Post-Nova stuff

I think that we tend to forget how insular this world really is until it hits more traditional media. Especially to posters on Pharyngula, the whole "cdesign proponentsists" thing appears to have been a revelation (certainly not to the regulars there), well after we've gotten bored with it (sad to say, ID lies are dime a dozen).

Anyhow, it was good to see the characters and events pieced together on the NOVA program, like Matzke (hey, I even know how to pronounce it now) and the way he was a link in the discovery of "cdesign proponentsists". Even better to realize how many more people know much of the sorry tale of ID and its attempts to hide what it actually is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

They did a good job of misinforming the public. There is no serious scientific debate between evolution and creationism. ID advocates don't want science teachers telling their students a person god created life. They don't want science teachers to deny evolution, which is an obvious scientific fact.

Scientific ID advocates aren't saying "I ain't descended from no monkey" and "there ain't nothing in the bible that ain't true."

But that's how this show presented the controversy. As if nothing had changed since the Scopes trial.

I'm sure a lot of people will, and have, fallen for it. But deception usually fails eventually.

Just a couple of comments I made on my own blog about this show that I think ID opponents ought to consider:

"If I'm a scientist who believes in Darwinism, I'm going to find "Judgment Day" very disturbing, and here's why: I'm going to be sitting there waiting for calls from my Intelligent Design friends who are going to ask me if the kind of objectivity on display in the PBS program is the same kind of objectivity I employ when dealing with scientific questions that bear on Darwinism.

"This question puts Darwinists in an awkward position: either they maintain that the show was, in fact, objective and impartial, in which case their own credibility on any question, including Darwinism, goes down the tubes, or they're going to admit that the program was biased, in which case they can't consider the program anything other than damaging for their cause.

"So let's see what the opponents of Intelligent Design do now. Will they admit that the program was biased and preserve their own integrity? Or compromise their integrity by not admitting what to any reasonable person is fairly evident--that the show was a hatchet job?"

I’m sure a lot of people will, and have, fallen for it. But deception usually fails eventually.

“So let’s see what the opponents of Intelligent Design do now. Will they admit that the program was biased and preserve their own integrity? Or compromise their integrity by not admitting what to any reasonable person is fairly evident–that the show was a hatchet job?”

Yep, no doubt about it, Martin, this Nova was Science's waterloo. I totally got your back on this one, buddy!

You're right on the numbers. All my ID friends, whom I talk to daily, from their ID laboratories where they do tons and tons of ID experiments, won't let me play their reindeer games anymore. They can tell I've got no credibility anymore! But now, thanks to you, my best buddy, I know why!

In fact, I think this Nova is so completely disasterous for science's reputation that the ID crowd should proclaim to everyone that they need to watch it, right away. Maybe they could jockey to get it shown in every school in America... since REALLY it makes all Darwinist's credibility go down the tubes!

You with me, Buddy! I'm totally backing you up here, Martin! Let's get this Nova shown in churches nationwide!

Not that ID is religion or anything... but it's just a good focal-point of unbiased scientific education.

I'm Martin's new best friend!

Glen Davidson --- Believe it. About realpc...

I'll consider it longer than I will Cothran's "challenge", anyway, David.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

There is no serious scientific debate between evolution and creationism.

Scientific ID advocates

If I’m a scientist who believes in Darwinism, I’m going to find “Judgment Day” very disturbing,

Martin Cothran:

I would suggest that you read the court transcripts, and then read the newspaper articles on the Dover controversy. The NOVA group showed restraint. The program could have put up material that would have made the ID advocates look even worse. How can you call it a hatchet job when you obviously do not know what you are talking about. It looks one sided, but there was really only one side with an honest argument. If this were not true, why would the guys that ran the teach ID scam for years be running the bait and switch scam on any creationist rube that believed that they had something to teach about ID. What has happened to every creationist school board or legislator that has popped up and claimed to want to teach ID since the Ohio fiasco in 2002? Do you admit that the same guys that ran the teach ID scam are giving these rubes the switch that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed?

