Galileo’s Fingers

 Posted by on June 10, 2010  Add comments
Jun 102010
 

One of the stranger stories doing the rounds at the moment concerns Galileo’s fingers.

That’s right: his fingers. They’re on display in the Galileo Museum in Florence.

I found myself unconsciously shaking my head when I read about this.  What?  But no.  It’s true.  Galileo’s fingers are the star attraction, along with telescopes and other instruments designed by the great man.

They loved their relics in the old days and if you couldn’t find a saint to chop up, a scientist would do.  When Galileo’s remains were finally permitted to be interred in hallowed ground, 95 years after his death, the workmen building his tomb couldn’t resist breaking off a couple of fingers and a bit of backbone.

The churchmen hated him because he called their bluff.  They hated him so much that they  forced him to deny something he knew perfectly well to be true, which was the fact that the Earth and all the other planets orbited the Sun.  By his observations, he demonstrated what Copernicus had stated: we weren’t the centre of the known universe.

Unfortunately for Galileo, the 104th Psalm says Thou fixed the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever.  The church was more comfortable with the ramblings of an ignorant goat-herd than with the careful measurements of a man of science.

The bishops hated what Galileo had observed, dragged him before the Inquisition, accused him of heresy and condemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  They forced him to say publicly that he was wrong.  The Sun revolved around the Earth just as they wished to believe, despite the plain evidence of his eyes and of anyone else who cared to look.

To make sense, the geocentric theory required the Sun and the planets to perform all sorts of acrobatics as they orbited the Earth, describing epicycloids and hypocycloids and every other sort of Spirographic contortion you could manage to draw on a bored and half-drunk Christmas Day.

Faced with a simple explanation that required no complications, it was a classic example of blind ignorance prevailing over dispassionate common sense.  Galileo was well acquainted with the family of elegant curves ranging from the circle through its infinite cousins the ellipses and on to the parabola and the hyperbola with its shadow twin, both disappearing to endlessness, like the comet that appears once and is gone forever.  He knew that planets and other celestial bodies followed these trajectories, whose secrets are hidden in a simple cone and can be revealed at the stroke of a blade.

Oddly enough, Galileo remained a devout Catholic, though he lived his private life in an unusual way for a man of faith, fathering three children outside marriage.  He lived his life between conic sections and chronic erections.

In the end, Galileo had the final laugh.  One of the first acts of Pope John Paul II in 1978 was to rehabilitate him and finally to accept that the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun and not the other way round.  It only took 359 years.

And so, in the end, the great scientist and the Holy Church are in agreement, but these things are bound to leave scars.  Maybe the builders who stole the bones  in 1737 were thinking ahead.  Maybe they were looking forward to the day when Galileo could give his tormentors the eternal finger.

  69 Responses to “Galileo’s Fingers”

Comments (69)
  1.  

    Nicely put.

  2.  

    Hey Dude,
    I’m surprised to see you fly that corrupt version of the Israeli flag on your page, I never figured you for a supporter of religious fanatics.

  3.  

    Bastards. Unfortunately, I was listening to that idiot Joe Duffy the other week, the topic of discussion was some famous Irish boxer from early last century. Someone had his arm. Some unbearable fucker dug up his grave and sawed off his arm. Some other cunt called up Joe later in the show to say that in fact her family OWNED the arm and that it was currently on loan to some fucking pub. OWNED!. You had the usual gaggle of gowls calling Liveline, fascinated by the arm. Why is a certain section of the nation obsessed with dead human body parts. Cretins.

  4.  

    That’s Dan Donnelly’s arm. It’s been in the pub in Kilcullen for about 60 years.

    A surgeon removed it from Donnelly’s body when he died in 1820 and it was used for anatomical study for quite a long time.

  5.  

    Alan, the religious fanatic who came up with that logo was an atheist Swedish academic who might possibly be of your acquaintance.

    I’m a supporter of civilians who are being systematically starved into submission.

    However, this post is about Galileo’s finger, so maybe we could leave it at that?

    Extensive discussion can be found here.

  6.  

    Dan Donnelly, thats right–I couldn’t remember the boxers name. Professional grave robbers stole his body and a surgeon hacked off his arm before demanding his body be returned to it’s resting place. The arm was used in anatomy lessons, it was exhibited in a travelling circus before ending up in the Hideout.

