Viking

In my 54 years I have never witnessed any phenomenon that was not completely natural, except under the influence of mind-altering substances. I even bought a house that had, according to its previous occupants and some of their guests, an active ghost. However, after having suffered some greivous personal losses, I have had EXTREMELY vivid dreams where my loved ones visited me in various forms, and spoke to me in interesting ways. It is not hard for me to understand the origin of some of these beliefs. But they were dreams, nothing more.

Nickle

So Seraphim, by your logic those mice I saw crawling around my feet were ghosts. What's the difference between the mice that I hallucinated and your ghosts?

Why is is difficult to understand that the brain can fool us? Why are people so quick to jump on an outlandish explanation?

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

Philosoft

Eh, two questions (in several parts):

1. How did you know these people were possessed? Is it possible they just acted like they were possessed? How do you know what a bona-fide possessed person looks like, anyway? How many times have you seen the Exorcist?

2. What is the proper treatment for an allegedly possessed person? How do you know?

echidna

Seraphim, I didn’t see a response to this.

Do you regard your brain as a perfect sensory & informational system ?

Do you accept that there are many times when it can be deceived, or indeed, deceive us ?

Dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, drug induced or naturally occurring psychosis – these things objectively exist, they can be proven in repeatable laboratory experiments.

Ghosts OTOH, cannot despite countless attempts.

Hmmm, tough call.

echidna

Seraphim, your belief in ghosts is the entirely understandable superstition which has arisen throughout humanity from a lack of scientific investigation & study. People used to think that heavier objects fell faster than slow ones (wind resistance aside), people used to think the earth was flat, people used to think that the heart was the organ housing our soul.

But today we benefit from modern medicine & communicate with computers only made possible by people willing to challenge primitive superstitions & seek a common, predicable reality. So should mental illness be treated with exorcists & witch doctors ? Well, I trust your answer is no.

I remember visiting northern Laos. A man suddenly fell to the ground shaking while his small son held his hand. A crowd circled him with morbid fascination. In Lao they told me he had spirits & they had to wait until he released the bad air. Anywhere else & he would have been well treated for epilepsy & lived a quite normal life. But in a culture unfamiliar with modern medicine, he was possessed by spirits.

So which treatment is best ? An exorcist or a regular dosage of Epilon or equivalent ? I trust you won’t seriously suggest that the exorcist understands better.

Your superstition is no different.

Amie

Hi Kally
I am sorry that people thought you were possesed...what made them even think that?

Infinity Lover

There was an article in last the saturday section of "de Telegraaf", the main dutch newspaper, about the American medium Char.

It described how she approached the reporter, pointing at her navyblue sweater she had put on to surprice the woman. She, the reporter that is, had just switched from the navyblue sweater she had been wearing a half hour ago, into a purple vest.

Now that either makes you go hmmm, how did she know about the sweater, isn't that funny. Or she might have had an assistant checking the reporter out, and not being quite as paranormal as she claims, she had no clue the reporter would change into that purple vest a bit later.

Seraphim

"You find something illogical about hallucination?"

My reply : I was trying to determine whether the conditions which seems to promote hallucination is illogical or not. Which is why I have asked what are the conditions were so I could compare it with myself.

"Interesting thought: my wife is currently 5 months preggers. She tells me that foetuses can dream, and one must wonder exactly what they dream about. Swimming around in the dark with amniotic fluid whilst muffled noises and a constant "lub-lub" play in the background?"

My reply : A congrulation to you. 2nd Child?
How sure are you that the foetus cannot dream? Have someone determined the degree of brain development (one of the first organ to develop) to not promote some sort of "link" between the organism and the host (the mother)?

Hmmm ... I just have an idea behind of a game called Final Fantasy X - something called "Dream of a Fayth" ... must write it down and give my fanfiction obsessed friend.

"My point - speculative, but not greatly so: what we dream or hallucinate must be determined by what we know or believe we know or have experienced in the world. Suppose now that "visions" are commonplace (if infrequent) - most of us get them from time to time (without the aid of substances). But for most people, the visions are really really dull - a car where there isn't one, an extra teabag in the box, whatever. For others, with their head filled with ancient spiritual nonsense and having watched a few too many episodes of the X-Files, their visions are more acute, more specific, more devolved from everyday experience."

