text:
There's a significant difference between the actual probability that some event will or has occurred and an individual's subjective assessment its probability. People frequently assign high probabilities, for example, to events that are exceedingly unlikely. As a person ages, for instance, she will estimate the likelihood that she will be the victim of crime as steadily higher even though the real odds of being a victim of crime are inversely correlated with age. The demographic that is at the highest risk, young men, estimates their risk as the lower than other groups. Bayesian's have given us a way to treat these subjective estimates. They are a person's prior probabilities, because they are the person's estimates of probabilities prior to any real objective testing.
The incredible thing about Bayes' theorem is that it allows us to account for the two different starting points in probabilistic terms and it has the facility for us to engage in an analysis that can resolve the issue. Two people can start with very different prior probabilities, but as long as they are committed to revising those estimates in the light of all the relevant information, they will converge on the correct answer. If we make enough observations or figure in enough of the right consideration that are relevant to the prior estimate of probability an answer about the real probability of x will become clear.
"You can't prove it!" is the sneering response that I get from many believers who hear or read my arguments. The root of the criticism, I take it, is that they will reject my conclusions until I can produce some sort of exhaustive, deductive proof that provides perfect certainty. Perhaps then and only then would the critic be willing to take the argument seriously. But somehow I doubt it. For the dedicated believer, there is nothing, even in principle that could actually serve as counter evidence. No proof, no matter how compelling would be accepted. Perhaps sensing this, they feel confident in saying, "You can't prove it." because that is more of an avowal of their dedication to their view, than a broad epistemological analysis of the nature of proof in this realm.
We've known since Quine's famous arguments concerning a priori knowledge, and other developments in the 20th century, however, that there's really nothing that can be proven in the sense that is being asked for. What counts as a successful proof always depends upon other principles, and which principles are the most reasonable to adopt overall is a complicated, global affair. Ultimately, the theoretical descriptions we give to the world, including our standards of deductive and inductive proof are justified by their capacity to address our epistemological needs. And proving one claim always relies upon other claims that can, with some ingenuity, be called into question. Very little seems to be beyond some form of doubt, so for the determined skeptic, some sort of worries can always be engineered. Of course, that skeptic has much worse problems to deal with than the mere fact that we cannot prove God's existence or non-existence to his satisfaction. His worries cut equally across all putative knowledge claims, whether they are trivial or momentous. So the atheist need not respond to the skeptic as if the skeptic's challenges are the atheist's alone to bear.
The pragmatist and naturalist who appreciates the state of play post-Quine should adopt some interesting and broad epistemological principles. The scientific method wherein we propose hypotheses and then actively seek out disconfirming evidence to test them is the best game in town for pressing forward with the knowledge project. It works. And we just don't have anything that's any better. We can't trust the magical books from antiquity, we can't trust superstition, or religious intuitions, and we can't trust tradition or authoritative institutions to be reliable guides to the truth. The only thing we can do is adopt hypotheses that have been submitted to the tribunal of aggressive scientific testing as provisionally justified and true, and keep plugging away. That approach has, by far, been the most successful, and fruitful in the past. Indeed, only that approach has succeeded. And the success has been amazing.
In the big picture, then, all justifications are in a word inductive. The best we can ever do is acquire probabilistic conclusions about the world. How should we understand the various arguments that I have made here in those terms? If one is serious about attending to the evidence at all, then as we saw with Bayes' Theorem, whatever prior probabilities you have concerning some issue, you should continuously fold new information into those considerations and revise those prior probabilities to achieve the most inclusive and well-justified synthesis you can. We can understand why a child believe in Santa for a time, and the prospect of flying reindeer might not seem that outrageous to them considering the wide range of magical things that inhabit the rest of their world. But at some point when enough information is available to them various parts of the story shouldn't add up anymore. It should get increasingly difficult to reconcile the Santa view with the rest of what a child learns about the world. The probability that the Santa story is true should diminish to the point of being unreasonable.
Something similar has happened over time with Christianity's magical claims from the Iron Age and their lack of fit with the modern world. Of course there are still those that believe. But as scientific literacy spreads and as the scientific enterprise penetrates deeper into the mysteries of the world, the cognitive dissonance grows. It becomes necessary for belief to retreat into a more and more apologetically complicated labyrinth. Alvin Plantinga has argued that no findings in evolutionary biology can be at all logically incompatible with theism. But one wonders what sort of theism is left from the one's that started the movements that have such a stranglehold on the consciousness of their followers today. Could the first believers of Christianity have possibly imagined that quarks exist, or that the life had been evolving for billions of years on Earth? If they were being candid and honest, would they have insisted that none of what we have discovered in science casts any doubt on their God stories? If science's story about the history of life is true, and we have every reason to think that it is, then what work exactly is there left for God to do? What need do we still have for the notion of God?