If the guys that perpetrated the teach ID scam are currently running the bait and switch on their own supporters, what chance is there that the NOVA program was a hatchet job? Remember that the ID perps started to run the bait and switch before the Dover fiasco. Get your ID friends to tell you what creationist scam the guys that perpetrated the teach ID scam are currently running. Ask them why the replacement scam doesn't even mention that ID ever existed if the NOVA program was a hatchet job. You have to know that the guys that perpetrated the teach ID scam have a new scam, right? If ID were legit, would they need a replacement like they are currently hawking? Why can't ID be mentioned as one of the "controversies?" What are they critically analyzing? Why doesn't it involve ID? What is your definition of hatchet job when even the ID perps gave up on the ID scam years before Dover?

Nick,

One word summed it all up for me "Cdesign proponetist". I have a vocab. word wall in my science class. Its up their baby!

Biologists are "biased" against ID in the same sense that drivers are biased against flat tires, electricians are biased against shoddy wiring, and the Sunday-brunch chef at a good restaurant is biased against the idea of putting Velveeta in the cheese omelettes. And I personally enjoy a good "hatchet job" when its targets are perjury, willful ignorance, flagrant violations of the U.S. Constitution, and the organized sabotage of public science education at the expense of children.

NOVA did a great job, and for the most part let the people involved in the story speak for themselves. And when people speak for themselves on television, their words are heard clearly, whether they're science teachers who weather public abuse for doing their jobs or university-tenured Ph.D. biochemists who claim to find nothing worth reading in the original literature of their own field.

For the ID Trolls, I was thinking the same thoughts that Ron Okimoto expressed. I thought that the show was remarkably restrained. You seem to forget that we have complete documentation, along with plenty of PR published on the web before the trial by the ID crowd. NOVA could have made these folks look like total idiots simply by letting them speak for themselves. (Oh, wait...they DID let them speak for themselves! Funny about that...)

But tell me, I've read all the transcripts, along with the judge's ruling (and the confident talk early on by the ID folks about how great it was that a conservative, Santorum recommended Bush appointee was going to hear the case). The show re-enacted the trial from the transcripts. They invited the ID advocates to speak for themselves, and only one did (and I thought they were remarkably polite to him). They let Bonsell and Buckingham speak for themselves and express their opinions fully (as judged by the consistency of what they broadcast with what these men have maintained in the past). So how, pray tell, is this show such an embarrassing sham? Is it that when you see just how inane the ID side came off, you are so embarrassed that you tell yourself it must be a deceptive hatchet-job because you can't admit to yourself just how silly the whole ID sham actually is? Please, detail exactly where this program went wrong? Pull up the transcripts and post those devastating exchanges showing that evolution is not science, the depositions that prove that ID is normal science supported by research, and the piles of original research published ANYWHERE that have successfully demonstrated the validity of ID as science. I'm waiting (but not enthusiastic for any sort of meaningful response).

Thanks for the mention Nick! I've added another take on the cdesign proponentsists shirt since, have a look.

realpc: ID advocates don't want science teachers telling their students a person god created life. They don't want science teachers to deny evolution, which is an obvious scientific fact.

Scientific ID advocates aren't saying "I ain't descended from no monkey" and "there ain't nothing in the bible that ain't true."

Realpc:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” (Dembski 1999, 84).

Any questions?

I'm pumped about the idea of cdesign proponentsists T-shirts. Why not have '"Breathtaking inanity" -- Judge Jones' on the back?

My best friend, a geophysicist, called me up during the show. He didn't know much about Kitzmiller v. Dover.

He was laughing his ass off, and shouted "Can you believe how retarded these fucking assholes are?"

I told him that was my same reaction during the trial.

hope this makes it into the "what do think" part.

BDeller: Nick, One word summed it all up for me "Cdesign proponetist". I have a vocab. word wall in my science class. Its up their baby!

Here's some more T-shirts

PBS’s “Judgment Day” portrays a dramatized and sharply truncated account of Michael Behe's Kitzmiller testimony, making it appear as if he said that ID is no more scientific than astrology during hostile examination from the plaintiffs' attorney. Of course Behe and all ID scientists reject astrology, but PBS insinuates that astrology falls under Behe’s definition of a “scientific theory.” What PBS fails to acknowledge is that 500 years ago, the ancient scientific consensus would have claimed (erroneously) that astrology even meets the U.S. National Academy of Science's definition of a scientific theory, as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses." The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS’s definition of a scientific theory, or Michael Behe's definition of a scientific theory 500 years ago, for something that is "science" can still be be wrong. The problem is that astrology is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms.