  7.  

    If you wander up the road a little bit towards the Curragh, you’ll find Donnelly’s Hollow, where Dan used to beat the shite out of his opponents.

    The arm is interesting for its great length, which I imagine gave Dan a considerable advantage

  8.  

    Outstanding bit of writing Mr Bock.

  9.  

    Dan broke an English punchers jaw in a British title fight in Kildare way back then, making him an instant national hero. Paddy Barnes almost did the same at the Ice Palace in Moscow yesterday, always to be encouraged – (Barnes in the red)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/

    Dan, meantime, led a dissolute life and spent all his money on women and drink – the rest he spent foolishly.

    I hear Galileo based his findings on a theory, which he couldn’t prove. And Rome being the centre of the universe at the time couldn’t base their teachings on a theory.

  10.  

    Galileo based his findings on theory which he could demonstrate by observation.

    No theory is ever proved absolutely. It’s always subject to modification in the light of improved research, and that’s the difference between science and religion. Science is open to revision. Religion is not.

  11.  

    The Vatican opened a department of science in 1603. It was dissolved after the death of its founder,Federico Cesi, but was revived under the pontificate of Pope Pius IX in 1847 and given the name ‘Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei’. Many of its members won Nobel prizes for their objective work.

  12.  

    Indeed there have been many priest-scientists. One of my favourites is Mendel, who pioneered genetics.

    Where science and religion are not perceived to conflict, there’s no problem.

    However, the fact remains that science is open to revision in light of new information whereas religious teachings are not, because they’re considered to be eternal truths.

  13.  

    Bock, I think there’s less of a divide between religion and science than you make out and there are also similarities between religous fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists. For instance Hawkins/Hutchins et al. are ardent believers that there is no creator when there is no proof either way.. that to me is not leaving yourself open to revision as you put it.

    I don’t know if it’s that suprising that Galileo remained religious. A lot of great thinkers such as Aristotle were religious, believing that science was just the process of trying to understand the natural laws behind creation/the creator. They believed that logic and reason could discern the mind of god – as Einstein said in so many words. “Science wihtout religion is crippled, religion without science is blind.” Einstein.

  14.  

    The expression “scientific fundamentalist” is a contradiction in terms.

    Science is a way of thinking that leaves itself open to modification if new evidence is brought forward.

    Hawking would modify his view if you could provide him with tangible evidence of the existence of a creator.

    A religious fundamentalist, on the other hand, is quite impervious to evidence, new or otherwise.

  15.  

    Well here’s the thing though. Dawkins and his cohorts have a belief that they are ardent about. There’s going to be no proof either way, ever in my opinion. They’re definitely not open to modifying that belief. There is no proof either way but they are sure of something – i.e that there’s no creator. That to me is similar to being a religious fundamentalist. It’s rigid adherence to a belief when there’s no proof.

    I’m not religious myself.. but I believe there’s less of a divide that Dawkins and his ilk would have you believe.

  16.  

    Why would anyone believe in something without evidence? You wouldn’t blame them for not believing in the Tooth Fairy, would you?

  17.  

    haha.. here we go with the tooth fairy.
    It’s not that they don’t believe, it’s that they are certain there’s no such thing. They’re not in the lest bit moderate in their beliefs.
    We’re not talking fairy tales Bock.. we’re talking about the fundamental force behind our existence.
    Hitchins says a believer is either a fool or being fooled.. why would I choose to be fooled by him as opposed to the next zealot.

  18.  

    “A religious fundamentalist, on the other hand, is quite impervious to evidence, new or otherwise”

    Yep, and in the case of our bishops of course, this applies to both accepting AND providing

  19.  

    FME — Hawking’s entire life is concerned with trying to understand how the universe came about. It’s the very essence of what he does, and he’s hardly going to be satisfied with stories of a magical sky-Santa who conjured it all up out of nothing. That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a way of making the problem go away.

  20.  

