The Establishment Seems To Punish Curiosity And Free Thinking?

[spartan45]

Does the establishment punish curiosity, tough questions and free thinking? My experience is that the scientific community, especially in the space / astronomy fields, appear to be among the worst culprits. Saying the words ‘applying the scientific method’ is the weapon of choice to justify shutting out any ideas that are in conflict with established thinking. Yet rather than ridiculing, blocking or lifetime banning any person putting forward an idea not liked, the scientific method should be used to put the idea to the test, even if unpopular. Here is an example: on a mainstream forum a person said he had been a keen amateur astronomer for 38 years and thought the Sun appeared to be getting whiter and wanted members of the forum’s opinions. The post was locked after the establishment view was put forward with no one else allowed to contribute.  Good bye scientific method. Ask google ‘is the sun getting whiter’ and you should find the top answer from the ‘concave earth’ forum, to which my contribution (spartan45) is at the end of that post, an example of non-establishment thinking not permitted on mainstream forums. I’m hoping that by placing this in the silly claims section and as it’s my first post on this forum I will be forgiven. This is because apart from the concave earth forum, it seems the establishment  ‘applying the scientific method’ has resulted in my fully contributing to three mainstream space science forums being beyond me.

[Mariel33]

Does the establishment punish curiosity, tough questions and free thinking? My experience is that the scientific community, especially in the space / astronomy fields, appear to be among the worst culprits. Saying the words ‘applying the scientific method’ is the weapon of choice to justify shutting out any ideas that are in conflict with established thinking. Yet rather than ridiculing, blocking or lifetime banning any person putting forward an idea not liked, the scientific method should be used to put the idea to the test, even if unpopular. Here is an example: on a mainstream forum a person said he had been a keen amateur astronomer for 38 years and thought the Sun appeared to be getting whiter and wanted members of the forum’s opinions. The post was locked after the establishment view was put forward with no one else allowed to contribute.  Good bye scientific method. Ask google ‘is the sun getting whiter’ and you should find the top answer from the ‘concave earth’ forum, to which my contribution (spartan45) is at the end of that post, an example of non-establishment thinking not permitted on mainstream forums. I’m hoping that by placing this in the silly claims section and as it’s my first post on this forum I will be forgiven. This is because apart from the concave earth forum, it seems the establishment  ‘applying the scientific method’ has resulted in my fully contributing to three mainstream space science forums being beyond me.

 

I do agree that actual critical thinking is at odds with power. Scientists can promote theories, but those ideas being challenged will naturally threaten social standing, and so thus censorship happens.

My instinct, is that true science is incompatible with any established order - namely institutions, because institution as a concept antagonises truth.

 

An example would be whether planets and gravity need cultural behaviour (right-wing politics); obviously people aren't expected to ask these questions, but who's to say that they don't represent truth?

Edited January 28, 2017 by Mariel33

[exchemist]

Does the establishment punish curiosity, tough questions and free thinking? My experience is that the scientific community, especially in the space / astronomy fields, appear to be among the worst culprits. Saying the words ‘applying the scientific method’ is the weapon of choice to justify shutting out any ideas that are in conflict with established thinking. Yet rather than ridiculing, blocking or lifetime banning any person putting forward an idea not liked, the scientific method should be used to put the idea to the test, even if unpopular. Here is an example: on a mainstream forum a person said he had been a keen amateur astronomer for 38 years and thought the Sun appeared to be getting whiter and wanted members of the forum’s opinions. The post was locked after the establishment view was put forward with no one else allowed to contribute.  Good bye scientific method. Ask google ‘is the sun getting whiter’ and you should find the top answer from the ‘concave earth’ forum, to which my contribution (spartan45) is at the end of that post, an example of non-establishment thinking not permitted on mainstream forums. I’m hoping that by placing this in the silly claims section and as it’s my first post on this forum I will be forgiven. This is because apart from the concave earth forum, it seems the establishment  ‘applying the scientific method’ has resulted in my fully contributing to three mainstream space science forums being beyond me.

If you are happy to abide by the scientific method, you should be willing to put forward evidence to support your hypothesis that the sun is getting whiter. Have you done that? Do you have any?

