|
Author
|
Topic: Jefferson Airplane and Point Source Mutation
|
Laszlo
Member
Member # 1332
|
posted 28. January 2005 12:26
The other night I was listening to that old psychedelic group from the sixties, Jefferson Airplane. The album, Surrealistic Pillow, has on it a rather haunting slow ballad titled “Coming Back to You.” It’s an ambiguous song about some sort of reconciliation between lovers and in the manner of good poetry its meaning tantalizes rather than overpowers.
In that song, I heard clearly, for the first time ever, the line:
One begins to read between the pages of a look
I then played a cover of this tune from thirty years later by the idiosyncratic singer Rickie Lee Jones who whispers that same line as:
One begins to read between the pages of a book
The original version is delightfully unexpected and thought provoking as good poetry should be. On the other hand Jones’ version lies flat and lifeless in the mind. It doesn’t even make much sense since there’s nothing between the pages of a book except bookmarks or irrelevant trivia that a person might stuff in there. As metaphor, “Between the pages of a look” is richly evocative whereas “Between the pages of a book” is dully pedestrian.
So why do I present this literary excursus to an audience whose interests are mathematical and scientific? Well, note that the difference between the two versions is the substitution of a single letter. In the vocabulary of DNA science, these two versions may be construed as a point source mutation. It is the only example I can think of where the substitution of a single letter in a poem transforms the insipid into the insightful.
Yet, an identical process is supposed to be happening continually in the DNA of living things transforming the less successful into the more successful.
I have not attempted to survey the corpus of poetic literature from Homer to Updike attempting to find single letter substitutions that would lead to increased felicity of expression. I rather suspect that the exercise would be difficult and unrewarding. (If some more adventurous soul essays the attempt, I would be pleased to hear their account.) On the other hand, I have no doubt that there are many one letter substitutions that might make a poem bizarre, perplexing, or downright nonsensical. But it would be a stretch to consider those improvements.
Furthermore, the literary mutation in this case proceeded from better to worse. The one letter substitution from “look” to “book” was a degradation in poetic success.
I propose that the language of human poetry is roughly equivalent in complexity and subtlety to the language of the human genome. The mathematical demonstration of this proposal I leave to those, like Bill Dembski, who are equipped to produce it. Thus, given equivalency, and conceding that it is a most difficult and rare thing to procure improvement by means of single letter (point source) mutation in one of these languages, why must we assume that such transformation is likely and common in the other?
Of course the proponents of evolution assure us that this process has taken place not merely once or twice but on countless billions of occasions as life marched from prokaryotic “simplicity” to human consciousness. I might be more inclined to believe that program if someone could convert a volume of the poetry of, say, Edgar Guest to that of Edna St. Vincent Millay through a sequence of one letter changes, each change being an absolute improvement. Such alchemy would make the lead into gold conversion seem trivial.
IP: Logged
|
|
Laszlo
Member
Member # 1332
|
posted 29. January 2005 12:23
29 January 2005
It has occurred to me that some readers of my discussion on literary point source mutations might have thought my challenge to transform doggerel into poetry was a mere rhetorical device. On the contrary, I meant it as a serious challenge.
Richard Dawkins regaled us with the transformation of gibberish into the sentence, “Methinks it’s like a weasel.” This procedure, carried out by a computer programmed to the task, was meant to reveal the ease with which evolution might proceed. Unfortunately, it revealed only the skill of the programmer and simplicity of the task.
To transform bad verse into good poetry via a sequence of one letter changes, each change being an improvement in wit, elegance, form, or meaning is a much greater challenge. Moreover, I’m allowing the full use of intelligence in this process. Form a committee. Put together a team like IBM Blue (the chess program that defeated Kasparov). Program artificial intelligence using the full resources of the Oxford English Dictionary and any other reference whatsoever. Let the program be overseen by the poet laureate.
Let’s do this to see if such transformation is possible under ideal circumstances. If it is, we will have learned something valuable. Then, we might make the task more difficult to more closely approximate biological evolution. We might eliminate the poet laureate. We might see how well engineers and scientists do on their own. If that succeeds, then the next step would be the elimination of active human agents altogether. The transformation would have to be carried out by programmed intelligence only. If that succeeded, then we might eliminate the programmed intelligence and reduce the selection criteria to the mere creation of words. This would be the format which might most closely approximate natural selection.