So what I am arguing here and in many of the previous posts is that when we take all of the various relevant considerations into account—the chain of custody (see Resurrection? Probably Not), religious zealots controlling the story for centuries (See The Fox Guarding the Henhouse), the Mark Bottleneck, the 500 Dead Gods, The Perfect Word of God, Abducted by Aliens, the 300 Year Gap, Grave robbers or Magic?, You Don't Really Expect Us To Believe That, Do You?, and so on—it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus was resurrected on the basis of the information that we have. In Bayesian terms, whatever sort of prior probabilities you may have attached to events like resurrections, miraculously written books, and visits to Earth by divine beings, the arguments that I have given should give you reasons to revise those probabilities unless those arguments are unconvincing for some good reason, or you simply refuse to align your beliefs with the evidence. Of course, I could be wrong too. And if I'm going to be reasonable and consistent about this Bayesian approach, then I would need to revise my prior estimates in the light of compelling new evidence. If I am wrong, then I need you to show me exactly where in the arguments that happens and why. I want to know if I've got it wrong.
If I'm not, then even if your prior probabilities had led you to think that God's existence was a virtual certainty, at some point after folding in enough of the relevant information and revising accordingly, you'll reach the tipping point and what you used to believe will cease to be plausible in the light of current considerations. And that's as good a proof of anything that anybody ever gets.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Proving Atheism and Bayes' Theorem
47 comments:
- ChrisAC said...
I've always wondered at what point does a religious belief become so ingrained that no amount of logical argumentation and presented facts could possibly sway the person.
The Anton-Babinski syndrome, which we've been talking about, seems to be a perfect example of this. Now, obviously, severe neurological disorders aren't exactly strictly analogous to a belief state but it does seem to raise the question: To what degree can a belief be unassailable despite counter-evidence?
It seems to me, in some cases, there are beliefs or ideas people have that they will not change, regardless of said belief being soundly refuted. This, of course, tends to be common with people such as creationists. I always wonder if there's a neurological thing going on which makes them completely incapable of accepting the evidence that refutes their belief.
Of course, there is a more simple answer of sheer intellectual dishonesty (or plain stupidity) which may explain quite a bit but by no means does it seem to explain it all. - March 11, 2009 at 10:16 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
I guess I'm more optimistic than you C. Sure, there are those who are just impenetrable to reason. But they are the extreme cases. In the right circumstances lots of people are willing to listen to reason and in time they revise their beliefs. Blogs have kind of disappeared into the noisy background, though.
MM - March 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM
- ChrisAC said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- March 12, 2009 at 12:44 AM
- ChrisAC said...
Oh, I completely agree that my selection is on the fringes. I think the real problem is a number of the 'leaders' of religious/creationist movements tend to either have this problem or be severely intellectually dishonest. Also, the kind of person that goes to say, an atheist blogs, and spout nonsense and fallacies, probably has a similar problem.
While the average believer may be far more reasonable, you still run into the problem that they don't actively seek out rational arguments that may question their religion. Hell, most don't even seek rational arguments that support their religion. Though, I suppose that's all the more reason to be vocal as an atheist.
On the upside, I saw a link to your blog on Pharyngula's comments section. Movin' on up. - March 12, 2009 at 12:49 AM
- Scarecrow said...
I think alot of it has to do with compartmentalization between rational ideas and irrational ones.
Why else can a person function in an increasing complex technical world yet hold primative ideas regarding a deity? - March 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I am convinced doctor that if you are wrong about God that your head will explode before you can receive any divine disciplinary action.
- March 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Proving the negative is a falllacy...
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof - March 14, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Preemptive response...
Atheist believe you can prove the negative by listing the following scenerio:
You can prove that pennies are not in the piggy bank
However, this scenerio is different from a case where:
You can prove that God does not exist by showing there are no Gods in the world
Notice that the penny case presumes implicitly that pennies in fact exist (they are counted for via an ontology)
But in the case of God(s) there is a lack of countence in God(s)
Thus trying to prove God does not exists truly rest on the ignorence of God(s).