 

If you share it with us, I'm sure we will be happy to consider how such a phenomenon might occur. It is known for example (because it has been measured) that the output of the sun does vary over time, due to the sunspot cycle. And then such things as the amount of suspended dust in the air can affect its apparent colour and brightness.

 

But I have to tell you that "concave Earth" does not sound very promising......:)

[spartan45]

If you are happy to abide by the scientific method, you should be willing to put forward evidence to support your hypothesis that the sun is getting whiter. Have you done that? Do you have any?

 

If you share it with us, I'm sure we will be happy to consider how such a phenomenon might occur. It is known for example (because it has been measured) that the output of the sun does vary over time, due to the sunspot cycle. And then such things as the amount of suspended dust in the air can affect its apparent colour and brightness.

 

But I have to tell you that "concave Earth" does not sound very promising...... :)

Hmmm… I did say if you ask (type in) to Google the following words: is the sun getting whiter.  The the top answer is from the concave Earth forum, dated 1 June 2015. My evidence was added at the bottom of that post on Mar 20 2016.

As for ‘concave Earth’ not sounding very promising, well, it seems a clear, efficient, thought provoking forum, all be it based on a concept I think safe to say far from the mainstream. So go on, be brave and click on that top answer to see my evidence. 

[exchemist]

Hmmm… I did say if you ask (type in) to Google the following words: is the sun getting whiter.  The the top answer is from the concave Earth forum, dated 1 June 2015. My evidence was added at the bottom of that post on Mar 20 2016.

As for ‘concave Earth’ not sounding very promising, well, it seems a clear, efficient, thought provoking forum, all be it based on a concept I think safe to say far from the mainstream. So go on, be brave and click on that top answer to see my evidence. 

No, you make your argument here if you want to discuss it on this forum, so that other readers can see it and join the discussion.  

Edited January 28, 2017 by exchemist

[spartan45]

No, you make your argument here if you want to discuss it on this forum, so that other readers can see it and join the discussion.  

Yep. I see your point. I'm new here so hope the pictures and chart posts OK.

Is the Sun getting whiter? (Original posted 20/3/2016 on CE Forum.)

This question can send mainstream science forums into a tailspin, hopefully not this one! At first the evidence against looks convincing, because it seems the image of the Sun shows no increase in frequency/radiance/power worth mentioning, with satellite data confirming this.

 So why did I first think the Sun appeared more ‘gleamy’ in 1997, the effect these days being the Sun appears to be more brilliant white, burning skin fiercer, with the sky whiter/glaring.  Well, perhaps it’s because nothing of any consequence has changed with regard to the Sun’s frequency/radiance/power. Instead, could it be the Earth’s atmosphere that’s experienced change since around 1980. Planes may be making a high-altitude icy haze that is brightening US skies, according to a group of scientists reported by BBC news teletext on 17 December 2015. See pictures. As for the Sun burning skin fiercer, Cancer Research UK graph from 1979 to 2012 (see picture) demonstrates the rise of skin cancer which admittedly only vaguely backs up the increase of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface burning the skin fiercer.

Jet traffic ice haze teletext page1 dated 17 December 2015

 

 

Jet traffic ice haze teletext page2 dated 17 December 2015

 

 

Cancer research UK Skin cancer incidence trends 1979 to 2012

[exchemist]

Yep. I see your point. I'm new here so hope the pictures and chart posts OK.

Is the Sun getting whiter? (Original posted 20/3/2016 on CE Forum.)

This question can send mainstream science forums into a tailspin, hopefully not this one! At first the evidence against looks convincing, because it seems the image of the Sun shows no increase in frequency/radiance/power worth mentioning, with satellite data confirming this.

 So why did I first think the Sun appeared more ‘gleamy’ in 1997, the effect these days being the Sun appears to be more brilliant white, burning skin fiercer, with the sky whiter/glaring.  Well, perhaps it’s because nothing of any consequence has changed with regard to the Sun’s frequency/radiance/power. Instead, could it be the Earth’s atmosphere that’s experienced change since around 1980. Planes may be making a high-altitude icy haze that is brightening US skies, according to a group of scientists reported by BBC news teletext on 17 December 2015. See pictures. As for the Sun burning skin fiercer, Cancer Research UK graph from 1979 to 2012 (see picture) demonstrates the rise of skin cancer which admittedly only vaguely backs up the increase of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface burning the skin fiercer.