If the last named project succeeded, we would certainly have good cause to believe in the enormous creative powers of random evolution constrained by natural selection. However, if any of the steps towards this goal failed to be productive, we would have to doubt that the even more difficult tasks in the sequence had much chance for success.
Laszlo
P. S. The correct title of the song I posted as “Coming Back to You” is actually “Comin’ Back to Me,” yet another example of a copying error which failed to improve upon the original.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 12. March 2005 16:02
It is an interesting task, but as you suggest, likely to be difficult and unrewarding. I don't think Dembski is up to the task because he never deals with actual information, only the abstract concept of information (which is why his paper on Variational Information is of little value since one cannot demonstrate a practical application).
But of more concern is your definition of "good" or "improvement." In evolutionary theory, what is "good" is only that which works. While aesthetically, you may be able to, subjectively, judge between the two, others may not agree with you.
You say quote:
It doesn’t even make much sense since there’s nothing between the pages of a book except bookmarks or irrelevant trivia that a person might stuff in there.
Imagine finding an old love letter stuffed into a a book and reading it. There is a certain romance in that idea, is there not? But "pages of a look" makes no sense because looks do not have pages. True, there is a certain poetry to the phrase, but not sense.
Since RLJ has sold more than a few records, her version is clearly successful, if not ideal. In evolution, there is no ideal; there is no goal. There is only what works.
Human life and intelligence was not a goal of evolution. It is just one configuration of life that happens to work. There are many other configurations that are just as successful, even more so. Cockroaches are not intelligent, but they will probably outlive the human race. Sharks are not intelligent, but they are probably one of the oldest extant species. There are many creatures that are more unique than humans and very successful.
This is the main weakness of the Secified Information argument. It makes an assumption that evolution does not, that is, that what we see today was a direct goal of some process and therefore the information had to be preloaded. Even Darel Finley's paper that models an information space and shows how to test for a specific result, assumes up front that the sought result is the goal. Evolution makes no such assumption.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 14. March 2005 20:12
Laszlo:
The lack of intelligence in a thermodynamic system, relegates that system only to disorder according to the second law of thermodynamics, if that system consists of specified complexity as we see in genes. This has been known in science for over a hundred years. James Maxwell conceived that this intelligence to create building complexity may be due to something along the lines of "Maxwell's Demon."
Two compartments filled with gas are separated by a wall. An ornery but cute little "demon" sits by a tiny trapdoor in the wall between the two chambers. Max the demon looks at oncoming gas molecules, and depending on their speeds he opens or closes the trapdoor with a precise object in mind: to eventually collect all the molecules faster than average on one side, and trap the slower ones on the other side.
What Max is doing is concentrating heat energy in one side of a duel chamber system because hotter particles move faster. He ends up with a hotter, high energy gas on one side, and a colder, low energy gas on the other.
Max has redistributed the random kinetic energy of the molecules (heat) in such a way that energy can now be extracted from the system because now that heat and higher pressure are concentrated on one side, a heat engine of some type could be used to tap this source if Max allows it to escape to the cold side and the system to go back to equilibrium.
This is an excellent demonstration of entropy/energy. Entropy is limited to reside in one side of the chamber and energy is concentrated in the other.
Thermodynamics, of course, says this is impossible unless work is added into the system (which by mind experiment, it was), but what Maxwell was showing is how entropy could be reduced in a system as a whole, while the opposite of entropy, information, is increased. How did Maxwell increase this information? By adding intelligence in the form of an imaginary demon into the system that could pick and choose certain molecules and reject others via reasoning. Piece of cake! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 14. March 2005 20:23
******I don't think Dembski is up to the task because he never deals with actual information, only the abstract concept of information (which is why his paper on Variational Information is of little value since one cannot demonstrate a practical application).******
Well, I don't know if this is true about Dembski at all. In any case, I always attempt to deal with actual applications of ID theory in a manner that people can understand.