Therefore, Atheist are confused about what constitutes as case of "proving the negative"
If anybody here has ever worked out a reductio through natural deduction they would know that there are neat little things called "imbedded premises". These neat little guys must be true in order for the rest of the reductio to pan out. In the case of atheism, which attempts to claim a negative, there still lies an implicit assumption. That is, there is such a thing as God(s) to be proven arent in the penny jar.
Simply said, atheist cannot claim to have proved a negative when they must first assert a postive (this must occur as their imbedded premise). And such premises cannot be negative...
In summation,
Pennies existed even before we tried to disprove their location (note not their existence)
God(s) have no ontology so cannot serve as a premise and cannot be shown to be either in the penny jar or not in the penny jar.
At best, atheist can claim agnosticism
But if they disregard a neutral position then they as theist must rely on faith.
Now we know why proving the negative is a fallacy - March 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM
- ChrisAC said...
Lovely, a few kids took an intro philosophy course and believe they can lecture a PhD, with a Wikipedia citation no less. The wonders of the internet.
There are multiple ways to solve your absurdly inconsequential objections to atheism.
Firstly, a lack of evidences does in fact imply a lack of existence. It is not deductive proof, of course, but it creates a reasonable and justified belief in a person, given enough searching (or properties of the object being searched for). Just as a person is reasonable and justified for not believing in Santa, Dragons or Invisible Pink Unicorns one can reasonably be justified in the lack of a belief in God by the fact that there has yet to be any case in which evidence of God has brought to light. Much like not finding the Lochness monster or Bigfoot after years of searching and a plethora of attempts, as well as use of knowledge of the ecosystem to determine required food supply we can reasonably rule out the existence of these creatures, despite not having deductively certain proof. Given that we have completely demolished religious claims for the last two thousand years, pushing the God-of-the-gaps into even smaller holes.
Additionally, the argument from ignorance is used, primarily for asserting positive claims, not negative. It tends to be a "You can't disprove it, so it must be true" not a "There is absolutely no evidence for it, thus it is unreasonable to believe" which, I agree, could be used poorly in most cases. Unfortunately for theists, the lack of evidence for a God, much like the lack of evidence for dragons, is so compelling that a belief in them would render someone utterly irrational.
In fact, most atheists I've met argue less for the non-existence of God, and more for the irrationality of believing such a being(See: How can you believe that shit Vs. There's no way one of those things could exist)
Agnosticism is a fairly laughable position itself, as it's an almost indefensible position. You must argue and find it reasonable to hold the belief that the existence of Thor, or the beliefs of the church of Scientology's are likely enough to hold a state in which you neither prefer or disregard them. Very few individuals hold such a regard for any belief, as there is almost always evidence (or lack of evidence for extraordinary claims, like say, a thousand mile tall pillar coming out of Russia)
Of course, we can point this out absurd argument by merely invoking Russel's teapot. By your argument, it is just as reasonable to belief in a celestial teapot (or Thor, or Allah, or Zeus) than to not believe it, based on your inept argument.
Furthermore, the 'proof' of which you ask is utterly impossible, which makes any belief you have to be as such completely unjustified, as you cannot prove there is not a Cartesian demon manipulating your senses. With the statements you're making, in a poor attempt to defend having 'faith' (With is nothing more than a synonym of willful ignorance)Ironically, your using the exact same fallacy you're attempting to attack atheism with. You're claiming that the inability to utterly disprove a position something makes it reasonable to accept. Textbook case of argument from ignorance.
Furthermore, you don't need to invoke a God to use deductive atheology at all. Merely the ability to argue two properties are logically incompatible and they can not coexist together. An object that exactly four sides cannot also only have exactly fix sides at the same time. Any claim of the truth of that statement would be utterly insane, and can easily be disproven.
And hey, we don't even need to *look* for foursided-Fivesided objects to disprove them! Fancy that.
But that's ok, keep on being agnostic about them, while I have 'faith' they don't exist.