My reply : Thank you for accepting that there is such thing as a Vision. The rest I don't think I need to answer since it seems to be personal opinion.

"An aphorism: "You are what you allow between your ears"

My reply : You are what you wished to be ... an illusion of emotions and opinions which you created to face the world around you.

"That there are hot and cold spots in a house is proof? Is that really the best that can be done? People report all sorts of daft phenomena, especially if they have been prepped for it and are open to believing that sort of guff."

My reply : Draft can occur INSIDE a closed house or rooms? A sudden warmth in midst of cold air or a cold sensation around warmth environment?

"Oh p-lease. Just one ghost - just one out of the billions that surely must exist - has to get in front of a TV camera, do a little dance and a great interview afterwards. Y'know real, objective, no was-it-or-wasn't-it shenanigans. I get really bored with the argument that if you set up an experiment to detect ghosts, or psychic powers, or whatever, then suddenly they don't show and so conclude that the fact that there is no objective evidence of them is conclusive proof that they must exist."

My reply : Have you or anyone ever considered that the equipments you are using is the reason none of this "ghost" appeared? IF they are consist of electromagnetic energy, do you think putting more (stronger) electrical appliances around the area is wise? It is like trying to listening to one person's voice in midst of a rock group blasting away with noise that defise the sound barriar.

"On the balance of probability" does not imply "sure". It just asks what is the more likely explanation given what we know about our world and what we speculate about it. "

My reply : And what do you know of your world? Do you know everything? You kept coming back to the point that you are assuming you know enough to speculate there is nothing that you don't know.

Seraphim

"So Seraphim, by your logic those mice I saw crawling around my feet were ghosts. What's the difference between the mice that I hallucinated and your ghosts?

Why is is difficult to understand that the brain can fool us? Why are people so quick to jump on an outlandish explanation?"

My reply : Can't answer your question because I'm not there to see your condition and the environment. You could be hallucinating or there could be real rats just others didn't see it enough or bothered enough to make a scene in public. Either way, it is inadequate to make proper assumption.


By Philosoft

Eh, two questions (in several parts):

"1. How did you know these people were possessed? Is it possible they just acted like they were possessed? How do you know what a bona-fide possessed person looks like, anyway? How many times have you seen the Exorcist?"

My reply : I have seen a few in my times so I could describe it properly.

A possessed person behave like someone who is epilesptic (wrong word here) - you know like hysterical. Only difference between epilestical person and possessed is that a epilestical person attend to be unconscious while his body kicks and twists around. A possessed person is wide awake, growling and snaring like an animal and in some occassion, have ability of speech.

An epilestical person have memory of him going unconscious and waking up, a person who was possessed have no memory of such event whatsoever and it will be like a dream to him. I know because I was one of them once ... when I was about 8 years old.

A possessed person could have no history of having histerical fit or an epilestical fits throughtout his or her life ... again, I speak of myself and another lady friend who I know of.

"2. What is the proper treatment for an allegedly possessed person? How do you know? "

My reply : In traditional ways, certain person (like priest or monks) will be called to "speak" to the possessed person to ask what the spirit wants. This spirits are viewed as those who are impatient to reborn again so proper guidance is given in which the spirit leave the body on its own and wait patiently for its time to cross over.

The method of throwing holy water and saying prayers etc is considered last and desperate methods in which the spirit refused to leave on its own. I got this treatment

By echidna

Originally posted by echidna:
Another easy one, do you accept that neurological dysfunction can (on occasion) create the illusion of a ghost or other paranormal events ?

Seraphim, I didn’t see a response to this. "

My reply : Forgive my late reply then, I must have missed reading it somewhere.

I'm not very sure how unless I have seen or read about conditions in which this neurological dysfunction is activated.

"Do you regard your brain as a perfect sensory & informational system ?"

My reply : No, I don't. I consider the brain as evolving organ where process of learning etc is kept forming. The brain could have its sections by which hearing etc is controlled but other features such as memory, condination etc is still developing to the day we die.

"Do you accept that there are many times when it can be deceived, or indeed, deceive us ?"

My reply : Depends on condition. If I was injected with some hallucinating drugs, then I will hallucinate. I don't think the brain will deceive me at will for no apparent reason since I don't see what possible purpose that will serve.

"Dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, drug induced or naturally occurring psychosis – these things objectively exist, they can be proven in repeatable laboratory experiments. "

My reply : ALL which is created by either drugs, realty alternativing devices or simply hynotical suggestion. In another word, an outside source (in this case the scientists) interfere with the brain's function by PROMOTING the result they wished to see.

Here's a simple question - have anyone found an enzyme or anything natural produced by the brain or any of the body to promote such illusions?

The Lone Ranger

Seraphim:

Point One:

One of the most basic and important principles of logic is known as “Ockham’s Razor.” It comes from William of Ockham who, in the fourteenth century, wrote that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

What this means is that it is not reasonable to introduce unknown causes to “explain” a phenomenon when it can be explained by perfectly ordinary causes. Until and unless there is some reason to believe that ordinary causes are insufficient to explain the phenomenon in question, it’s pointless to introduce extraordinary causes.

In practice, this means that if there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler explanation -- the one that requires the fewest assumptions -- is the one that is most likely to be correct. By definition, invocation of unknown processes to explain something that can be explained by known processes is making the explanation unnecessarily complex.


Point Two:

When the nature of a phenomenon is not understood, it is not logical to assume that it is unexplainable. It may simply be that we don’t yet have enough data to explain the phenomenon.

If the cause of a phenomenon is not understood, the proper course of action is to suspend judgement. It really is okay to say “I don’t know” and leave it at that until better data become available.


Point Three:

The burden of proof is always upon the claimant. If someone insists that a thing exists, it is not up to others to prove that it doesn’t; it is up to the claimant to prove that it does. It is not logical to believe in the existence of things for which no solid proof has been provided.


***

You are multiplying entities unnecessarily. “Ghosts” can be readily explained without invoking the unproved hypothesis that “souls” exist. The simpler explanation is more likely to be correct.

My question is simple: Can you provide evidence that ghosts actually exist, and that they cannot be explained by conventional means?


If I find that my consciousness persists after my death, I can assure you that this will effect a radical reassessment of my outlook on such matters. Why should my ghost will be unable to explore the new freedoms that have opened up?

You’re not seriously suggesting that the reason I can’t flap my arms and fly to the moon is because I don’t believe I can, are you?

Quote:

BTW - assuming that physical laws that we know is all there to govern the UNIVERSE is very arrogant statement since we only know what we know about Earth and area around it (even that is limited and in process of learning).

Forgive me for asking, but what part of “no one assumes that we have a complete understanding of the universe around us” was unclear?

While we’re on the subject, though, how is it arrogant to suggest that we should stick to prosaic explanations before invoking unknown entities for which no one has provided convincing evidence?




There are lots of perfectly natural phenomena which can cause people to experience extremely realistic and convincing hallucinations, even when wide awake.

As mentioned earlier, hypnopompic and hypnagogic experiences can and do cause people to see ghostly images. True, these experiences typically occur when the person is just falling asleep or just waking up, but isn’t it an amazing coincidence that most reports of ghostly visitations seem to occur when the witness is just falling asleep or just waking up?

Mild forms of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy are actually quite common. People experiencing a TLE seizure may be completely unaware of it, and it can happen when the person is wide awake and fully alert. People experiencing a TLE seizure often report the experience as “deeply spiritual” (epilepsy was once called “divine madness” for a reason), and often see and hear things that aren’t actually there. Interestingly, the temporal lobes of the brain appear to be where a person’s sense of “self” is generated. Unusual activity in the temporal lobe often corresponds with the person reporting the presence of another being.

Persons suffering a TLE seizure very often insist that they can sense the presence of some other being in the vicinity. Frequently, this “sensed presence” is assumed to be a ghost or an alien.

The neuroscientist Michael Persinger has been able to induce this experience in patients by stimulation of the temporal lobe with magnetic signals. These patients report seeing or otherwise sensing dead relatives or other beings -- beings which promptly vanish when the magnetic induction is turned off.

Interestingly, it has been suggested that improperly shielded electrical lines can produce an oscillating magnetic field which my induce exactly such hallucinations in susceptible people.

***

The point is that very realistic and convincing hallucinations can be and are induced in the brains of perfectly normal people by perfectly explainable means. No invocation of souls or other unknown entities is necessary.