The above-quoted utterly irrelevant and misleading crap was written by Casey Luskin (of course).

Why not have “Breathtaking inanity” – Judge Jones on the back?

Love it!

Alan Conwell: I'm pumped about the idea of cdesign proponentsists T-shirts. Why not have '"Breathtaking inanity" -- Judge Jones' on the back?

Nick,

I'm sorry I will mispell that incorrectly-er from now on.

How about "Girreducible complexityDID IT" is this a potential transitional form?

Nick, Thank you for all you did on this trial. The part to me that was most chilling was Phillip Johnson. Wow. Johnson is a good name for him and his goals.

I know that people will want to argue for one point or the other.

Such is the nature of people.

I thought PBS did a remarkable job of demonstrating that evolution is not an enemy to religion.

I had a class in 1981 that taught both Creationist and Evolution oriented thought. We did not think that it was any big deal at the time. It was in my Earth Science class. The teacher encouraged us to make up our own minds.

It was not an agenda, or some conspiracy that made the teacher do this. He did not have any church purchased text books to do this. It was his own decision on what was fair and balanced.

In hindsight, and as a result of watching the Nova episode, I think that my teacher made a mistake. He let popular controversy and logic dictate what he taught in the class, rather than the most fundamental laws that rule our nation and his conduct.

The one mistake he didn't make was getting us to think for ourselves. More classes should encourage their students to weigh the pros and cons of what they are exposed to, and come to their own decisions. This is in contrast to being spoon fed opinions or being confused and distracted by people that are trying to brew controversy where none should exist.

The constitution is very clear on the state establishment of religion being explicitly forbidden. Because of this, any belief system founded in religion should not be the basis for classroom material, except perhaps, in a theology class or in a private school, where teachers are free to teach whatever they want.

However, even though I agree with Nova's conclusions, I am not buying in to the idea that because I think evolution is sound science, I need to be in conflict with people that think Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.

I am not their enemy.

If either side wants to see the enemy, all they have to do is work up their [self] righteous indignation at another's belief system or ideology, and then look in the mirror. Look at the face, look at the hatred, look at the anger: this is the real enemy.

And this, unfortunately is what western Television and even PBS [probably unwittingly] perpetuates.

So, by directing people's attention to being for or against intelligent design, what we are really accomplishing is dividing people from one another. Our television is polarizing us into groups that can find no common ground, because we are not taught to think that way. The few times that I have been taught to think that way was because of the gems hidden within religion or philosophy. These are the same gems that Joseph Cambell saw. I should not hate my neighbour, but rather be able to walk a mile in his shoes. Good books and parables and sometimes fairy tales have similar wisdom.

If you are confused as far as what side I am taking, I have succeeded.

So with that, I will take a line from President Ronald Wilson Reagan, and close by saying God bless you all.

[An Agnostic Buddhist]

-Kurt Östreich

I am not buying in to the idea that because I think evolution is sound science, I need to be in conflict with people that think Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.

But deception usually fails eventually.

They can be taught in a comparative religion, or history,

I'm going to disagree in part, and say that CREATIONISM could be taught in a comp. religious studies course, but ID is nothing but marketing.

you'd have to teach it in an advertising course, or general discussion of marketing in politics (hence poly sci, or history).

Dirt Ostrich:

Look at the face, look at the hatred, look at the anger: this is the real enemy.

Sorry, Senator Lieberman, but that line is getting really really old.

The problem we face is not the existence of angry disagreement between humans.

The problem we face is widespread stupidity and the solution is surely not the promulgation of bogus platitudes like "Can't we all get along?" The solution is education, such as a nationally broadcast documentary showing how creationists continually lie about evolution.

Thanks for playing, though.

In hindsight, and as a result of watching the Nova episode, I think that my teacher made a mistake.

if that is even the only thing that the Nova episode manages to teach folks, I would be extremely satisfied.