    Bock I like the idea of Galileo giving the eternal finger to his tormentors. After all most people know who Galileo was and his work. Who knows the names of the “Princes of the Church” that tormented him? As to him fathering children “outside of marriage” no doubt so did most of his tormentors. The difference being they would have made their sons Bishops and their daughters mother superior. Unless of course they occupied their time buggering alter boys and castrating the ones that could sing.

  21.  

    ‘conic sections and chronic erections’…inspired stuff Bock….brilliant!

  22.  

    I wonder if John Homles member is soaking in a jar of methanal somewhere.

  23.  

    @FME @Bock

    I think you’ve made a slight mistake there. It seems that FME was originally referring to Richard Dawkins, the noted atheist and scientist, not Stephen Hawking, the celebrated physics professor.

    I believe Dawkins is an extreme example of scientific atheism; I would say no small amount of his reactionary discourse is part of a backlash against American creationism – the imbecilic ideas of which, I hope we are all aware, are an insult to hard-working scientists the world over. The actual numbers regarding what proportion of scientists are atheistically or religiously inclined are far more normal. If I recall right, the majority trend towards enlightened theism – they believe in some divine force, they may be a member of an organised church, but their beliefs are disconnected from their scientific work.

    That said, I have read a number of Richard Dawkins’ books, and he has none of the hallmarks of zealotry. In fact, he explains his ideas very concisely, and he never once struck me as giving the impression that he looked down on or vilified people for disagreeing with him.

    To be honest, his creationist opponents have been slinging so many undeserved slurs his way that I’m quite wary when I hear someone call him a ‘fundamentalist’ or whatnot. At worse, I’d call him unapologetically atheist.

  24.  

    Bock.. I was referring to Dawkins and Hitchins and those boys but in my opinion Hawking seems a lot more qualified than them to make any assertions. I read his book the Universe in a Nutshell.. interesting but most of it over my head I’m afraid.
    I don’t think Hawkings quite puts it like that – a magical sky Santa who conjured it all up out of nothing. :)
    I found this quote from him though, ‘The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. ‘ And I remember another quote from him on God playing dice. He’s seems a bit open to the possibility at least. You’ll probably find quotes from him to counteract that quote, but he seemed open to the possibility at some time at least.
    By the way he’ll never figure out how the universe came about. He may be able to come up with theories as to what happened the moment the universe came about but he can’t go back any further than that.
    He is a living miracle though and a genius.
    Another interested man was Copernicus. (born nearly 100 years before Galileo) He didn’t have the use of a telescope but from his observations he also speculated that the earth rotated on it’s axis and also around the sun. Ironically he was a very religious man too. I suppose they all were in those days.. :)

  25.  

    Claire Ryan comment 23. Very insightful there, wonderful asessment of Richard Dawkings. If you want more infromation of well collaboration between like minded people, google Brights.

  26.  

    Claire — That’s what I’d call him too. An unapologetic atheist. There’s no such thing as a scientific fundamentalist, in the common meaning of that word. On the other hand, a scientist adhering to scientific fundamentals would at all times be open to changing his mind.

    FME — Dawkins says there’s no evidence for the existence of a god. Would you criticise him if he denied the existence of fairies or unicorns? Gryphons? Gorgons? Flying horses? Dragons?

    How about if he denied the existence of Odin, or Thor? Isis, Osiris or Horus?

    As a respected scientist in his own right, I’m sure he’d be willing to adopt the hypothesis of God’s existence if you could produce some evidence to support it, but Dawkins makes the point that no such evidence exists. Only belief.

    The expression sky-Santa is mine. When you call it creation and leave it at that, you might as well say the universe was made by magic. It amounts to the same thing.

  27.  

    Well then the expression scientific fundamentalist is mine too! That’s what I’ll call um and I’m sticking to it. :) I find that the fundamentalist arrogance of Dawkins(in that there’s a rigid adherence to a belief when there’s no proof) – the comparison of a belief in a creator to that of myth and fairies. And thats why he gets a little vilified in my opinion.

    You’re not talking about magic or fairies to explain the mysteries of the origin of the universe. You can describe the laws of the universe at best. To me it’s like a piece of music for example. You can deconstruct it to all it’s notes, write it out, define how the instruments work together, you could even write down how the sound hits your hears.. what speed it travels at etc.. but can you really define the essence of a piece of music. Can the consciousness that feels it ever be defined. I think we’re talking about completely different ideas myself and science and religion are like two different languages. I think a person can have too many expectations from science. It can’t define everything.

