Is consciousness the same as knowledge?

Ed wrote,

Bill, thanks for the grammar lesson (I hated English in school)!

I hadn't even ever heard of such a thing as a gerund.

Well, Ed, I made a boo-boo myself, listing "is conscious" and "are thoughtful" as verbs, when it is only "is" and "are" that are verbs, "conscious" and "thoughtful" being adjectives. I edited my post to reflect this correction. But thanks for your gracious acknowledgement!

Yeah, "gerund" is a funny word; most people probably haven't heard of it. Another thing that often gets missed about gerunds is that they can have a subject as well as be a subject. Suppose I said, "Swimming was impressive"; you'd want to know whose swimming, right? We could fill in the missing subject, if we said, "Ed's swimming was impressive."

More important, the subject of a gerund always takes the possessive case. This principle is often ignored by otherwise literate speakers of English. For example, we often hear people saying things like, "I don't understand him doing that"; or, "I don't appreciate you acting that way." Notice the two gerunds in these sentences: "doing" and "acting." Since they are gerunds, they take the possessive case, so the two sentences in my example are ungrammatical. They should read, "I don't appreciate your doing that," and "I don't understand his acting that way."

To make this clear, just substitute the word "action" for the phrase "acting that way." Obviously, you wouldn't say, "I don't understand him action"; you'd say, "I don't understand his action. You'd use the possessive case, because "action" is clearly a noun. But people forget this when using a verbal noun or gerund. Another way to understand this is to recognize that the phrase "his acting that way" is a single conceptual unit. You cannot say "his" without asking "his what?" But if you said "him acting that way," the phrase would not be a single conceptual unit, because "him" stands on its own. For example, "I don't understand him" makes perfect sense, whereas "I don't understand his" does not. "His" requires an object. The proper use of a gerund is more commonly recognized in the idiom, "...if you don't mind my asking." People typically do not say, "...if you don't mind me asking. But in other cases, the application of the possessive pronoun to the subject of a gerund is often ignored.

- Bill

Post 21

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:23pm

"A Scandinavian is a man, that comes from Denmark, Norway or Sweden."

Tok - that was not a definition - it was an exampling.... there is a difference...

that's what I thought, too. I still find it disturbing that the wikipedia article presents it as if it were a definition of another form then the genus/ differentia form.

It's not an example of a Scandinavian, if that's what you meant (I don't know what an "exampling" is). An example of a Scandinavian would be a particular Scandinavian, e.g., Bjorn Lomborg or Bergitta Svenson. No, I think that this does qualify as a definition. The genus is "man" (to be politically correct, the definition should have said "person") and the differentia is "comes from Denmark, Norway or Sweden."

- Bill

Post 22

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:21pm

2 cases concerning the concept "knowledge":
I think the two examples show pretty well my confusion and a common misunderstanding of the concept "knowledge"

1) Jimmy Wales, founder of the famous Wikimedia Foundation and passionate Objectivist once stated about Wikipedia:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

He obviously describes the mere information that is posted on the Wikimedia-websites as knowledge (At least that's what he's announcing here). Standing alone without the necessity of someone (some conceptual consciousness) adhering to it.

2)
Rand on the other hand writes in ITOE:

"...science is an organized body of knowledge about [these] phenomena, acquired by and communicable to a human consciousness. The phenomena would continue to exist, even if no human consciousness remained in existence; the science would not."

AND

"knowledge" is "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation."

Jimmy Wales is stating that knowledge can exist (and does exist) distinct from consciousness, that the Wikimedia foundation is spreading knowledge like spreading bread and butter by posting articles online available to any internet-user. He uses the word knowledge like I would prabably currently use the word information.

In a Wikipedia article every word that' s written there has a meaning (or the concept of the word does). The meaning of any concept has once been defined and is retained through language. Even if somehow all consciousness would cease to exist from one moment to the other the information contained in any wikipedia article doesn't turn from right to wrong...........................

And now comes the crux of my problem:

.....................the "rightness" or "wrongness" (truth or falsehood) of the sentences is not intrinsically contained in them. So the "rightness" or "wrongness" can't turn from right to wrong or the other way around. Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e identification) of the facts of reality, by man.