One last thought: Your penny example doesn't imply pennies exist, it implies that it is logically possible for them to exist. I can search my room for a dragon without holding the belief that dragons do actually exist, as long as we have pre-defined what properties a dragon has. So, I guess, your argument boils down to me not being able to say there are no dragons in my bedroom. Curious. - March 14, 2009 at 3:00 AM
But in the case of God(s) there is a lack of countence in God(s)
Could you please define "countence," or give me a synonym? I can't find it in my dictionary, and it seems to be crucial for that sentence. Thank you. - March 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM
re: chris
You're assumption that I took a class is unfounded and borderline ad hominem
Also, you really dont seem to be grasping I said - you cannot use lack of evidence for a proof - that is exactly what is needed to prove a negative. And disproving that pennies are not in the jar is not a case of proving the negative since it relies on proving a positive. Logicians agree on this. Thus is why its a fallacy to prove a negative. - March 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Ye I misspelled it reginald
tr.v. coun·te·nanced, coun·te·nanc·ing, coun·te·nanc·es
To give sanction or support to; tolerate or approve: The college administration will not countenance cheating
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/countenance - March 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM
- M. Tully said...
You learn something new everyday.
Another great post Matt. I think most people, if they actually took the time to think about it, would agree that they take a Bayesian approach to nearly everything in their lives. In everything from which route they take to work in the morning to how they invest their retirement income, they will modify their actions based on new evidence (although frequently ignoring probabilities and giving in to the recency effect).
So, why do believers treat the existence of a deity differently? I can think of at least three reasons and all in no particular order:
The "No Cost Model." I have an irrational belief but it doesn't cause enough harm to force me to confront it. If we look at the "which route to take to work" example there is an implied reward / punishment for choosing incorrectly. If I make the wrong choice, I either must awaken earlier in the morning or risk being late work. But what if an individual is what I call a "casual believer." They profess a belief, they even pray but they don't count on this belief to give them any insight into how the world works nor do they have any expectations of positive miraculous outcomes. If this person is confronted with contrary evidence they can easily dismiss its consequence to their belief system even while they fully accept the validity of that evidence. In effect, they can ignore the implications of counter evidence because it has no negative consequences. As CB points out it is compartmentalization. And because it is a kind of compartmentalization that causes no (or little) harm, I could see it being difficult to penetrate.
The "Love is Blind Model." Here a believer is so emotionally invested in an idea, that not only do they not accept contradictory evidence, they must actively rationalize away its existence. Similar to a person being frequently confronted with evidence of a spouse's infidelity; lipstick becomes grease pencil, an unfamiliar earring becomes a forgotten lost possession, a message on the answering machine was obviously meant for a different Samson Schmucketelly in Monrovia, OH. This is a person that can not only ignore new empirical data, they can radically reinterpret its meaning. And even though it may be having negative consequences for them, they won't allow themselves to even face the evidence rationally. This too is a form of compartmentalization I think (I can't see a way they could consistently apply this form epistemology and survive), but definitely a much tougher person to convince than the NCM.
The "Haven't Given it Much Thought Model." Here the believer has neither ignored nor reinterpreted contrary evidence but rather has never connected that the evidence reveals inconsistencies with their beliefs. For instance take someone who believes that in a series of coin tosses if heads comes up three times in a row then that means that tails is three times more likely to come up on the next toss. She may come across a data sheet of a million consecutive coin tosses; in that data there are numerous instances of heads coming up three times in row and sure enough the probability of heads coming up on the next toss is 50%. She has seen the data but never relates it back to her belief about probabilities so that if ask her, she still holds on to the 3 times as likely model. This isn't compartmentalized thought. I think in this case merely reviewing the data and pointing out its significance may be all it takes to show that the Bayesian model should be accepted in ontology as much as it is everything else she does.
I doubt that the above is comprehensive, but I think it may form a framework for communicating the argument Matt makes in the post to different people. - March 14, 2009 at 5:40 PM
- M. Tully said...
Speaking of learning something new everyday. In Matt's post he references "Quine's famous arguments concerning a priori knowledge."
Now it's been a couple of decades since I studied the Philosophy of Science (for a grade anyway), but I thought I had heard all of the "famous arguments" from Aristotle through Kuhn. Imagine my surprise when I look up this Quine guy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Apparently a hole in my otherwise impeccable Liberal Arts education (ehmm).
Can any of you philosophically inclined types recommend the one book to read get a good understanding of his ideas? - March 14, 2009 at 5:55 PM
- M. Tully said...
Oh, and by the way, I agree with Anonymous (c'mon who would have thought that they would hear that) that proving the negative is a logical fallacy.
As a strict empiricist I hold, "You do not prove the negative, it's the default position!" - March 14, 2009 at 6:02 PM
- Eric Sotnak said...