Why don't you try me, as Dr. Dembski stays too busy to do much debating with people in this format (congratulations as the new department head, Bill. It actually made the mainstream news!).
Also:
a) Cockroaches are intelligent.
b) Sharks are intelligent.
c) There are no weaknesses in the specified complexity argument. It is simply a fact of nature ruled by the laws of science.
Jerry
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 14. March 2005 21:34
This is chock full of topics, Jerry. Variety is the spice of life, right?
I guess, Jerry, you need to define intelligence for me, since I would not have guessed cockroaches were intelligent. I mean, I am still having trouble with the idea that humans are intelligent. ;-) I generally do not include instinctive behaviour as intelligence, but I would be interested in hearing your views on the matter.
As far as thermodynamics, there is more to the universe than the laws of thermodynamics. That is why a sperm and an egg can grow into a human being.
Your example with Max the demon (shame on you for have a demon interfere with the order of the universe; why not an angel?), reminds me of Charlie Wagner's version of ID.
In your demon example demonstrates not just design, but active interference with the universe. Charlie Wagner's conception demonstrates that God, or rather an unnamed Designer (but definitely an extra-terrestrial intelligence), actively participates in the creation of each individual lifeform.
The problem with the specified complexity argument is the assumptiom that observed complexity is specified. I have yet to read in any paper a statement proving or even explaining why complexity must be specified.
Actually the task I think Dembski is not up to is in the realm of Information Theory, not ID. If you have read any of his papers on Information which he (or somebody) posts here(separate from his ID specific papers), while there is a lot of mathematical manipulation, there is little that is testable or conceivably applicable.
And I know he must be too busy to respond because he never does. By they way, you mentioned he made department head somewhere? I don't keep with mainstream news so I must have missed. Last I heard he was heading to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after Baylor kicked him out.
PS. You mentioned in that other post that you didn't reckon we had run into each other before (I am glad I am not the only one who says "I reckon." My former boss always makes fun of me for it.) I am fairly new to Brainstorms and don't get to browse it as much as I would like. Plus, I like to take time to think about what I post, and sometimes I think so long about it that the thread has gone stale.
So, like now, I need to go cook dinner.
[ 14. March 2005, 21:34: Message edited by: Jim Skipper ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Laszlo
Member
Member # 1332
|
posted 16. March 2005 03:01
15 March 2005
I was delighted to find some responses, at long last, to my posts of January.
Mr. Skipper writes:
Imagine finding an old love letter stuffed into a book and reading it. There is a certain romance in that idea, is there not? But "pages of a look" makes no sense because looks do not have pages. True, there is a certain poetry to the phrase, but not sense.
I agree with Mr. Skipper that finding a love letter between the pages of a book might be romantic. However, he is doing quite a bit of extra work here to help the line along. It’s really only fair to evaluate a line of poetry as actually written. It’s not fair to add extra cleverness of our own to it and thus make it better. Hence, I stand by my original evaluation that “between the pages of a book” is expected and dull.
The effect of “between the pages of a look” depends upon one’s expectation that the line ought to end in “book”. The substitution of “look” is intriguing. It plays on the cliché of “a look that speaks volumes” yet is not a cliché itself. It puts the mind to work in a most delightful way and that is why I consider it superior poetry.
In evolution, there is no ideal; there is no goal. There is only what works.
Granted. But by evolutionary tenets, any organism bearing traits which increase survival value is necessarily superior to other members of the species lacking those traits. Those traits are better than those which preceded them because they are selected by Nature. Thus, my use of the evaluative terms “better” or “good” or “superior” are justified even if one does not postulate a goal or ideal.
I use the analogy to poetry because it is a form of complex, condensed language rich in meaning. I propose that the complexities of poetry approximate the richness of the genetic language of DNA. Both poetry and DNA contain subtleties of meaning.
Any improvement of a species by alteration of its genetic code (i. e., beneficial mutation) is likely to be at least as difficult as transforming a given line of poetry into a superior line. If this task could be successfully carried out with poetry, it would lend credibility to the argument that it might also be carried out genetically through mutation and natural selection. I have attempted to make the ideal version of this task as easy as possible by allowing the unlimited use of intelligence, computers, and reference resources.