 

Jet traffic ice haze teletext page1 dated 17 December 2015

 

 

 

Jet traffic ice haze teletext page2 dated 17 December 2015

 

 

 

Cancer research UK Skin cancer incidence trends 1979 to 2012

I would agree that if there is something to this then it is most likely some effect here on Earth, in the atmosphere.

 

And I suppose it is possible that jet haze may have increased. However one would not expect that to increase the amount of UV getting through, which is what would affect skin cancer - probably rather the reverse.

 

As to the UK skin cancer stats, they are certainly striking, but I think one would need to look first at other potential effects, for example the increase in longevity of the population (I see the increases are most marked in old people: could it be that there are just more of them living longer and getting cancer?) and also the increase in past decades in people taking beach holidays abroad without knowing about the need for sunblock.

 

What is it that makes you think the sun shines whiter now than in the past? Is it just your own subjective impression, or is there data on that?   

[spartan45]

 

I would agree that if there is something to this then it is most likely some effect here on Earth, in the atmosphere.

 

And I suppose it is possible that jet haze may have increased. However one would not expect that to increase the amount of UV getting through, which is what would affect skin cancer - probably rather the reverse.

 

What is it that makes you think the sun shines whiter now than in the past? Is it just your own subjective impression, or is there data on that?   

 

First to tackle the probable reason why the Sun may appear to be getting whiter:

The Smithsonian article dated Dec 16^th 2015 seems to be the first scientific evidence to back up what I first noticed (the Sun appearing to be more brilliant white, with the sky whiter/glaring) from around 1997 although was probably noticeable in the 80’s by some. It mentions the sun seemed to slightly dim between 1950 – 1980, and then it started to brighten. The dimming was attributed to pollution, while the massive amounts of aerosols sent into the atmosphere by the United States and Europe were curtailed by clean air regulations from 1980, resulting in the Sun starting to brighten. This was only part of the story, because while some of the Sun’s light travels directly to the surface, some is scattered on its trip through the atmosphere. With less pollution this diffuse light should have lessened, but instead it appeared to be increasing. Aircraft contrails seem to be the cause, leaving behind a thin icy haze. The sky may appear cloud free, but the ice particles are there scattering the light until they fall out of the atmosphere. This increased diffused light is probably the reason the Sun now appears whiter. Source (Dec16 2015). www.smithsonianianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contrails

 

Second to tackle the probable reason for the Sun burning skin fiercer:

Ozone levels in 1998 were about 4 or 5% less below 1979 levels between latitude 35N and 60N, with levels lowest in the higher latitudes. This helped trigger the clean air regulations (particularly those against CFCs) virtually stopping the ozone layer depletion. Today, levels do not appear to have significantly changed from the 1979 levels. Lower ozone levels allow higher levels of UV rays to reach Earth’s surface.

Source:  earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB/uvb-radiation4

[exchemist]

First to tackle the probable reason why the Sun may appear to be getting whiter:

The Smithsonian article dated Dec 16^th 2015 seems to be the first scientific evidence to back up what I first noticed (the Sun appearing to be more brilliant white, with the sky whiter/glaring) from around 1997 although was probably noticeable in the 80’s by some. It mentions the sun seemed to slightly dim between 1950 – 1980, and then it started to brighten. The dimming was attributed to pollution, while the massive amounts of aerosols sent into the atmosphere by the United States and Europe were curtailed by clean air regulations from 1980, resulting in the Sun starting to brighten. This was only part of the story, because while some of the Sun’s light travels directly to the surface, some is scattered on its trip through the atmosphere. With less pollution this diffuse light should have lessened, but instead it appeared to be increasing. Aircraft contrails seem to be the cause, leaving behind a thin icy haze. The sky may appear cloud free, but the ice particles are there scattering the light until they fall out of the atmosphere. This increased diffused light is probably the reason the Sun now appears whiter. Source (Dec16 2015). www.smithsonianianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contrails

 

Second to tackle the probable reason for the Sun burning skin fiercer:

Ozone levels in 1998 were about 4 or 5% less below 1979 levels between latitude 35N and 60N, with levels lowest in the higher latitudes. This helped trigger the clean air regulations (particularly those against CFCs) virtually stopping the ozone layer depletion. Today, levels do not appear to have significantly changed from the 1979 levels. Lower ozone levels allow higher levels of UV rays to reach Earth’s surface.