M. Tully wrote:
"Can any of you philosophically inclined types recommend the one book to read get a good understanding of his ideas?"
Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W. V. Quine - March 15, 2009 at 7:16 AM
- M. Tully said...
Thanks Eric.
- March 15, 2009 at 8:48 AM
But in the case of God(s) there is a lack of countence in God(s)
Thus trying to prove God does not exists truly rest on the ignorence of God(s).
Substituting the word, I do not understand the argument. Are you saying we cannot disprove God because "God" has not been defined? - March 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM
- M. Tully said...
"you cannot use lack of evidence for a proof"
Sleep light Anon, there is an invisible supernatural boogyman living under your bed waiting to eat your heart.
So let's dispense with the, "you can't prove it" thing. Or are you planning to stay up all night looking under your bed with a flashlight (because boogymen are afraid of the light).
Its back to Matt's main point about Bayesian analysis. All the evidence you have seen to date indicates there are no boogymen. No matter what you may have believed in your early youth, today, based on the evidence, you are an aboogymanist.
It works, you're not forced to live with the fears of entities that evidence has not given sufficient reason to believe in.
So why not apply that same method of reasoning to the rest of your beliefs? - March 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Why would I ever have a belief or disbelief in a boogeyman that I cannot account for? Do you really understand what you're saying???
You nor anybody else cannot have a justifiable position on invisible imps nor cloaked boogeyman.
Thus, atheist just like theist, do not have a proof based position on God. ergo atheist are irrational to claim that God does not exist least they invoke the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. - March 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM
"Its back to Matt's main point about Bayesian analysis. All the evidence you have seen to date indicates there are no boogymen. No matter what you may have believed in your early youth, today, based on the evidence, you are an aboogymanist."
What kind of test are there for boogymen? Invisible imps? These entities seem to be beyond testable methods...
If so then what can this Bayesian reasoning be based on in claiming that God cannot exist? The almighty opinion of some professor who collectively used data to fit his worldview? Atheist cannot get out of the "proving the negative" fallacy, which they are guilty of from thinking that dragons don't exists so gods (magical beings) don't exists as well. Somehow, someway, they need to commit an error in reasoning - their data set is going to have to include a case of proving one negative to support another, which is completely fallacious. You cannot have a justifiable belief that magical beings don't exist because there is no way to confirm or deny such. And without some kind of confirmation one cannot have a proof based belief, which seems more problematic for the atheist than the theist.
Matt's argument is essentially that because superstitious and religious claims haven't been proven that they are somehow unbelievable (disproven). Certainly, Matt can claim that superstitious claims aren't a part of the scientific community but this claim does not inherently entail a true vale for whether such things exists but rather they do not play a role. - March 18, 2009 at 11:49 PM
"Substituting the word, I do not understand the argument. Are you saying we cannot disprove God because "God" has not been defined?
Yes, Sort of. Proving or disproving God is on par with invisible imps, stealth aliens etc. Such entities cannot be consdered within the framework of proof or disproof. We may be able to accept a working definition of an invisible imp but stil cannot check for them i.e. they require supernatural testing...
This is a little like D & D role playing - March 19, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I see, so it's a matter of testability.
- March 19, 2009 at 7:08 AM
What kind of test are there for boogymen? Invisible imps? These entities seem to be beyond testable methods...
That depends on the claims made for them. Even most allegedly supernatural entities interact with the natural world, and thus the interactions should be testable.
Consider one alleged supernatural phenomenon which has been tested repeatedly: that intercessory prayer speeds healing or improves medical outcome for hospital patients. Even though the adressee(s) of the prayers are allegedly supernatural, the medical outcomes can, and have been, tested in controlled clinical trials with double-blind evaluation. The results of the larger, better-run studies is negative, except for a couple well-known cases of fraud. Fraud is not supernatural, and its existence is not in any way surprising.