    Another interesting quote from Hawking I was reading earlier –
    ‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? ‘ I wonder is he implying a tooth fairy there that breathes fire into the equations.. He can’t seem to pin point the whole antecedent for everything .. so then he might aswell be referring to Santa Claus right? :)

    It’s not like calling it creation and leaving it at that. A lot of scientists have religous beliefs.. science is not contradictory to their beliefs I would imagine.. in that they are trying to define and understand the natural laws of the universe but still knowing they’re not going to quantify the origins of those laws. The simple answer is we just don’t know.. it’s all belief whatever way you look at it. A leap of faith to not believe as much as to believe.. :)
    You forgot leprahuans in your list! :)

  28.  

    fme? WHA?

  29.  

    FME — Rational investigation is based on hypotheses, not beliefs. When new facts emerge, the hypothesis is modified to take account of them.

    If you need to summon up a god to explain the origin f the universe then you are saying it was made by magic.

  30.  

    You know.. a hypothesis is a speculation, a guess, a conjecture… that’s the best anyone can do in my opinion. I’m open to the possibility we’re just here by fluke but it’s doubtful to my mind.. call it magic if you like. You place too much weight on rationality though. There’s only so much our little brains can figure out. We’re just advanced monkeys really.. but we can ponder the origins of the universe.. makes us a little special I suppose.

    And Sodacake13.. wazz up.. go back to baking.

  31.  

    That’s correct. Science works on conjectures which it then tries to verify or disprove. Religion, on the other hand, works on absolutes which never change.

    It has been said that a person who could prove the existence of God would win the Nobel Prize for Physics.

  32.  

    To me trying to prove the existence of God is like a fish trying to prove there’s such a thing as water.. :)

  33.  

    A false analogy, since both fish and water are observable.

  34.  

    fme, i really think that now is about the time you stop digging that hole you are making for yourself. Baking fme? Whatever you think, you think wrong. Unless you can prove different that is.

  35.  

    I did get a bit carried away all right Sodacake.. but I just do love the sound of my own keyboard sometimes.. :) I’m in no hole.

    That’s exactly why I used the analogy Bock… can a fish prove the existence of water though.. oh I’ll shut up so.. I might be in that hole after all.. :)

  36.  

    FME — I’d guess your clever little fish probably could prove the existence of water. It’s an interesting challenge for him.

    A swish of the tail this way, he goes left, that way and he goes right. It doesn’t prove the existence of water, but it proves he can interact with something around him. Furthermore, it’s repeatable. Then let him jump onto a rock and flick his tail. Nothing happens, so something must be missing. What’s more, he can’t move up or down, and he feels less pressure against his body. As if that wasn’t bad enough, he’s losing consciousness from lack of oxygen. He rolls off the rock and ends up back where he was, and when the light-headedness passes, he realises he has four objective tests for the existence of water: navigation, buoyancy, pressure and oxygen.

    Crucially, he can reproduce any of these results whenever he chooses.

    However, he didn’t simply attribute navigation, buoyancy, pressure and oxygen to some abstract entity and call it water. He can repeat the test whenever a sceptic asks him to.

    And that’s the difference between God and water.

  37.  

    You are a bit of a thinker Bock.. such a scientific mind you have on you.
    I find it ironic that the capacity such a clever fish would have that enables him to understand such thoughts is an abstract entity in itself. I mean why should a bunch of chemical reactions produce thought in the first place. I guess science doesn’t deal with the why of things.
    I guess you either believe or you don’t.. we’re talking apples and oranges.. reminds me a little of Abbott’s Flatland.. it’s like trying to tell of three dimensions when the shape only knows of two.

  38.  

    Science currently speculates that there may be 11 dimensions, but has yet to formalise the theory, and all scientists agree that such a concept is impossible for a three /four dimensional being to imagine in an intuitive manner.

    The means by which the fish understands his concepts is not an entity, either abstract or concrete. It’s a process.

  39.  

    Such a doubting Thomas you are Bock.. :)
    I guess that’s the beauty of it. You have a choice to believe or not. If it was provable it would take the whole fun of choice out of it for me.