There are many people who enjoy word puzzles. Perhaps some of them who read these comments will wish to essay transforming Joyce Kilmer’s poem “Trees” (“I think that I shall never see/ A poem as lovely as a tree.”) into a Shakespearean sonnet by altering one letter at a time, each letter to lead to a superior poem. Alternately, the task can be alteration of “Trees” into a superior original poem by the same means. Success at either task would be deeply impressive.
I confess to being lost when Mr. Skipper brings cockroaches and sharks into his argument. He suggests that cockroaches will outlive the human race. But this prophecy, even if fulfilled, does not support the premise that cockroaches are superior to humans in the same way as a good poem is superior to a bad one. That sharks appear to have persisted unchanged for a long time likewise is no proof of superiority in complexity and refinement of function. It is a truism of engineering that simple systems are often far more robust than complicated, refined ones. We expect such systems to last a long time.
I thank Mr. Bauer for pointing out the essential flaw in the case of Maxwell’s indefatigable demon. Of course intelligence and unimaginable tools (how exactly does the demon measure how fast an atom is moving? Can he actually make the measurement without altering the speed of the atom?) are the sleight of hand in this old conundrum. There is no free lunch.
However, Mr. Bauer loses me when he deems cockroaches and sharks intelligent. They are certainly responsive and fitted with highly successful instincts, but intelligent? They never enroll at the better Eastern colleges.
The problem with the specified complexity argument is the assumption that observed complexity is specified. I have yet to read in any paper a statement proving or even explaining why complexity must be specified.
So writes Mr. Skipper in a follow up post. He is correct. Complexity need not be specified. The universe is suffused with unspecified complexity from the intricate shapes of coastlines on earth to the nuclear reactions in the cores of stars. Indeed, complexity need not be specified. However, the type of complexity termed specified can only be produced by intelligence. This is Mr. Dembski’s central thesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 16. March 2005 14:20
“Pages of a look” – lyric phrase written by Marty Balin
I don’t want to distract from the well-made point in the original post. But I would like to comment in support of the clear poetic inference that the line carries. The context of the song is an inter-personal relationship. That a purposeful “look” can communicate backwards to a series of events both physical and psychological is well understood. It can express the status of a romance relationship indicative of a holistic tenor - days, weeks or years in the making. The term pages, being symbolic of numerous emotional Gestalts, appears to be very creative. The concept of tacit knowing, delineated by M. Polanyi, is never more relevant than in exchanges between lovers.
Further -
The definition of intelligence should, IMHO, be stripped of its anthropomorphic prejudice. Rather than a status of mind – I suggest that it should be related to strategy or game theory implementation. Sharks and cockroaches would be quite capable in simple and effective implementation of strategic maneuvers.
Besides – I’m sure I heard the female nieces, enrolled in the above referenced category of university, specifically speak of male “cockroaches” and “sharks” being present on campus. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Darel R. Finley
Member
Member # 100
|
posted 16. March 2005 16:20
On evolution being goal-directed
Jim, I think you might be committing equivocation, in the following sense:
1. If evolution is defined as the process of random mutation and natural selection that we all agree is operating in nature, then you are correct that it is not goal-directed, but it might also not be responsible for the design of most biological structures.
2. If evolution is defined as whatever creative process took us from bacteria with no flagella to bacteria with flagella, then it is the correct explanation for flagella -- but it might not be a process of unaided mutation-selection, and it must (at least as an explanatory tool) be able to reach the specific goal of the bacterial flagellum.
By using these two definitions interchangeably, we can claim that evolution is not required to meet any specific goal, and also claim that it explains all the biological structures of life (e.g. the flagellum). But that is equivocation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 16. March 2005 20:24
Maxwell's Demon is one of the classic demons of physics and rates right up there with Laplace's Demon and a few more cute little critters running around in the minds of the physically inclined.
To the thread: please see How Information is Physically Traded for Entropy for more on this.