The information contained in an article of wikipedia simply cannot be knowledge even if the information later turns out to be true. Before one has assured the truth of the information it simply doesn't make sense to speak of knowledge because the concept knowledge implies at least one essential aspect more than information: truth. And truth, as stated above, is the product of the relation between an aspect of reality and man's consciousness that assures that the information is logically waterproof.

So as it turns out knowledge is relational because it implies the concept truth, which is the primary reason for knowledge's relational character.

What do you think about perceptual knowledge? I know Objectivism claims its possibility e.g. if one sees a car crashing against a tree one can immediately tell the police that one has seen a car crashing against a tree - One knows that one has seen the car hit the tree. What I am not sure of is: By telling the police that one saw the car hit the tree one has already identified the car, the hitting and the tree that one has perceived. If perceptual knowledge is possible and knowledge implies truth, what is truth to a child who doesn't have concepts to weigh the perceptual evidence?

Imagine seeing a "flying saucer" in the sky on a warm summerday, the glaring sun hurting the eye while trying to make out the "flying saucer" that has caught one's attention. Perceptual knowledge about this event is different to conceptual knowledge. While conceptual knowledge claims the truth about what one has grasped, perceptual knowledge "could" just claim the truth about the fact that one has grasped what one has grasped. So, while with the conceptual knowledge one could say it is a warm summerday and the sun hurts one's eye when one looks up and one has seen something that looked like a "flying saucer" the perceptual part assures the basis of that claim, that one has perceived what one has perceived. Thus, the conceptual knowledge logically rests on the perceptual knowledge.

It's late I'm gonna quit for the day. I'm thankful for any helpful comment.

What do you think?

Tok

Post 23

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:58pm

Tok, interesting points.

================
Jimmy Wales is stating that knowledge can exist (and does exist) distinct from consciousness, that the Wikimedia foundation is spreading knowledge like spreading bread and butter by posting articles online available to any internet-user. He uses the word knowledge like I would prabably currently use the word information.
================

Firstly, Wikipedia is not 'distinct' from consciousness (it was conceived to do exactly what it does -- to serve as a conduit of information between thinkers). Being conceived thusly, evidence of knowledge (ie. information) is stored there.

Secondly, the evidence of knowledge stored at Wikipedia is not conclusive evidence of knowledge (as you alluded) -- like we have from any logic or math textbook -- it's merely expert opinion (until individually justified by a thinking agent -- when it becomes genuine knowledge).

================
In a Wikipedia article every word that' s written there has a meaning (or the concept of the word does). The meaning of any concept has once been defined and is retained through language. Even if somehow all consciousness would cease to exist from one moment to the other the information contained in any wikipedia article doesn't turn from right to wrong...........................
================

But there is no meaning without consciousness. Words, without humans around, would not have any function (as they do now). So, if all consciousness ceases, the information at Wikipedia instantly becomes meaningless (and that's from keeping context) .

================
And now comes the crux of my problem:

.....................the "rightness" or "wrongness" (truth or falsehood) of the sentences is not intrinsically contained in them. So the "rightness" or "wrongness" can't turn from right to wrong or the other way around. Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e identification) of the facts of reality, by man.
================

I think I follow you (and, if I do, you're right). The concept of falsity genetically gave rise to the concept of truth (being beings capable of believing in falsity -- we had to discern what's false, from what's not false -- ie. from what's true). The fact of any given matter exists necessarily (whether we exist or not) -- though it is a conceptually-meaningless thing, if we don't even exist to discover it.

================
The information contained in an article of wikipedia simply cannot be knowledge even if the information later turns out to be true. Before one has assured the truth of the information it simply doesn't make sense to speak of knowledge because the concept knowledge implies at least one essential aspect more than information: truth.
================

Again, if I follow you, you're right. Information can be false, knowledge can't. In this respect information can move from opinion to knowledge (if worked-on correctly by a human mind). I've written elsewhere about what knowledge is -- and argued that it shouldn't be referred to as justified true belief; but rather as correct conceptual discernment. Your arguments seem commensurable with mine.