Source:  earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB/uvb-radiation4

I thought that Smithsonian article was very interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. However I could not make your link to it work, so had to look it up myself. Here is my version of the link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/airplane-contrails-may-be-creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/

 

It lends support to the idea of a whitening of the sky and a haze around the sun. However I note that authors of the work show proper scientific caution about what its effects may be as they don't have enough data to form any judgements. 

 

I noticed also the article itself contains a link to a piece on this phenomenon of the "dimming" of sunlight, due to pollution during the 1950s-1980s, which has now apparently either stopped or even reversed. Again, something I had not previously been aware of.

[geoff]

HiYa, back in '98 I worked out that adult humans, once they believed something would filter and edit information so as to be able to maintain there belief. I actualy have a tape recording of my ex wife's psychiatrist 'thought blocking' my description of injury's to the right hand side of my seven year old daughter's face only, and you don't want to hear the rest. A few years ago I heard on the radio that some psycologists had convinced their subjects of a certain fact , they then showed them the evidence that this fact was untrue, yet when they answered questions they did so as if they still believed the original fact was true, despite being able to explain why this original fact was false, 

 now I've put my fav example on this website as 'quantum mistake'  what i expect to happen is this; anyone who's self esteem, position on the greasy pole, or ability to feed their kids is severely compromised by discovering that QM is based on a stupid mistake will thought block that part of the post and have a go at the gravity bit but be unusually rude about it, or it will quickly be shoved here in the silly section. or disappear completely. My mates who can't tell me my science is wrong struggle with the idea so many clever people could miss this and assume it's because their science isn't as good as they thought it was , I have lots of other examples in other fields, the semi aquatic ape theory is next on the list.    

At first the idea that rational intelligent people are doing this is hardly a survival mechanism , but actually it is, we have to educate our youngsters to follow instructions blindly , or they will insist on learning everything for themselves and making all the usual mistakes, which in times of conflict of some description would be an inefficient use of human resource, 

 

What I'm trying to say is they are not doing it on purpose, it's just what adult humans do, particularly those at the top of the greasy pole, amusingly it was Max Planck that observed.. ' science only moves on when the last great scientist dies' problem is when our university's demand our children can quote by rote our ancestors before they are allowed to join as an undergrad,  .... " john mate, QM is badly wrong somewhere" "I don't understand it either, but you can make like a parrot, pass your exam, get a good job, money and girls geoff"  ..That's what worried me , my dad did H bombs and rockets, at some point I would be asked to build something that went in a cruise missile, would I drop my sense of morality to keep the money and girls? dunno but everyone else did , so I walked. 

 

If your interested I'll expand on this.

Edited February 1, 2017 by geoff

[exchemist]

HiYa, back in '98 I worked out that adult humans, once they believed something would filter and edit information so as to be able to maintain there belief. I actualy have a tape recording of my ex wife's psychiatrist 'thought blocking' my description of injury's to the right hand side of my seven year old daughter's face only, and you don't want to hear the rest. A few years ago I heard on the radio that some psycologists had convinced their subjects of a certain fact , they then showed them the evidence that this fact was untrue, yet when they answered questions they did so as if they still believed the original fact was true, despite being able to explain why this original fact was false, 

 now I've put my fav example on this website as 'quantum mistake'  what i expect to happen is this; anyone who's self esteem, position on the greasy pole, or ability to feed their kids is severely compromised by discovering that QM is based on a stupid mistake will thought block that part of the post and have a go at the gravity bit but be unusually rude about it, or it will quickly be shoved here in the silly section. or disappear completely. My mates who can't tell me my science is wrong struggle with the idea so many clever people could miss this and assume it's because their science isn't as good as they thought it was , I have lots of other examples in other fields, the semi aquatic ape theory is next on the list.    