Maxwell had thought he discovered a violation of the second law of thermodynamics:
"In a letter that he wrote in December 1867 to his friend Peter Guthrie Tait, the Physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) described how the action of a "being" controlling a shutter on a microscopic hole between two gas containers (A and B) could apparently violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Of course, we (I??) know today that the dear Mr. Maxwell was clearly just plain bonkers, or this is, as you say, some 'slight of hand.' But I feel this serves as a fine example of how information and complexity may be increased in a thermodynamic system: via the addition of work and intelligence into that system.
But if you think that roaches and sharks do not attend your finer colleges we must have different alma maters. (Yes, I'll back up a bit).
Not all intelligence is defined as the ability to process knowledge via human cognition. Intelligence can also be viewed as the act of reacting to an environmental stimuli via the receiving and processing of external information.
If viewed in the latter vein, we can see how sharks and cockroaches exhibit intelligence as just stick a match close to one of those dudes and observe what happens.
One good read on this is:
"All forms of communication between human beings have long been recognized as a requirement for reciprocal understanding, transfer of knowledge, and productive development of societies. This also applies to living cells who are organized in «microsocieties» that constantly adjust to their environment through a complex network of signaling pathways. The chemical communication which occurs at various levels results in an integrated exchange of information that is essential for coordinated responses."
http://www.biosignaling.com/content/1/1/3/?mkt=2353
[ 16. March 2005, 20:30: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Laszlo
Member
Member # 1332
|
posted 17. March 2005 13:20
I thank Mr. Wright for his astute analysis of the lyric from the Jefferson Airplane song, “Coming Back to Me.” The fact that so few words of song can prompt so many words of explication is one of the distinguishing features of good poetry. Mere rhyming verse in the style of “Roses are red, Violets are blue” never arouses much pondering in my mind, nor, I suspect, in the minds of most listeners. So even though the difference between good and bad poetry cannot be graphed or otherwise quantified, it tends to be clear to experienced listeners. (I’m afraid that taste in poetry as well as other forms of intelligent discernment such as appreciation for good engineering are skills that must be acquired through experience and training.)
I suppose one may use the word intelligence to describe “effective implementation of strategic maneuvers” in cockroaches and sharks; but I’d rather limit it’s use to creative intelligence. The act of creation means making something new and unexpected. I’d rather not apply it to instinctual behavior even the highly adaptable instincts possessed by some birds and most primates.
Again, quantification is difficult (perhaps impossible), but I think most people discern an important qualitative difference between a child who has learned to apply the rules of grammar to creating novel sentences and an orangutan, who through patient poking, has picked the lock on his cage.
IP: Logged
|
|
Laszlo
Member
Member # 1332
|
posted 19. March 2005 13:50
19 March 2005
The Evolutionary Challenge Simplified
I am sorry that no one has attempted my challenge of converting doggerel to great poetry one improving letter at a time. I continue to believe that a solution to my challenge would be an extraordinarily impressive feat and would bring widespread renown to the person who succeeds. It would also be the first successful critical test by analogy of evolutionary premises.
I am willing to make the test easier just so we can see whether the notion of conversion by steps would work. Instead of substituting one letter at a time, substitute a whole word. The criterion that the word substitution must improve the poem remains as before.
This version of the test bears much less relevance to the evolutionary program because it is the equivalent of substituting an entire gene (many letters in the DNA code) in one step. The odds of a random change in many letters being beneficial to an organism are so low that this approach to mutation is not seriously proposed by mainstream evolutionists. (And of course intelligently directed gene substitution is not allowed.)
Nonetheless, word substitution should vastly simplify the difficulties of solving my poetry challenge. It would also offer some hint of promise towards the analogical evolutionary challenge.
Any takers?
Postscript:
By the way, I just noticed that Mr. Skipper in his response of 12 March 2005 faults Bill Dembski for not being “up to the task [of the challenge] because he never deals with actual information, only the abstract concept of information.” However, Mr. Dembski never claimed to be able to solve such a problem. In fact, he claims the opposite: that the problem is unsolvable. This was not a challenge to Mr. Dembski. It is a challenge to the evolutionary community. Moreover, it must be understood as a challenge which immensely simplifies the difficulties of organic evolution by permitting the full use of intelligence, intellectual resources, and tools.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 26. March 2005 15:18
Indeed that WOULD bring widespread prominence to the person that accomplishes the feat.