Ed

Post 24

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 6:16pm

Tok,

[Jimmy Wales] obviously describes the mere information that is posted on the Wikimedia-websites as knowledge (At least that's what he's announcing here). Standing alone without the necessity of someone (some conceptual consciousness) adhering to it.

Wikipedia stores a collection of information. The collection came from the knowledge of many men. I don't use Rand's definition of knowledge, my definition would classify information on Wikipedia as knowledge in many contexts.

My definition (Knowledge is information that a life form has available to perform operations on within a given time span) would qualify information in wikipedia as your knowledge, given you have the time to search for it, discover it, think about it, and possibly make a decision based on it. Does it matter, when you want to think about "Black Bears", whether you load information about a "Black Bears" from long term memory or from wikipedia? What are the differences between your long term memory and wikipedia? You go through different processes to load the information into short term memory, which takes a different amount of time.

And now comes the crux of my problem:

.....................the "rightness" or "wrongness" (truth or falsehood) of the sentences is not intrinsically contained in them. So the "rightness" or "wrongness" can't turn from right to wrong or the other way around. Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e identification) of the facts of reality, by man.

I disagree with your idea that "knowledge" must be information that is true. I'll define a few words that you are struggling on, and then maybe it will become more clear to you.

Information: a set of parts of Reality. Examples: "010101010", "Dean is.", "ouhdx9ed892".

The more complex a set of parts is, the more information it is. Depending on the goal, some information is more useful than other information. I, myself, in my entirety, am also information, but I'm rapidly changing.

True: adjective, used to indicate that some information is consistent with Reality

False: adjective, used to indicate that some information is inconsistent with Reality

Definition: A sentence that (refers to)/describes the same part of Reality twice. For example, in English, a part of reality such as a "Black Bear" is referred to twice, usually once with a short character stream (like "Black Bear"), once usually with a longer character stream (like "A large mammal that has hair that absorbs all colors in the visual spectrum").

Knowledge: Information that a life form has available to perform operations on within a given time span.

So... a given piece of information may refer to a relationship in Reality (true), or it may refer to a relationship that doesn't exist (false). You can perform operations on (think about) information that is inconsistent with reality. For example I might mistakenly tell you that my bill was in the mailbox, and ask you to get it for me. When really my house-mate already got the mail. Then you would know and operate on false information (false knowledge!).

"Black Bear" is

"Black Bear" is

I'd say those are definitions too. The first one is true. The second one is false. If you didn't know what "black" was, and you didn't know what "bear" was, then maybe you wouldn't be able to recognize that the second definition is false... unless you for some reason began using "black" to refer to what I refer to as "green", and you began using "bear" to what I refer to as "brocoli". You might tell a young child the second definition, and then they would have false knowledge.

Post 25

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:10pm

Dean, I disagree that knowledge is mere information. Dean (and Tok, too), tell me what you think of this.

Ed

Post 26

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:54pm

I haven't read all the above posts, so I don't know if this has been mentioned already.

Many states of consciousness have little or nothing to do with knowledge.
For example, conscious states of undirected anxiety or nervousness, have no essential connection with knowledge.

Post 27

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 8:57am

Ciro,

I'd say that nervousness is a 'mental' state -- and not a 'conscious' state. If consciousness is anything, it has got to be an awareness (a grasp of something). Nervousness is not an awareness (though you can be aware of your nervousness).

Ed

Post 28

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:10am

Folks,

The reason we have the concept 'knowledge,' is to differentiate that which is 'known' from mere opinion. Because folks have opinions -- and they're often wrong opinions -- we needed a concept for those things that can't be wrong (that's right, knowledge can't be wrong!). Some simple examples are things like ...

2 + 2 = 4

I exist.

Black is darker than white.

All live elephants are bigger than all live fleas.

... and, while it's possible to hold an opinion on the above, it's also possible to attain knowledge regarding them -- because it is not possible for the above statements to be wrong. As soon as you discover the impossibility of the above statements being wrong -- you have attained knowledge. In this respect, knowledge is knowing 'how' you know what you know (and not necessarily just knowing what you know).