At first the idea that rational intelligent people are doing this is hardly a survival mechanism , but actually it is, we have to educate our youngsters to follow instructions blindly , or they will insist on learning everything for themselves and making all the usual mistakes, which in times of conflict of some description would be an inefficient use of human resource, 

 

What I'm trying to say is they are not doing it on purpose, it's just what adult humans do, particularly those at the top of the greasy pole, amusingly it was Max Planck that observed.. ' science only moves on when the last great scientist dies' problem is when our university's demand our children can quote by rote our ancestors before they are allowed to join as an undergrad,  .... " john mate, QM is badly wrong somewhere" "I don't understand it either, but you can make like a parrot, pass your exam, get a good job, money and girls geoff"  ..That's what worried me , my dad did H bombs and rockets, at some point I would be asked to build something that went in a cruise missile, would I drop my sense of morality to keep the money and girls? dunno but everyone else did , so I walked. 

 

If your interested I'll expand on this.

If you have good evidence, based on objective observation, that there is something wrong with QM I am sure the scientific world will be very interested in it. People make careers out of discovering new things in science, so I can't really see why they would reject some startling new evidence.

 

What they will reject - and quite rightly - is a half-baked idea, displaying ignorance of the subject and unsupported by objective observational evidence.  

 

My experience on these fora is that quite often we get people putting forward notions that they do not realise are in the latter category rather than the former.

 

But if you have something to show, then let's take a look. I admit I am curious, not because I pretend to be a great expert on QM but because I did study it at university many years ago and I found its power - at least in chemistry - very impressive. I'll have a look for it. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by exchemist

[geoff]

I think the jist of this post was that academic schools of thought,are in fact incredibly resistant to outsiders who point out that much of there version of reality is in contradiction of pertinent evidence , i can give many examples. Now since my whole life prior to walking out of a physics degree (I did my best to fail my four A levals and special papers but still they sent me) being told i was a genius and one of my given reasons, for walking,  was that QM was badly wrong.this observation of mine is top of my special or personal interest list  It was Albert who came out with the statement "had i gone to university my head would have been so full of stuff I wouldn't have been able to see the simple" or something to that effect. which I still think I have done as no one has tackled my rational head on ,but thats a different post

 

the objective observational evidence I cite is the evidence put forward by mainstream science , it is the analysis of that evidence I dispute

 

as for the sun being whiter I have not studied any experimental data  so I would not presume to have an opinion, but if someone did have evidence for such a thing and it flew in the face of accepted reality, I would not expect it to be welcomed by all, no mater how strong the evidence and the quality of the work., this is the evidence of our history.

 

stuff to do ,pip pip! geoff

Edited February 2, 2017 by geoff

[exchemist]

I think the jist of this post was that academic schools of thought,are in fact incredibly resistant to outsiders who point out that much of there version of reality is in contradiction of pertinent evidence , i can give many examples. Now since my whole life prior to walking out of a physics degree (I did my best to fail my four A levals and special papers but still they sent me) being told i was a genius and one of my given reasons, for walking,  was that QM was badly wrong.this observation of mine is top of my special or personal interest list  It was Albert who came out with the statement "had i gone to university my head would have been so full of stuff I wouldn't have been able to see the simple" or something to that effect. which I still think I have done as no one has tackled my rational head on ,but thats a different post

 

the objective observational evidence I cite is the evidence put forward by mainstream science , it is the analysis of that evidence I dispute

 

as for the sun being whiter I have not studied any experimental data  so I would not presume to have an opinion, but if someone did have evidence for such a thing and it flew in the face of accepted reality, I would not expect it to be welcomed by all, no mater how strong the evidence and the quality of the work., this is the evidence of our history.

 

stuff to do ,pip pip! geoff

I do believe your academic record. :)

 

As to the quote from Einstein, do you have a source for that? Because Einstein most definitely did go to university. He went, at the early age of 17,  to what is now the highly prestigious ETH, which at that time was called the "Swiss Federal Polytechnic".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein 

 

Einstein, it is worth pointing out, took great trouble to learn all about the existing theories, the evidence for them, and the outstanding problems and conflicts, before offering original ideas of his own.