Doubtful you will have anyone take you up on this in here though, as the point of my rather rascally little demon was to show this can only be accomplished via WORK + INTELLIGENCE = Intelligent Design.
All of nature seeks equilibrium and converting doggerel (guessing you mean just your average old run-of-the mill-poetry) to great poetry via random improvement be it one letter or one word at a time is to move from one state of equilibrium to a further-from-equilibrium state or to a far-from-equilibrium system as Ilya (of the Prigogine variety), might put it.
Should this happen naturally, it would be a reversal of times arrow which can only occur when work and intelligence is inputted into the system to 'cause' the event. IOW, I can do a rewrite for you, but that's about it, I'm afraid.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 27. March 2005 16:19
Darel,
The problem with your second variation on my view:
quote:
And it must (at least as an explanatory tool) be able to reach the specific goal of the bacterial flagellum.
is the inclusion of the word specific. There are two processes at work and involve the principle problem that dogs all of the Specified Complexity arguments.
Evolution is largely a forensic theory. It helps understand the present and the past, and make predictions about what we will find as we explore genetics. On a micro-evolution level, it is useful for making future predictions and developing useful tools.
But because Life has no goal other than survival, it is difficult to predict what forms of life might evolve to fulfill that goal. There are two many factors to account for. Like Quantum Physics, you might be able to develop a Wave Function that encompasses probable outcomes, but you will not know what happens until you actually observe the outcome.
When looking at the bacterial flagellum, we are trying, foresnically, to determine what path evolution took to arrive at it. We know for a fact that bacterial flagellum exists and can use the theory of evolution to explain the process by which it might have come about a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. But the flagellum was not specified in advance. It was not a goal of bacterial evolution.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, does not even give us that much. If you ask how the bacterial flagellum was formed? it was designed that way. How did the eye originate? It was designed that way. Why is rabies such a terrible virus? It was designed that way?
Without including micro-evolution, Intelligent Design has no scientific value. Okay, it was designed. Now what? What is the mechanism by which the design was implemented? Was it implemented by spiritually-induced mutation? What is the mechanism for spiritually induced mutation? Does that mean we can cure AIDS and cancer by prayer, invoking genetic alteration in humans or viruses to prevent the disease from happening. Can we make medicine from detecting design? Can we make mutagenic roach treatments by realizing that roaches were designed?
Where is the postive contribution to knowledge that Intelligent Design offers?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 27. March 2005 16:55
Lazlo,
You experiment does have an interesting aspect. Suppose I took your song and inserted hundreds or thousands of random letters that serve no purpose - that can be ignored and reveal the meaning of the song, or can be removed completely.
That is what DNA looks like. It has areas that appear to be meaningless and indeed a fairly recent experiment has bred mice with large sections of junk DNA removed to no ill effect http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thegenome/hg01n015.html.
There is a great old word game in which you try to transform one word into another in as few possible steps by subsituting a single letter and each time you must create a new word.
Here is an example, how do you get hurt from cane?
Path 1 | Path2
CANE | CANE
CARE | CANT
CURE | CART
CURT | HART
HURT | HURT
There are actually two paths and both are valid.
Here is the problem with your letter-only challenge and its comparison to DNA. There are too many letters and not enough words. Although we use AGCT to represent the bases, those letters actually stand for words (Adenine (A); Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Thymine (T)). Those words stand for complex molecules that interact with each other in specific ways defined by their chemistry.
Therefore, for your word game to model DNA and evolution, it must be allowed to follow the rules of the English language. It must be allowed to use full words, just as DNA uses complete molecules, and not individual atoms, and the words must be allowed to "react" together according to the rules defined for the language.
One of the weakness in the ID foundation is its critique of randomness in evolution. In biochemistry, random does not really mean random. Atomic particles interact under well-defined rules and those rules scale up to determine how molecules interact with each other, but the degree of interaction is fairly broad and sometimes unpredictable (and therefore seems random to us).
Therefore, I will take your challenge and turn you last post into poetry.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic