget that math is
arbitrarily defined symbols we apply to positions on a line or surface
somewhere located in a space. We simply choose a point and then begin
counting (creating ones or subdivisions of 1) in a direction (a vector
or simply an arrow pointing in a linear direction), in school you
really only count 1's and fractions of 1 in one or two directions on
the old fashioned number line (... -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ... ), they never
teach you that you can count geometrically in 3D space, from any angle
in any direction and even many or all directions at once from
arbitrarily chosen points in a space until much later if at all if you
make it to that point educationally.

The concept of one or one-ness

The concept of one-ness, what is a number? Well I'll tell you what
numbers really are, they are whole or partial reflections of the
concept of one. Or, numbers are BOUNDED OBJECTS or an object that is
bounded (distinct) from something else. Why do I say this? Because all
numbers are nothing more then reflections (creations of one, fully or
partial like 1, 1/3 or 0.5 (5x0.1) or reverse reflections
(destructions (partial or total seperation

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny

[John M]

Excellent, Saibal Mitra! Thanx!

Now you just have to quantize the miracles into a physix 
that fits those "scriptures" -  into 'physical laws' of those religions. Maybe 
it would require a different math as well, to make a fit. And do not forget 
about the calory-supply of Hell. ("Brimstone" requires oxygen, to burn - at 
least in THIS universe.) 

John M

 Original Message - 
  From: Saibal Mitra 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:08 AM
  Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny



  The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
  text there should exist a universe which "best fits" those text.


  Saibal


  - Original Message - 
  From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
  Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny


  >
  > > A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the
  list.
  >
  > I don't remember if I did that a year ago or not, but I certainly think
  the
  > current discussion is off-topic. This mailing list is based on the premise
  > that all possible universes exist. Unless someone can think of a
  connection
  > to this idea, can we please drop this thread?
  >
  > I have also noticed that all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s posts are
  > copy-and-pastes from online sources:
  >
  > http://www.islamanswers.net/destiny/recorded.htm
  > http://www.islamanswers.net/unity/understand.htm
  > http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070226110342AAy6SG5
  > http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm
  >
  > Copying other people's writings without attribution is plagiarism, which I
  > certainly do not approve of.
  >
  > And aside from that, if anyone wants to reference large amounts of online
  > material, please post a link instead of copying the text.
  >
  > P.S., I find that I am not always able to keep up with all of the
  > discussions on the list. Putting my name in a post is a good way to get my
  > attention, and please always feel free to email me directly with any
  > administrative issues related to the list.
  >
  >
  >
  > >


  


  -- 
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 2/27/2007 
3:24 PM


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

[Brent Meeker]

Are you saying I just dreamed that Sumer, Ur, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Sparta, 
Cathay, and the Indus Valley where civilization first developed and lasted for 
thousands of years (much longer than the U.S. which is the oldest existing 
democracy) were not democratic and pre-dated the scientific method?

Brent Meeker

Mark Peaty wrote:
> Dream on Brent ...
> 
> 
> Regards
> Mark Peaty  CDES
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>  
> 
> 
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Klortho wrote:
>>   
 The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
 writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
 civilisation:
 Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
 survive without all four of these.

   
>>> Talk about assertions without any evidence!
>>> 
>>
>> Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived 
>> until recently without democracy or the scientific method.
>>
>> Brent Meeker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> > 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle

[Brent Meeker]

Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Mark Peaty skrev:
>> However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called 
>> 'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that 
>> can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they 
>> are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief.
> I have written an essay called: "A Proof of the Existence of God and Why 
> does Universe Exist" (11 pages), where I scientifically prove that God 
> exist (or rather prove that it is probable that God exists...).  This 
> essay is attached.
> 
> -- 
> Torgny Tholerus

It is an equivocation on "personality"="consciouness"="cooperation" and a 
non-standard meaning of "God".

Here's a much simpler proof:

God is love.
Love exists.
Therefore: God exists.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle

[Mark Peaty]

Well [EMAIL PROTECTED] your response has been even more disappointing 
than even my very low expectation prepared me for. You have not even 
recognised what my questions were about, let alone made any significant 
attempt to address them.