 

You, I have to say, seem to have learnt practically nothing, and you have great difficulty expressing ideas coherently or getting basic history right, when a mere 30 seconds on Google would enable you to do so. I'm not sure you have been taught how to think. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by exchemist

[geoff]

didn't do history at school nor did they teach much in science lessons as for being taught how to think im glad they didn't, most of my peer's were sponges, memorizing formula, inserting the numbers and getting the right answer without understanding what they were doing  , most people seem to think scientists come up with a theory then look for evidence to prove it, often discounting evidence that refutes the theory weather they realise it or not , me I read the evidence if the conclusion is outside the box then so be it , if there is not enough evidence to see the whole picture i don't fill in the gap with a made up narrative as most adults do.  I love being wrong , it means I just learn't something, I am  egalitarian so i am just as likely check gods maths as my dogs maths, although there was a time when I had faith in the scientific method, which I guess I still do, but the people that do science get things wrong, and most people hate being wrong, especially when they have spent there life investigating a subject, and have pre- concived ideas they have tried to prove  

 

as for the einstein quote no idea, , and I did, in fact, learn all about the existing theorys in the 1970's and 80's  anyway this is really off the point of this thread, as to albert I was sure he left uni early and got a job in a patents office rather than follow an academic path, perhaps it was "if I stayed at uni ...." ill google it and find out , 

 

pip pip geoff

[geoff]

Ps didn't find that quote ,went through about 1000, so fair enough but then when asked what it was like to be a genius he replied" I don't know ask tesla", that wasn't there either, and I read that one recently but don't ask me where! and EHT was a poly at the time and when i went to uni there was a very big difference so no he did not go to uni untill after he came up with relativity, probably your younger than me ,poly's didn't qualify as uni's back then, they were technical colleges as they were in einstiens day , perhaps you were too keen to prove your theory , but again it's all compleatly irrelevant

 

pip pip geoff

[exchemist]

Ps didn't find that quote ,went through about 1000, so fair enough but then when asked what it was like to be a genius he replied" I don't know ask tesla", that wasn't there either, and I read that one recently but don't ask me where! and EHT was a poly at the time and when i went to uni there was a very big difference so no he did not go to uni untill after he came up with relativity, probably your younger than me ,poly's didn't qualify as uni's back then, they were technical colleges as they were in einstiens day , perhaps you were too keen to prove your theory , but again it's all compleatly irrelevant

 

pip pip geoff

Well there we go. Zurich is in Switzerland.There, and at that time, polytechnic did not mean what it once meant here in the UK - as shown by the status of ETH today. (I am 62 by the way, so I remember Polys well. I think I even rowed against Oxford Poly - now Oxford Brookes uni - once.) 

 

Listen, mate, I don't doubt your sincerity, but there does seem to me to be something missing in the way you think and express yourself. This may underlie why you make the sort of obvious mistakes I have been pointing out. I think it really does matter, for example, that a person:

 

- can express themselves in reasonable English, with good spelling and appropriate use of full stops to show the end of sentences. 

- takes the trouble to check that what they say that is factual is actually correct (!!)

- separates ideas cleanly and describes them precisely enough for someone else to understand what is being said.

 

I have some trouble discussing things with you because you don't do any of the above. Often it is not clear what you are trying to say (e.g. electrons being on and offable - what on earth does than mean?)  - and so much of the factual information you have offered is simply wrong, even though you could so easily have checked it yourself. In other places your ideas run into each other via rambling, unpunctuated sentences that do not separate the ideas out. This lack of intellectual discipline will prevent you even thinking clearly, never mind expressing your thoughts with clarity.

 

You have spun yourself a comforting story that those people who have succeeded in learning what you have failed to learn are somehow conformist puppets and that it is you who is superior. You bolster this with an entirely false myth that Einstein was somehow not formally educated and that this was the key to his genius. This is frankly delusional.

 

I have to repeat that you are only in a good position to criticise something when you have first understood it.  Criticising from ignorance risks making you look a fool.

 

Furthermore, a successful critique has to be very clear about what it is that it takes issue with and why it is wrong.

Edited February 6, 2017 by exchemist

[geoff]

I bothered to google polytechnic before the last post, off the top of my head, 1874, french , engineering colleges ,  they wanted to send me to cambridge to read natural science, with my english!, point is he didn't need to do theoretical physics to pass a very formal engineering and maths exam. albert was far more educated than I,  (the 1874 could be somthing else) albert was obviously interested and taught himself about theoretical physics, he was looking for a teaching job , ended up at a patents office ,   and the rest is history

 

as for the rest , forgive me , but if you knew me , big grin , and pour you a large one 

 

pip pip , geoff