***

Quote:

My reply : No offense is taken. But I will wait for your laws of physics which the "ghost" said to have broken first before answering more. I have receive a few remarks especially from you and few others that existence of "ghost" is outside laws of physics and science YET receive none.

As best we can tell, the universe contains two things: energy and matter. Each has distinct properties.

Energy exists in two forms: potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy is stored energy. It is stored in chemical bonds, for instance. In any event, potential energy, by definition, isn’t doing anything. So, I think we can rule out ghosts as being made up of potential energy.

Kinetic energy is energy of movement. Anything that is moving has kinetic energy. Matter has kinetic energy when it moves; in fact, it doesn’t move unless it has kinetic energy. Presumably, ghosts could be made of matter -- moving or otherwise -- but then they’d be subject to the same principles that govern other material objects. We’ll leave off discussing that for the moment.

The problem with something being “made of energy” is that energy, by its nature, disperses. What forms of energy are available to make up our supposed energy beings? Radiant energy consists of photons moving at the speed of light. It’s difficult to see how an entity could be composed of energy that is always moving at some 300,000 kilometers per second. The “ghost” in question would disperse essentially instantaneously. Hauntings would be very short-lived phenomena indeed. Is the ghost actually just a hologram then? If so, it must have a power source.

Thermal energy is kinetic energy that is directly transferred between particles of matter. The problem is that thermal energy, by its nature, is quite chaotic, and so it disperses. Not quite as quickly as radiant energy does, but it still means that our hypothetical ghosts would have a real problem holding themselves together.

Just so we’re clear: the problem with saying that ghosts are made of energy is that their alleged properties are in contradiction to the way that energy is observed to behave in the real world. Energy disperses; that’s what it does. If ghosts exist, and they’re made of energy, it’s an unusual sort of energy that doesn’t behave like energy as physicists understand it.

There are four known fundamental forces which govern how matter and energy interact. (There’s some evidence for a fifth force, but if it exists, it has observable effects only at such truly enormous distances -- we’re talking intergalactic distances here -- that it can be safely ignored.)

Two of the forces, the Weak and Strong forces, work only at the scale of the atomic nucleus. Since these forces literally don’t exist outside the atomic nucleus, they can be safely ignored. Gravitation is the third force. Gravitation does not seem to be a reasonable candidate for explaining the properties of ghosts. That leaves the Electromagnetic force.

Electromagnetism does some pretty-neat things, like holding molecules together, and it propogates through space, carried by photons. But then, that’s the problem, photons move at the speed of light, so they don’t exactly seem like viable candidates for making ghosts.

Well, maybe there are other forms of energy, carried by forces other than the ones we’re familiar with. Maybe ghosts are made of some unfamiliar form of energy that doesn’t behave like other forms of energy.

There’s a real problem with that explanation.

One of the most thoroughly-tested and universally-accepted scientific principles is that of the Conservation of Energy. The Gravitational Force is millions of times weaker than is the Electromagnetic force. To illustrate, consider this: if you toss a bowling ball off a tall building, it takes the entire gravitational field of the Earth to accelerate it downward. Yet the electromagnetic force between the atoms that make up the sidewalk will stop it almost instantly. Gravity is weak.

With modern instruments, it is possible to measure the energy flow through a system with incredible accuracy. Experiments conducted in 1964 by Robert Dicke (and since replicated) have shown that if -- if -- a fifth force exists, it can be no more than one-trillionth as powerful as gravity.

This does not leave much room for the claim that ghosts are made of energy.

Just to sum up: if ghosts exist and are made of energy, it is an exotic form of energy that does not behave at all like any other form of energy that is known. Furthermore, the energy that makes up these ghosts is literally trillions of times weaker than gravity. It’s difficult to see how a ghost could possibly have enough energy available to do anything at all.

Quote:

If they are energy to begin with, they could gather more to a stage that they couldn't gather or hold it anymore thus dissipates.

Um, no. Energy doesn’t draw energy unto itself. Quite the opposite, actually -- energy dissipates. If you want to gather and store energy, you need to store it in matter.