How do I know that I exist (how do I know it's not a mere opinion of mine)? Because to be questioning anything presupposes my own existence -- if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be questioning; therefore, it is impossible that I do not exist. Now that I know about this impossibility, I can say that I have knowledge that I exist (as opposed to mere opinion about the matter).

Ed

Post 29

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 9:53am

Ed said:

The reason we have the concept 'knowledge,' is to differentiate that which is 'known' from mere opinion.

Agreed. That's a nice way to put it; but things are not so simple...

Because folks have opinions -- and they're often wrong opinions -- we needed a concept for those things that can't be wrong (that's right, knowledge can't be wrong!).

Yes, (true) knowledge can't be wrong, but humans never attain knowledge with total certainty. (I will return to this "non-absoluteness" aspect later.)

2 + 2 = 4

True if we consider this statement within the proper context.

I exist.

Well, I know that *I* exist, but my knowledge that *you* exist is flimsier. Remember the Turing test. (Now: I assume that you exist. Assumptions are always required in order to attain knowledge.)

Black is darker than white.

Well, blackness is "100% darkness."

All live elephants are bigger than all live fleas.

That's very much probable...

In this respect, knowledge is knowing 'how' you know what you know

Yes! You always need to contrast informations and methods; defining and analyzing your epistemological procedure is needed to evaluate the plausibility of your (alleged) knowledge.

(and not necessarily just knowing what you know).

From an epistemological point of view, be aware that "knowing what you know" is not beyond solipsism.

How do I know that I exist (how do I know it's not a mere opinion of mine)? Because to be questioning anything presupposes my own existence -- if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be questioning; therefore, it is impossible that I do not exist. Now that I know about this impossibility, I can say that I have knowledge that I exist (as opposed to mere opinion about the matter).

To me, that sounds very absolute, and when you think you got something 100% right... you are probably wrong.

Think about the "brain in a vat" paradox --or other Matrix-like scenarios: it is possible --though not humanly desirable, but that's another issue-- that a XXXth Century mad scientist is running a simulation in where an electronic chip labeled as "Ed Thompson" has been programmed to believe that it exists...

That may sound disquieting to some Objectivists, but absolute knowledge of a thing is logically and actually impossible.

I would recommend you William Poundstone's Labyrinths of Reason : Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge.

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/07, 10:32am)

Post 30

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 10:41am

The reason we have the concept 'knowledge,' is to differentiate that which is 'known' from mere opinion. Because folks have opinions -- and they're often wrong opinions -- we needed a concept for those things that can't be wrong (that's right, knowledge can't be wrong!).

The reason we have the concept of knowledge is to differentiate that which is known from that which is unknown. Knowledge is distinguished from ignorance (which subsumes opinion), not simply from mere opinion itself. Truth and falsity are the concepts that distinguish correct ideas from incorrect ones.

Some simple examples are things like ...

2 + 2 = 4

I exist.

Black is darker than white.

All live elephants are bigger than all live fleas.

... and, while it's possible to hold an opinion on the above, it's also possible to attain knowledge regarding them -- because it is not possible for the above statements to be wrong. As soon as you discover the impossibility of the above statements being wrong -- you have attained knowledge. In this respect, knowledge is knowing 'how' you know what you know (and not necessarily just knowing what you know).

Are you saying that knowledge includes knowing how you know what you know and is therefore not limited to knowing what you know? Or are you saying that knowledge depends on knowing how you know what you know? If the latter, then you are saying that you must have knowledge before you can have knowledge, which is a contradiction. Knowing what you know and how you know it presupposes knowledge, not the other way around.

How do I know that I exist (how do I know it's not a mere opinion of mine)? Because to be questioning anything presupposes my own existence -- if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be questioning; therefore, it is impossible that I do not exist. Now that I know about this impossibility, I can say that I have knowledge that I exist (as opposed to mere opinion about the matter).

That's true - you can't question your own existence without existing to question it, which is the Cartesian Cogito ("Cogito ergo sum" - I think, therefore, I am). What is even more fundamental, however (and which is something that Descartes failed to recognize), is that consciousness presupposes not just one's own existence, but the existence of an external world (i.e., existence as such), otherwise there would be nothing to be conscious of). As Peikoff puts it, "If we were to rewrite Genesis, we would say: "In the beginning, there was existence."

Thus, we have the axioms of consciousness and existence, followed by the axiom of identity. For a thing to exist, it must have some nature; it must be something in particular; it must possess identity. Existence is identity. Are you listening, Mr. Bob Mack? ;-) Of course, you can't "prove" these axioms, because proof entails the derivation of an idea from antecedent knowledge - from antecedently known propositions. Proof - derivational knowledge - presupposes self-evident knowledge. The axioms of Objectivism are (implicitly) self-evident. We know these axioms by the simple act of perceiving reality. To look at reality is to know that:

There is..........something.......that I am aware of.
(existence).......(identity)..........(consciousness)

- Bill

Post 31

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 10:47am

Joel,

the book you recommended interests me. I just ordered it and I am looking forward to reading it.

Your points are very familiar to mine and I see the problem of claiming "absoludity" (sorry for that word-creation, I really don't know how to call it correctly:-)) of knowledge since one doesn't know the unknown. I don't think that Objectivists or Rand claim absolute correctness of knowledge but always only as logically sound with one's current knowledge. Just as Rand wrote in ITOE that "All definitions are contextual" but she also writes that a correct primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one (p.43)

Sounds to me that absoludity isn't possible but also not necessary. I think it is necessary to always keep in mind that knowledge is no more and no less than objective grasps of reality by a consciousness. I think that whenever somebody claims absoludity of statements he implicitly claims that he even knows what hasn't been discovered yet. This kind of thinking turns one's view from the guidance of the primacy of existence to the guidance by the primacy of consciousness. It leads to a subjective wish-worshipping, to live in a world of absolute certainty--> welcome to the world of absolute uncertainty (<gg>)...

Tok

Post 32

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 11:09am

Joel,

the book you recommended interests me. I just ordered it and I am looking forward to reading it.

Tok, glad to hear that. If you love logic and paradox --some individuals abhor paradox--, you will have fun.

Your points are very familiar to mine and I see the problem of claiming "absoludity" (sorry for that word-creation, I really don't know how to call it correctly:-)) of knowledge since one doesn't know the unknown.

Well, my point here is that we need to recognize that to know a thing with absolute certainty would require absolute knowledge of everything. (When you reach the "omniscience" section, you will find an amusing 'mental experiment' about a computer with the size of the universe.)

I don't think that Objectivists or Rand claim absolute correctness of knowledge but always only as logically sound with one's current knowledge.

Ayn Rand sounded, and most Objectivists typically sound, as if they where claiming absolute correctness; now, as you probably know, this is not a strictly Objectivist feature. But it is not a good feature.

Just as Rand wrote in ITOE that "All definitions are contextual" but she also writes that a correct primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one (p.43)

Yes. (That's the way logic, reason, and analysis work; it is not a Randian discovery.)

I think that whenever somebody claims absoludity of statements he implicitly claims that he even knows what hasn't been discovered yet.

Yes: what I mean is related to that.

Tok

Regards

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/07, 12:37pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:21pm

Joel,

============
Yes, (true) knowledge can't be wrong,
============

Joel, (true) knowledge is redundant -- all knowledge is true. If you try to give me an example of false knowledge, then I'll bet you that I can show you how it was not ever knowledge (because I know how it is that knowledge acquisition is performed -- in the species, Homo sapiens).

============
True if we consider this statement within the proper context.
============

All knowledge is contextual. You should not arbitrarily evaluate my statement (that 2 + 2 = 4) within an unintended context -- that is sophistry, not critical analysis.

============
Well, I know that *I* exist, but my knowledge that *you* exist is flimsier.
============

Of course. Heck, before I actually met RoR folks in person (at RoR #1) -- I had envisioned a super-computer with a 'randomness-chip' as being behind each and every other contributor here besides me (as if the whole of RoR -- was just a government front and sting operation to trap dissenters like me).