So, the only way to get around testability for your boogeyman, or your god, is to claim that it does not interact in any way with the natural world. I.e. that it is impotent and useless. - March 19, 2009 at 7:31 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
It would be a mistake to ratchet up the standards of proof for anyone who holds a view you disagree with and then claim to have refuted them because they cannot "prove" it. At the outset, I take it that many of us have reasonable, justified beliefs that fairies don't exist, there are no unicorns, and that Santa is not real. If we have reasonable, justified beliefs that those aren't real, then I think that it has probably been proven to your satisfaction that they are not real. Some people will disagree with me on this premise. But try to understand the broader, more ordinary sense of "proof" I am employing here. So if it has been proven to your satisfaction that Santa is not real, then it should be possible to expand the criteria of disproof that apply in those other cases to the God case. That is, we have a lot of good, reasonable grounds for concluding that Santa isn't real. In a broader sense, we have a lot of reasonable grounds for being suspicious about any supernatural claim. Not only has intercessory prayer been thoroughly investigated, but countless attempts to corroborate or find evidence for other paranormal, supernatural, spiritual entities have failed to produce anything compelling. At some point, we are justified in adopting a very strong skepticism about any new such claims that come up. The U.S. and British patent offices adopted a policy of refusing to consider any new patent applications for perpetual motion machines decades ago. I think this is reasonable, even though it remains logically possible that someone could build one. At this point, we have a lot of good evidence to justify adopting the view that religious claims about some invisible super being who lives in another dimension and who reads minds and grants wishes are most likely false. In fact, I think it would be irrational to be agnostic about such claims at this point. You'd be silly to argue for agnosticism about fairies too.
But if the critic still insists on elevating the standard of proof for the atheist to absolute, deductive certainty--"The atheist isn't justified unless he possesses an a priori proof for the logical necessity of God's nonexistence," then I would direct the critic to a large literature in the philosophy journals, including some of my published articles, that allege to do exactly that.
The application of this standard of proof is illegitimate, of course. If we adopt the standard that no belief is reasonable, or proven, or justified until it is supported by a logically necessary proof, then we must reject the vast majority of what we believe as unreasonable. Given that option, I reject the standard of proof as unreasonable. Descartes, famously, crashes and burns here for making the first choice.
The irony is that no reasonable theist today would claim that they possess a proof for God's existence that demonstrates his logical necessity. The very best philosophical theologians in the world acknowledge that this project has failed. So the critic either adopts a standard of proof that cuts equally across all believes, including their own theism, in order to undercut the atheist, or the critic must acknowledge that in a reasonable sense of "proof" the atheist has done his job.
MM - March 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM
- M. Tully said...
To confuse a philosophical argument from a true student of philosophy could be easily understood. To confuse a philosophical argument made by me? Well, that's not going to give you to much credence anywhere.
You wrote, "that God does not exist least they invoke the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium". The argument from ignorance is summed up by, "You can't explain this, therefore my explanation is correct" (i.e. you don't know what came before the big bang, ergo god). My point was simply that I (along with the rest of the rational world) in our day-to-day lives require evidence to believe in the existence of any entity. I didn't say because you can't prove your entity existed, that implies some other entity must exist.
My argument would actually be classified as a Reductio ad absurdum. If you take your reasoning to its logical conclusions, you reach ridiculous results. Which you apparently do because you state, "You nor anybody else cannot have a justifiable position on invisible imps nor cloaked boogeyman."
So your position is that it is quite justified for a person to change their behavior based on the possibility that invisible imps or cloaked boogeyman may exist.
Ad absurdum indeed. I'll let a candid world judge for itself. - March 19, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Yes, unteastable things would appear irrelevant to the scientific realm but I am not sure if thats the same as the natural world. Perhaps. But if there is a supernatural world that is undetectable then isn't that potentially natural if we were to discover it? I think a perosn can believe that what we chose to call supernatural may in fact be actually part of the natural world. Damn the term "natural"... - March 20, 2009 at 2:12 AM
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Your post is convoluted and full of philosophical jargon that I do not think you fully understand. - March 20, 2009 at 2:15 AM
"But try to understand the broader, more ordinary sense of "proof" I am employing here. So if it has been proven to your satisfaction that Santa is not real, then it should be possible to expand the criteria of disproof that apply in those other cases to the God case."
I see where you are going but I always had a hunch that a broad sense of justification truly relies on some kind of appeal to a general consensus, perhaps a case of ad populum? I realize that many if not all people do not believe in a tooth fairy but is this belief really justified or is it taken for granted based on a common belief via societal convention? Shouldn't our belief values be labeled "I"(indeterminate) until there is some evidence to be weighed either way?
Also, expanding a disproof of Santa Claus to God is just not feasible. Those two entities aren't analogous at all. One is supernatural in the utmost sense while the other is quiet natural or shall we say tangible. We have a much clearer description of Santa clause's capacities. I can sit up all night and wait and watch for Santa Claus to fail to bring my presents - a case of observable evidence.