Quote:

I grow up thinking that the bonds of electromagnetic which bonds molecules in our body is same thing that holds other objects else where. Example water molecules which when heated up, breaks free only to form under colder atmosphere as water again. Am I wrong?

It’s difficult to say whether your explanation is correct, because it doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Water is a liquid. It is a liquid because the thermal energy of the water molecules is not sufficient to overcome the electromagnetic forces which cause the molecules to stick together. Add enough thermal energy to the water, and the electromagnetic forces can no longer hold the molecules together -- the molecules will then begin to move independently because of their high thermal energy. At this point, you have a gas, steam. If you then remove thermal energy from the water molecules, you’ll eventually reach a point where the thermal energy that would keep them apart can no longer overcome the electromagnetic attraction that would bring them together. At this point, the steam condenses back into water.

It’s important to keep in mind that there’s no such thing as cold. Cold is simply the relative lack of thermal energy.


Since energy is not held together throughout space, no proof is either necessary or possible.

Quote:

My reply : No, I suggesting that ghost could gather enough energy to appear solid (without mass) enough to be detected. I believe also that this is not something which is far fetched because water when heated behaves the same way.

How does a thing which has no mass appear solid?

Water has mass, and behaves as if it does.


All atoms are uncharged (electrically neutral). Charged atoms are called “ions.” This is not the same thing as an excited atom.

Electrons “orbit” the nucleus of an atom in “shells.” If all the electrons are in their lowest shells, the atom is in its ground state. If an atom absorbs radiant energy, that energy may kick one or more electrons into a higher shell. Such an atom is said to be excited. An “excited” atom has precisely the same physical and chemical properties as a ground-state atom, except that it will eventually release the energy it has stored when the electron(s) fall back into lower shell(s).


Well, since I’ve taken pains to point out that we don’t have a complete understanding of the world around us, I don’t see where you get that idea.

As has been repeatedly said, however, if you wish to propose the existence of entities which display characteristics contrary to our understanding of the way that things work, you must provide some evidence that they exist, and that our understandings are incorrect.

A good place to start would be to demonstrate that the principle of the conservation of energy is incorrect. Another good place to start would be to demonstrate the existence of some form of heretofore unknown energy that doesn’t behave like “normal” energy does.


Well, long before they were proved to exist, it was shown mathematically that black holes almost certainly had to exist. Therefore, it wasn’t a big surprise to discover the existence of black holes. Quite the contrary, actually; it would have been a big surprise to discover that they don’t exist.

Ghosts, on the other hand, are not predicted by mathematics, nor by our understanding of the properties of energy and matter. Quite the opposite, actually.

They laughed at Wilbur and Orville Wright; they laughed at Charles Darwin. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Someone who insisted that black holes don’t exist would be laughed at because there’s convincing evidence that they do exist. No convincing evidence has been produced that ghosts exist, however, so there’s as yet no reason to take the claim seriously.

Quote:

Science is never wrong, misinterpreted or lack of information ... maybe. I just saying that a laws of science is shouldn't be used only to things we know but also to explore things that we may not know but have possibility of existence.

It is the business of science to explore the unknown. People have spent time exploring the possibility that ghosts exist. So far, all attempts to demonstrate the existence of ghosts have failed.

If you look for something and fail to find it where it should be, it is not unreasonable to conclude that it probably doesn’t exist.


Is this really so difficult? We don’t know everything, but there are some things about which we can draw extremely firm conclusions. Until some evidence is produced to demonstrate that these conclusions are wrong, it is not unreasonable to accept them as provisionally true.

By all the evidence, the Earth really is round. By all the evidence, it is impossible to accelerate matter to the speed of light. By all the evidence, if I drop an unsupported object in a vacuum, it will accelerate toward the Earth’s center at 9.8 meters/second/second. By all the evidence, ripping a person’s heart out of his chest will kill him within a few minutes’ time.

Some things we can be quite certain of.


Un-ionized gas is called “gas.” It is quite detectable, and it behaves just like matter. Plasma is ionized gas, and it, too, behaves just like matter. Ground-state atoms are atoms whose electrons are all occupying the lowest shells. They behave just like other atoms -- indeed, if I’m not mistaken, the overwhelming majority of the atoms that currently make up your body are in the ground state. Unless you happen to be standing inside a rather large microwave oven, perhaps.