  40.  

    The alternative to being a doubter is to swallow any old rubbish, isn’t it?

  41.  

    If someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that God does not exist . Now that would be something to write about.

  42.  

    Why would anyone try to disprove the existence of God? It’s an idea invented by men with no evidence to support it.

    Isn’t it amazing? Every single time I tried to write about scientific subjects, people always wanted to turn it into a debate on the existence of God.

    Why is that?

  43.  

    Well I agree a lot of religious custom/dogma is rubbish. You’re a proof man.. nothing wrong with that at all. Some things can’t be proven though. And if you can’t prove something it’s not true I suppose?

  44.  

    No. If you can’t prove something, it’s not proven and can’t be asserted as fact.

  45.  

    Bock – re comment 42. You brought it up actually..:)
    Comment 10 “No theory is ever proved absolutely. It’s always subject to modification in the light of improved research, and that’s the difference between science and religion. Science is open to revision. Religion is not.” I enjoy hearing other’s views though.. fascinating debate.. thanks.
    I would never state god exists.. it’s a fact. I just believe. It equally can’t be said as fact that he doesn’t.
    I wouldn’t tell people that believe that they’re fools though such as Hitchins does.

  46.  

    I believe you may have brought it up with reference to Dawkins and Hitchens.

    However, unlike yourself, religion does state as a fact that God exists. Furthermore, this unsubstantiated view receives preferential treatment in our laws and in the way our affairs of state are arranged. In fact, only last year, our government passed a law making it a crime to offend people who hold such unsubstantiated views.

  47.  

    I think I should add something here. Despite what you say, two opposing views are not always equal in validity.

    If you told me Tír na nÓg exists, there would be no obligation on me to disprove it, and nobody would say your opinion had the same authority as mine.

    If I told you I had just spoken to a spaghetti monster, you would be under no obligation to take me seriously.

    Isn’t that true?

  48.  

    haha. You’re a pastafarian huh.. :) I think I saw you once down in Bella Italia staring very intently into your bowl of pasta.. What pearls of wisdown did the spagetti monster tell you.. ‘eat me’ ? :)

    You’re right though two opposing arguments are not equal in the cases you’ve given. They’re not equal because you start off with an initial bias. Your own personal beliefs. I don’t think it starts from a place of equal standing if you compare the fundamental force of creation with magic and fairies. Even Hawkings didn’t know what breathes fire into the equations as he put it.

    Yes.. the great blasphemy law. A return to the middle ages. I really would never try to defend religion at all.. it has a terrible past. I’m just all for people’s personal choices in what they want to believe in.. be it Santa Claus, the tooth fairy.. whatever you want to call it :)
    What twit proposed the blasphemy law I wonder.. the genius that is Dermot Ahern I think.

  49.  

    Well, Stephen Hawking is also engaged in attempting to understand how the universe came about.

    There are two ways to do this.

    You can sift through the facts bit by bit, with great effort, many frustrations and many errors (which you correct in due course as you go along). You know that you probably won’t see a final result for your efforts but hope that following generations can build on your work.

    Or you can postulate the existence of a god who did it all in a blink.

    A god is supernatural, which is another word for magic, and this relieves you of the effort to sift through the facts bit by bit, with great effort etc.

    It’s instant gratification without the pain.

  50.  

    But what then of scientists who believe in God.. they use the scientific method – experiment, observation, and measurement to understand the laws of the universe. They put in the effort and sift through facts but they know there are limits to what can be osberved.

    Here’s an interesting small piece I found on proving the existence of god. It basically boils down to you can’t get something out of nothing for me and probability.
    http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm
    http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
    http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

  51.  

    I can’t speak for those individuals. All I can do is discuss the difference between rational thought and unquestioning belief.

    I followed the links you mentioned. They start with the assumption that God exists. Why would I read any further?

  52.  

    I suppose he tries to refute the possibility that god doesn’t exist…
    ‘Why would I read any further’.. because you want to get to know your father in heaven.. lol I dunno :)

  53.  

    He can assume whatever he likes. That’s his own business, as long as you don’t think he adds anything new.