As an ex-Christian I know what it is like to be sucked into a world view 
that projects part of one's own nature into a 'spiritual being' and 
projects other, completely unacknowledged and rejected parts of one's 
psyche onto outsiders who are perceived as being threatening and evil 
because they exhibit those impulses rather than oneself.

However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called 
'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that 
can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they 
are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief. Because there is no way 
of relating these holy ramblings to any concrete test, belief in them 
becomes, as often as not, a function of a person's social and political 
allegiances. The beliefs change to comply with and rationalise the 
ambitions and practices of the ruling elite. The chanting of sacred 
texts and the recitation of beliefs become assurances of acceptance, 
badges of compliance with the regime. There will be NO significant 
contributions to the well being and advancement of human kind arising 
from this religiosity, just acquiescence and the turning of a blind eye 
to the crimes of the rulers and the thugs who impose the anti democratic 
rule.

 The moral and intellectual contrast is expressed most vividly, I think, 
by the way a free-thinking monk called Giordano Bruno was vilified, 
stripped naked, tortured and finally burnt alive by the inquisitor thugs 
of the Roman church, in a public square somewhere in Rome 17 February 
1600. His crime? Being a sceptic and publicly questioning some of the 
preposterous beliefs that religion required people to agree to. He was 
murdered because the sceptical method he advocated and employed 
threatened the very foundations of the corrupt religious hierarchy and 
the secular regimes - all feudal thug-ocracies. From what I read, hear, 
and see reported about Islam in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, and umpteen other 
places, the basic issues are the same as for Christianity. The holders 
and wielders of traditional power WILL not acknowledge that the 
demonstrated power of scientific method to show us how the natural world 
works and to show us deep insights into how the human brain and mind 
work has a moral authority at least equal to that of their 'holy' books. 
THIS is the real challenge of the 20 and 21 centuries.
 
Regards
Mark Peaty  CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
 


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not
> Jesus the same, or, "co-equal" in status with his Father?
> Answer No.1
> In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.)
> `hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.)
> Here the word used by John is `hen' and not `heis'. The marginal notes
> in New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads; one - (Lit.neuter) a
> unity, or, one essence.
> If one wishes to argue that the word `hen' supports their claim for
> Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father, please invite his/
> her attention to the following verse:
>
> Jesus said: "And the glory which Thou hast given me, I have given
> to them (disciples); that they may be one, just as we are one." (John
> 17:22).
> If he/she was to consider/regard/believe the Father and Jesus Christ
> to be "one" meaning "co-equal" in status on the basis of John 10:30,
> then that person should also be prepared to consider/regard/believe
> "them" - the disciples of Jesus, to be "co-equal" in status with the
> Father and Jesus ("just as we are one") in John 17:22. I have yet to
> find a person that would be prepared to make the disciples (students)
> "co-equal" in status with the Father or Jesus.
>
> The unity and accord was of the authorized divine message that
> originated from the Father, received by Jesus and finally passed on to
> the disciples. Jesus admitted having accomplished the work which the
> Father had given him to do. (Jn.17:4)
>
> Hot Tip (precise and pertinent)
> Jesus said: "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than
> I." (Jn.14:28). This verse unequivocally refutes the claim by any one
> for Jesus being "co-equal" in status with his Father.
> 
>
> Question No.2
> Jesus said: "I am the way, ...no one comes to the Father, but through
> me." (Jn.14:6), therefore, is not the Salvation through Jesus, ALONE?
> Answer No.2
> Before Jesus spoke these words, he said; "In my Father's house are
> many mansions (dwelling places); if it were not so, I would have told
> you; for I go to prepare a mansion (a dwelling place) for you." (John
> 14:2). The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to
> prepare "a"

Re: [SPAM] Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countle

[Mark Peaty]

OK, tell me where all those civilisations of the past have gone to, 
because THEY did NOT survived.

Tell me what makes YOU so sure this current global civilisation can 
survive. I am more than happy to be shown where I am wrong, but if you 
TRULY disagree with what I am saying, I would like you to provide some 
clear and unambiguous empirical evidence to back up your assertions. 
Without that, you are simply complaining that I am just strongly 
expressing an opinion. I never deny this, in the context that we are 
speaking of here, but I think that my opinion on this is as good as 
anybody's that I have seen so far.

To help you chew on this:

* compassion is the acting out of the ability to see oneself in the
  other and the recognition that, except for the throw of some
  cosmic dice, I am he or she and they are me; compassion
  facilitates the breaking down of the fear and false consciousness
  which underpins unconscious projection; compassion is a sign and
  manifestation of authentic being and strength, not weakness;
  without compassion truly human life is well nigh impossible
* ethics is the foundation of civilisation and is the acting out of
  the ability to see that we each depend on many, many others for
  our survival and well being and they depend upon us, and that the
  true genius and strength of humankind is our ability to cooperate
  with each other rather than a propensity to strive against others
* democracy is essentially the systematic implementation of the
  non-violent resolution of conflict, it requires that everyone's
  voice be heard and democracy advances as the excessive and
  aggressive power of the rich and powerful is curtailed and
  controlled; Karl Popper gave the most succinct explanation of why
  democracy is both better than all the alternatives and absolutely
  essential and the basic form of his argument is this: all policies
  formulated by governments and governing bodies will have
  unexpected negative consequences, no matter how good the policies,
  and it is to be expected that at least 50% of the unforeseen
  consequences will be significantly adverse and negative for those
  who experience them so it is imperative that the negative
  consequences of policies be made known to those who govern and
  that the rulers take notice and actually ameliorate the problems.
  If the rulers cannot be made to correct these unforeseen negative
  outcomes then over time the negative outcomes will accrue to the
  extent that the people feel driven to rebel or vote with their
  feet and leave the land of the rotten regime.
* the advent of scientific method into human culture is what has
  made the modern world; this modern era is a time of transition in
  which every traditional belief and practice is being challenged by
  the application of scientific method and of the fruits of the
  application of science; in this world of great and ceaseless
  changes, the continued application of scientific method is and
  always will be essential for allowing us to adapt to all the
  unforeseen outcomes of change so far; with scientific method human
  beings have the ability to journey out into the solar system and
  beyond, to be citizens of the galaxy, but without scientific
  method humans will die out on a devastated planet

 
Regards
Mark Peaty  CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
 


Klortho wrote:
>   
>> The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
>> writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
>> civilisation:
>> Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
>> survive without all four of these.
>>
>> 
>
> Talk about assertions without any evidence!
>
>
> >
>
>
>   

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

[Mark Peaty]

Dream on Brent ...


Regards
Mark Peaty  CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
 


Brent Meeker wrote:
> Klortho wrote:
>   
>>> The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
>>> writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
>>> civilisation:
>>> Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
>>> survive without all four of these.
>>>
>>>   
>> Talk about assertions without any evidence!
>> 
>
> Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived 
> until recently without democracy or the scientific method.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> >
>
>
>   

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny

[Saibal Mitra]

The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
text there should exist a universe which "best fits" those text.


Saibal


- Original Message - 
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny


>
> > A year ago or so Wei Dai put an end to religious discussions on the
list.
>
> I don't remember if I did that a year ago or not, but I certainly think
the
> current discussion is off-topic. This mailing list is based on the premise
> that all possible universes exist. Unless someone can think of a
connection
> to this idea, can we please drop this thread?
>
> I have also noticed that all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s posts are
> copy-and-pastes from online sources:
>
> http://www.islamanswers.net/destiny/recorded.htm
> http://www.islamanswers.net/unity/understand.htm
> http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070226110342AAy6SG5
> http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm
>
> Copying other people's writings without attribution is plagiarism, which I
> certainly do not approve of.
>
> And aside from that, if anyone wants to reference large amounts of online
> material, please post a link instead of copying the text.
>
> P.S., I find that I am not always able to keep up with all of the
> discussions on the list. Putting my name in a post is a good way to get my
> attention, and please always feel free to email me directly with any
> administrative issues related to the list.
>
>
>
> >


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---