In hindsight, and as a result of watching the Nova episode, I think that my teacher made a mistake.

if that is even the only thing that the Nova episode manages to teach folks, I would be extremely satisfied.

I am not their enemy.

then you need to think more carefully about what you learned in hindsight.

it matters not that you don't consider your support of good science to be an attack on creationism, THEY DO. This will NOT change.

if you don't react, they'll simply mow you down with stupidity.

New T-shirt:

Darwinists Evolution = Shit Happens

That seems to be the botom line Any question put to Darwinists evolutioninst is answered with, "It just happened, now go away"

Its not so much a theory, but the absence of theory.

Please don't use the phrase "missing link." It only adds to the public's misconceptions.

Anyway, my 2c on the show.

It was better than I expected, but fell short just where I thought it would. My favorite parts: The frequent display of the 3-dimensional "tree of life"; I just wished that they said more about how the "ladder" model is wrong and misleading. Also Eugenie Scott's mentioning of how IDers evade questions of what the designer did and when, though that too was all too brief.

It should have been emphasized that the "Pandas" Diagram of the alternative of the "tree," fits best with old-earth progressive creationism, and that that model differs as much from the YEC model - and Behe's personal model - as it does from that of evolution. If Behe is indeed the "thick edge of the wedge" as Phillip Johnson said, then everyone, including the hopelessly deluded Bill Buckingham, should at least admit that YEC is dead, with no hope of resurrection.

The worst sound bite was when Bryan Rehm said that once one identifies the designer as God it becomes the Genesis story. Caveat: I may have missed a word or two, but what he should have said, and probably meant, is that most people, including most 9th graders, would infer the Genesis story. Of course it would not be the Genesis story unless the teacher said what the designer did and when, and made sure that it corresponded to one of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations. True IDers would not dare call attention to those irreconcilable differences (or heaven forbid, critically analyze them) even if it were legal to identify the designer or to call their pseudoscience "creationism."

ID is not just "not science" and "a religious view that discourages the free exercise of mainstream Judeo-Christian religions," but a massive cover-up of the scientific failure, as well as the legal failure, of classic creationism.

Bach: when people don't answer my questions I go and try and find out for myself.

What question(s) didn't you get answered?

The Troll Model grunted for a moment and then passed something nasty onto the forum as follows: That seems to be the botom line Any question put to Darwinists evolutioninst is answered with, “It just happened, now go away” Its not so much a theory, but the absence of theory.

jerad: Bach: when people don't answer my questions I go and try and find out for myself. What question(s) didn't you get answered?

Kurt Oestreich: In hindsight, and as a result of watching the Nova episode, I think that my teacher made a mistake. He let popular controversy and logic dictate what he taught in the class, rather than the most fundamental laws that rule our nation and his conduct.

...being confused and distracted by people that are trying to brew controversy where none should exist... [snip] ...I am not buying in to the idea that because I think evolution is sound science, I need to be in conflict with people that think Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. I am not their enemy. If either side wants to see the enemy, all they have to do is work up their [self] righteous indignation at another's belief system or ideology, and then look in the mirror. Look at the face, look at the hatred, look at the anger: this is the real enemy. And this, unfortunately is what western Television and even PBS [probably unwittingly] perpetuates.

They did a good job of misinforming the public.

Once again, you make that charge without specifying exactly what deceptive or inaccurate things "they" said. Oh wait, you had to go to bed before the show ended, so of course you wouldn't know what you're talking about.

There is no serious scientific debate between evolution and creationism.

That's because the creationists -- including the ones who call themselves "ID advocates" -- have absolutely nothing to contribute to a scientific debate.

Martin Cothran: Let's take those quotes from your blog and apply the same reasoning to another area of scientific inquiry:

“If I’m a scientist who believes in a round Earth, I’m going to find these NASA photos of the Earth very disturbing, and here’s why: I’m going to be sitting there waiting for calls from my Flat Earth Society friends who are going to ask me if the kind of objectivity on display in the space program is the same kind of objectivity I employ when dealing with scientific questions that bear on geography.