So ghosts are made of matter after all, then? Is a ghost what you get if you boil a person?

A solid object, such as a wall, is made up of tightly-bound atoms/molecules. Energy can move through it (though not without restrictions), but matter typically does not. To move matter through a wall, you must break the bonds that hold together the molecules of the wall. This tends to have unfortunate consequences for the wall.

There is a way to get around this, and that is to remove virtually all of the thermal energy from the substance in question. If the atoms that make up the substance are small enough, they may be able to pass through the wall by slipping between the molecular lattice. This works best for substances like pure hydrogen or pure helium, which are made up of very small atoms. Even then you must remove virtually all thermal energy from the atoms to get this trick to work.

Of course, thermal energy dissipates. So, for our hypothetical ghost to do this, it must somehow cool itself to a degree or two above Absolute Zero. Then it might be capable of passing through a wall. But anything even remotely close to that cold immediately absorbs thermal energy from its environment, and warms up. So, our hypothetical ghost would have to be kept inside of an extremely efficient cooling apparatus if it wants to be able to pass through walls. Of course, the presence of said cooling apparatus might prove to be a slight inconvenience.

Of course, matter and energy are really the same thing, as Einstein showed (E=mc^2). So, maybe the ghost converts itself into energy in order to pass through walls. High-energy gamma rays could pass through the typical wall quite easily. Of course, the ghost then has the slight problem of how to reconstitute itself.

But wait, there’s another problem. A little bit of matter produces a lot of energy. Let’s suppose that our ghost has a mass of one gram. Of course, such an insubstantial being would have trouble doing much of anything, but I digress.

Now then, this ghost wants to pass through a wall, and it just happens to have the magical ability to convert itself into energy in order to do so. Here’s the problem: the energy released when a one-gram ghost did this trick would be the equivalent of a good-sized thermonuclear explosion. In attempting the “pass through a wall trick” the ghost would flatten every structure within a mile’s radius.


Hydrogen and helium ultimately escape from the earth’s atmosphere. The vanishingly small amount of hydrogen in the earth’s atmosphere is mostly due to decomposition of water (H2O) molecules, and the tiny amounts of helium in the atmosphere are constantly being replenished by helium released during the radioactive decay of elements in the earth’s crust.


Molecular excitation is not the same as heat. If ghosts exist and can propel themselves, they will emit waste heat. Maybe not a lot, since they seem to have very little mass, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics insists that they’ll generate some.



In English, please.


Unless there is an outside source of energy constantly pumping new energy into this system, what you’re talking about is a clear violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.


Um, no, this is not how a laser works. “Laser” stands for Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Basically, a lot of energy is pumped into an excitable gas, and a very small portion of that energy is re-emitted as a coherent stream of light. The laser beam is not “condensed light.” Quite a lot more energy goes into the laser than comes out the other end as coherent light. In any event, the laser works only as long as you keep pouring energy into it.




Oh good grief, must I stipulate that you’re not to tamper with the system?

Very well: How’s this? An object -- any object -- that is unsupported and is dropped in a vacuum will accelerate downward at a rate determined by the local gravitational field. Its mass and composition are irrelevant.

Incidentally, Apollo astronauts demonstrated this by simultaneously dropping a feather and a hammer while standing on the Moon’s surface. They fell at the same rate, just as predicted.

If you truly believe that there are no well-established physical principles, I invite you to perform the following experiment. Using the power of your mind levitate yourself to a point 2 meters above the ground, and hover there for 30 seconds. No cheating, now. If you can do it, you will not only have disproved an awful lot of modern physics, but you can collect over a million dollars from the James Randi Foundation.


***

Okay, to sum up.

<ol type="1">[*]We don’t have a complete understanding of the world around us, but we have what seems to be a pretty darned good understanding of it.[*]Ghosts, if they exist, demonstrate properties which are incompatible with our perceived understanding of the world around us.[*]So far, no one has produced evidence of “ghosts” that cannot be explained through invocation of known phenomena such as hallucinations, fakery, camera malfunction, etc.[/list=a]


Therefore, either ghosts don’t exist, or we’re profoundly wrong about a lot of the things that we think we understand about how the world works. It’s possible, but it’s not the way to bet.



Cheers,

Michael

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>