    He’s just repeating, without evidence, that God exists. In fact, having read his points carefully, I think he’s being dishonest in the way he approaches things.

    Why would you quote this guy as compelling evidence of anything?

  54.  

    I thought he used pretty good logic and rational thought to prove his assumption myself.. but I’m no expert.
    I thought he might appeal with the scientific approach he uses. Is that why you find him dishonest maybe?
    You have to start with an assumption Bock.. it’d be dishonest of him if he didn’t.

  55.  

    His approach is not scientific. It’s pseudo-scientific.

    There’s nothing scientific about starting out by believing what you want to prove.

  56.  

    Bock as far as I understand these things in Galileo’s time everyone knew the world was flat and at the centre of the Universe, no if’s or but’s about it simple fact. The sure and certain knowledge without question as an irrefutable fact that God or some form of a superior being does not exist is in my opinion on the same lines. I think the only way is to have questions.

  57.  

    I would think from his observations and thoughts he believes in the existence of God.. just like a lot of scientists do when they have a hypothesis or theory.. they start out with a belief something might be the case before they can prove it. If nothing else it’s interesting debate even if you can’t proof something.

  58.  

    In Galileo’s time nobody thought the Earth was flat. In fact, Columbus, 200 years before Galileo was born, knew it was a sphere.

    However, the church in Galileo’s time believed the Earth was at the centre of the universe because they based their views on the writings of ignorant goat-herds in the desert three thousand years previously.

    People like Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, who took the trouble to open their eyes, knew full well that the Earth orbited the Sun.

  59.  

    And it only took till 2000 for Pope John Paul II to apologize for all the mistakes the Church made including the trial of Galileo. Galileo was lucky he wasn’t burnt at the stake.
    I agree there is a lot of gibberish in religion.

  60.  

    I really do think that auld fme here truely wants to have his cake and eat it, in a manner of speaking. He does not always agree nor disagree. He does agree that he disagrees hmmmm. And he has the cheek to use the word gibberish, someone please take that shovel out of his hands. Quick.

  61.  

    And he has the cheek to mention the word gibberish!

  62.  

    Some fucking comment thread, but your post BOCK; erudite as ever.

  63.  

    I want to have my sodacake and eat it. :) But your analysis is on the ball.. I would not always agree or disagree but often do agree that I disagree at times.. and wait for it.. sometimes I agree that I agree hmmmm any one for some gibberish? :) The cheek of ME. Oh and he is a she.

    Bock I’ve nothing to say to you really other than you are brilliant..

  64.  

    My sympathys with you Bock after 19 posts, ( he has nothing to say?? ) here, fme realises where he stands ( up to his balls in shit ). Sure haven`t we all been telling him that all the way through? Even tho he does not have a crystal ball/s, he gets the sex wrong. Maybe it would be better to let him have a JCB and allow him to dig deeper and faster?

  65.  

    Sodacake — FME is a long-established, valued contributor (and a woman), and I encourage people not to get personal with other commenters if that’s all right with you.

    I believe you may have posted here under a different name in the past. Would that be correct?

  66.  

    was attempting to rise fme bock nothing more have only come across your site in the las few days never been here before that. Did not meant be in any way personal so apologies here from me to all including fme. Thought a good old ball hop would be returned in the same manner.

  67.  

    Ah a blow in.. explains it all. Nothing to contribute so just slags someone off. I’m all for having a good skit especially at myself but at least be funny about it. If you’ve got something valid to counteract anything I said Mr/Ms Cake fire away by all means. If all you can manage is counting the number of comments, stick to that too..knock yourself out. I’ll save you counting them all again.. now it’s 20. There’s your ball, hop along now Sodacake..
    And I’ll spell it out for you again – if anything I’d be up to my tits in shite.. no balls around here. :)

  68.  

    So, insulted by the rise, for which an apology is given. A typical response, kick hard while down. fme, unless you were looking elsewhere, i did respond to some of your comments. That was my contribution, just like yours mine is also open to comment by you or anyone else. I at no time tried to “slag you off”. As i said in my apology, i was trying to get a rise from you have a “skit” as you called it. As a female you must have the last word, so be it. Bring it on.

  69.  

    Enough. Stop.

Leave a Reply