Thankfully, when I arrived in Florida -- there were no government agents to drag me away. Instead, I was met with a warm welcome from folks I had been interacting with (online) for years. What a pleasant outcome. ;-)

============
Well, blackness is "100% darkness."
============

But are you 100% sure? [THAT'S the question]

============

All live elephants are bigger than all live fleas.

That's very much probable...
============

No, it's definite (and I'm certain of that). The reason that I can be 100% certain about the relative sizes of elephants and fleas -- is because I understand what they're made of.

Just as it is a physical impossibility for a flea to approach the size of an elephant (because of it's exoskeleton, which imposes biophysical limits on size), so is it a physical impossibility for elephants to approach the size of a flea (because the minimum number of cells required for elephant organs and tissues -- would not be able to be retained under a 1/100 million reduction of body size).

============
To me, that sounds very absolute, and when you think you got something 100% right... you are probably wrong.
============

Now, surely, that criticism can't be right (at least not "100% right"). ;-)

============
a XXXth Century mad scientist is running a simulation in where an electronic chip labeled as "Ed Thompson" has been programmed to believe that it exists...
============

This futuristic scenario begs a key question -- that it is possible for an electronic chip to "feel" like it is a human. In doing so (in begging this key question without ANY evidence), this scenario has crossed over into "the arbitrary."

Not having a relation to reality (except in your "imagination"), it is not worth rationally addressing -- as it, in actuality, has no "meaning". It is as if you had just chirped like a bird, ribbitted like a frog, or crowed like a rooster -- you were attempting to communicate something with meaning, but you failed to do so. You failed to actually say something that is rationally addressable.

Ed

Post 34

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 3:50pm

Don't you just love the way Ed explains things? You come away with something of real value, instead of obnoxious doubt.

His jousting with Bill is fun to read too. Just letting you two know.

Post 35

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 4:27pm

The flea components is irrelevant - it is the breathing mechanism which forbids gigantic sizing - the needed requirement of getting the oxygen to metabolic comsumption by the cells, regardless of the exoskeletal make-up [after all, just to throw in one, it is possible to have a blimpy [methanized?] flea of gigantic exoskeletal make-up size - BUT it'd die for lack of the needed oxygen to the cells]... this applies to ANY insect, which makes those atomic ones of the movies so much hilariousness to see... [in other words, it'd need lungs - which, then, would no longer make it a flea, ant, or whatever insect]

Post 36

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 7:08pm

Thanks, Teresa!

I get on Bill's nerves every now and again -- but I foresee him and I continually interacting for decades. In fact, I'll bet a dollar to a donut that that intellectual cowboy NEVER writes me off (because he knows I'm 'the goods').

Rev' -- you one-upped me again!

Here I remember reading a biology text that said exoskeletons couldn't be scaled up past a certain size -- and then you come out of the blocks with a limitation even more fundamental: respiration. That's the trouble with folks like you who read so much (they often know things that you don't -- and, therefore, can often knock you off of your soapbox).

Ed

Post 37

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 7:15pm

Bill,

===========
Or are you saying that knowledge depends on knowing how you know what you know? If the latter, then you are saying that you must have knowledge before you can have knowledge, which is a contradiction. Knowing what you know and how you know it presupposes knowledge, not the other way around.
===========

Bill, all I'm saying is that when you truly know something, then you can trace it back to primaries such as the self-evident or what it is that immediately and logically follows from the self-evident.

Be sure, I'm not talking about deducing knowledge from axioms. I'm talking about what Rand was talking about -- when she said that it either can be reduced to what is given in perception, or it isn't knowledge. All I've done is replace her term: "perception" with the new (possibly improved?) phrase: "the self-evident -- or what it is that immediately and logically follows from the self-evident."

===========
Proof - derivational knowledge - presupposes self-evident knowledge. The axioms of Objectivism are (implicitly) self-evident. We know these axioms by the simple act of perceiving reality. To look at reality is to know that:

There is..........something.......that I am aware of.
(existence).......(identity)..........(consciousness)
===========

Extremely well said, Bill.

Ed

Post 38

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 8:06pm

Why thank you, Ed. And right back atcha, hombre!

- Bill

Post 39

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 8:15pm