“This question puts round-Earthers in an awkward position: either they maintain that the program was, in fact, objective and impartial, in which case their own credibility on any question, including round-Earthism, goes down the tubes, or they’re going to admit that the program was biased, in which case they can’t consider the program anything other than damaging for their cause.

“So let’s see what the opponents of flat-Earthism do now. Will they admit that the program was biased and preserve their own integrity? Or compromise their integrity by not admitting what to any reasonable person is fairly evident–that the show was a hatchet job?”

News flash: There's a good reason the show was "biased" against ID: ID is, and has repeatedly proven itself to be, scientifically vacuous, blatantly dishonest, motivated by narrow religion, and just plain wrong.

These creo-crybabies are sort of like a high-school football team going against the Dallas Cowboys, then crying about "bias" and "unfairness" when the inevitable happens.

The bottom line:

1) intelligent design is not science

2) intelligent design is religion in disuise

Therefore intelligent design does not belong in science class nor should it be portrayed as science.

Anyone who still clings to the notion that ID is science should have their head examined, or I suppose enjoy their self-inflicted ignorance/bliss.

I really wish I could comment on the show, but here in Memphis the PBS station WKNO chose not to show it! Now they actually have a sister HD station that did show it, but you must have extended cable coverage, which many don't have. Never the less, the station succumbed to pressure from the fundies who carry a big stick around here. I recently moved here from Washington state, and this is the first time I have experienced a censorship like this.

That seems to be the botom line Any question put to Darwinists evolutioninst is answered with, “It just happened, now go away”. Its not so much a theory, but the absence of theory. -- Bach

Nonsense rhetoric like that might work on the folks at FreeRepublic, but trying that on a board frequented by people actually working in the field won't get you very far.

These creo-crybabies are sort of like a high-school football team going against the Dallas Cowboys, then crying about “bias” and “unfairness” when the inevitable happens.

I finally found the part of the show which shows Professor Steve Steve in front of the courthouse. It's at 0:38 into the show (according to our DVR), just before the Chapman interview starts.

Cheers, Dave

... 2) intelligent design is religion in disuise ...

Once again, a BIG CONGRATULATIONS to Nick and the entire Kitzmiller team!! Thank you for a tremendous effort for science.

I have seen the NOVA only one time so my impressions are necessarily tentative. Nevertheless, I think that given the two-hour timeframe, the presentation was about as good as it could be. There are many topics that could have
been expanded, but then the thread of the main narrative might have been lost.

I have two comments:

1) The efforts by the defense team to exclude Barbara Forrest should have been noted, even if only in a sentence or
two.

2) The program necessarily left room for sympathy for the DI (based solely on the program). Perhaps NOVA could
produce a structured debate as occurred at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=15

It might be an opportunity to expose the DI more thoroughly while there is still momentum from Kitzmiller.

Finally, Nick: how are you finding your PhD program?? Let us know.
All the best for your studies. Ted

I think it was on Pharyngula, a McLir proposed what I think is the best T-Shirt so far:

Cdesign Proponentsists: All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Scientific ID advocates

But deception usually fails eventually.

Currently the bogus IDiots at the Discovery Institute are trying to wrap themselves in religion to make it look like they lied for god instead of just getting caught doing something dishonest and stupid. The next time they run a dog and pony show at some church sponsored event someone should sell those evolution of "cdesign proponentsists" tee shirts with "God did it!" on the back. If the sponsors of the bogus event have any integrity they would make the IDiots wear them on stage when they give their dishonest speel.

Currently the bogus IDiots at the Discovery Institute are trying to wrap themselves in religion to make it look like they lied for god instead of just getting caught doing something dishonest and stupid.

— Ron Okimoto

STEVE FULLER: At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn't quite identify what the factor was. That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well. So, it's not that supernaturalism hasn't been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it's often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

So, it’s not that supernaturalism hasn’t been part of science. In fact, it has been.

Supernaturalism was "part of science" back in the days when the natural sciences were not able to draw a clear line between "natural" and "supernatural," simply because scientists did not yet know, with enough specificity, what the laws of nature were. Since then, we have discovered patterns of behavior of matter and energy, and concluded certain laws governing said behavior, which excluded certain other phenomena which we now label "supernatural."

Glen Davidson:

I’m sure a lot of people will, and have, fallen for it. But deception usually fails eventually.

Of course like (admitted troll) "HeartOfGold" (now almost certainly Bach)... Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Eric Finn:

There is a difference between saying that you don't know something about nature, and claiming that it is supernatural. Mendel didn't know what the mechanism of genetic inheritance was, but he believed it to be particulate. He knew that the units of heredity were inherited as distinct units that could segregate and be passed down from generation to generation, and that the recessive allele kept its integrity even when masked by the presence of the dominant allele. That is as far from supernatural as you need to get to make Fuller's stupid statment either a real brain fart or a purposeful desception.

The admission that we do not know the answer at this time, is not some reason to believe that the answer is supernatural, just that we don't know the answer. It isn't even naturalism. When you don't know the answer, why assume that it could be supernatural? Has the supernatural ever explained any aspect of nature that we have been able to figure out? Who would jump to a conclusion with a 100% failure rate in any field of endeavor? Would you jump off a tall building just on the chance that some supernatural thingy would levitate you and gently take you to safety? We discover weird and unexpected things about nature all the time, but have they ever been supernatural? 100% failure in the entire history of science should tell you that it shouldn't be your first guess.

Not only that, but it is a science stopper. As soon as you claim the supernatural or that some god did it, you don't have to look for the right answer. You obviously can't verify that some god did it, so why make the proposition? You still have to look for an answer because god did it isn't an answer to anything. It is just an unverifiable assertion.

If I’m a scientist who believes in Darwinism, I’m going to find “Judgment Day” very disturbing, and here’s why: I’m going to be sitting there waiting for calls from my Intelligent Design friends who are going to ask me if the kind of objectivity on display in the PBS program is the same kind of objectivity I employ when dealing with scientific questions that bear on Darwinism.

Nick -

Thanks for the link to my "Evolution of Intelligent Design" shirt. I'd like to mention that I won't be making a penny on these. All my profits (generally $3 to $4 per shirt, depending on the type of shirt) will be going to NCSE.

So, it’s not that supernaturalism hasn’t been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it’s often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.

cdesign proponentsists, n. Fossilized subspecies of creationists invariably found in a slate of mispunctuated disequilibrium. Hopeless monsters without the ability to double-click.

ID advocates have nothing to complain about. Behe and Dembski refused to participate. They know they can't defend the indefensible. They know that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty they have no science to offer, nothing worth publishing.
To "Bach" and Charlie Wagner (realpc): when are you going to drop the rhetoric and actually produce something substantial? In fact, when is Dembski or any other ID advocate going to start doing some real science instead of religious apologia? You won't be taken seriously until you do.
And I think you know that...

I think we should definitely "teach the controversy" - head to your local place of worship (not Starbucks!) and declare emphatically that there is a considerable debate within the religious communities of the world regarding whose God rules, that this debate has raged for 10,000 years without respite and without resolve, demand that stickers be placed in all Bibles stating that "God is only a theory, not a fact", and, for the children's sake, that you are only trying to provide them to alternatives to ignorance.

Perhaps the most heartwarming thing about this whole business is that Christian religious fundamentalists will never change their minds even when presented with facts and logic and common sense and the BEAUTY of the natural world in its own right. Heartwarming because these are precisely the critters that are doomed to extinction when the environment changes. I plan to wait 'em out and procreate my kind like mad.

For those of you who find the NOVA program incomplete (as it must be because it is TV) check out "Monkey Girl" by Edward Humes. It will make you cry.

It is interesting coming back to this, and looking over what people have written.

Some people interpreted me as spouting shallow rhetoric, "why can't we all get along?" when in reality, I am proposing non dualistic thinking that is part of philosophical traditions that go back centuries, and perhaps millennia.

Some people, when offered peace, will still opt for war because they do not understand war, and certainly do not understand suffering.

Perhaps we are doomed to experience events that should be historically irrelevant and unnecessary. [Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.]

-Kurt Östreich

I appreciate the work that you have put into this page. Genuinely good,and informative. Thank You