"But if the critic still insists on elevating the standard of proof for the atheist to absolute, deductive certainty--"The atheist isn't justified unless he possesses an a priori proof for the logical necessity of God's nonexistence," then I would direct the critic to a large literature in the philosophy journals, including some of my published articles, that allege to do exactly that."
I am not sure I need to go here to invalidate atheist having justification for God not existing (my agnosticism argument for atheist) .Also, I do not think atheist can show a deductive disproof of God either. Such an attempt hasn't been poplar among philosophers in history. Personally, I don't think Modern philosophers are worth much and seem to be stuck regurgitating what their professors believe. They do seem to make good teachers though.
"The irony is that no reasonable theist today would claim that they possess a proof for God's existence that demonstrates his logical necessity."
Is this really true? Doesn't a theist define God's necessity through their faith in him? There must be some propositions in your belief set that is true by definition? Perhaps that you can have beliefs? Yes, I know this sounds like Descartes but you got to start somewhere and with some proposition that is necessary.
I think this discussion has digressed. To interject another interesting challenge to atheist I'd like to present the problem of negating the existence of entities. Not that any evidence we have against false entities isn't evidence but that it cannot have the correct relation with that which is not....
Consider "Santa Claus dos not exist"
This statement is problematic since it attempts to negate an entity that allegedly does not exist. But to do so requires to define the very entity that is being negated into existent. Thus you cannot negate the existence of an entity. For atheist they must negate God. I believe this dilemma may be tied to the reason why atheist aren't justified in their disbelief of God. - March 20, 2009 at 3:17 AM
This statement is problematic since it attempts to negate an entity that allegedly does not exist. But to do so requires to define the very entity that is being negated into existent. Thus you cannot negate the existence of an entity.
You appear to be confusing the existence of an idea about something with existence of the actual something. - March 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM
"You appear to be confusing the existence of an idea about something with existence of the actual something."
How can this even come into play if we havent first negated the entity? It is only then that we can say it is merely an idea.
Also, I do know the difference between a referent and its object. Do you? - March 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I will try to refrase my challenge to atheist.
How can you folks establish a non-entity when any evidence you use will do the opposite? It will affirm the actual existence... - March 22, 2009 at 8:17 PM
- M. Tully said...
"How can you folks establish a non-entity when any evidence you use will do the opposite? It will affirm the actual existence..."
So let me get this straight, if I state that, "Gravity defying lead bricks do not exist." I am actually making an argument for said bricks existence?
Good luck with that. - March 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM
This may be way over your head. You need to think about what's going on when we assert the existence of non-entities i.e. God does not exist". There is both an affirmation of the subject at qeustion (its meaning) and the alignment of evidence used to relate to it. I didnt just make this up. Its been a philosophical problem in metaphysics as far back as Plato, even with eastern sages. SEE Plato dialouges "SOPHISTS". - March 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM
- M. Tully said...
"I didnt just make this up. Its been a philosophical problem in metaphysics as far back as Plato, even with eastern sages."
So, Plato could justify the gravity defying lead bricks?
No Anon, I think it is you that may be in over your head. You see yours (and Plato's for that matter) line of reasoning is categorized as ethnocentric.
If I apply it universally, I must also accept the existence of Marduk, Ra, Baal, Zeus, Athena, Thor, Vishnu, and the great God of the volcano.
My goodness. With all that worshiping and sacrificing how will I ever earn a living?
Just because you happened to born in a certain geography and during a certain era doesn't give your claims any special position. To assume it does would certainly be a case of time-space bigotry.
There is a reason that you can't find any Platonists or even neo-Platonists around any more. They were believers in hypotheses that were tested against the evidence, and found wanting (how do you like that, a biblical reference).
It's a canard Anon. It looks appealing at first, but when you put to the test of evidence it fails, miserably.
Of course, you could always start to erect temples to the hundreds of gods that people have claimed to have existed over written history. Can you put Athena's close to my house? The Goddess of Wisdom with soft-spot in her heart for men of the sea. Oh yeah, if I must act under Plato's (c. 400 BCE) understanding of the universe, I'm picking Athena. - March 23, 2009 at 9:07 PM
This may be way over your head. You need to think about what's going on when we assert the existence of non-entities...
Play nice, or we'll tell your mommy that you've been using the computer. - March 24, 2009 at 10:54 AM
You're embarrassing yourself here. Its not just Plato who proposed the dilemma of proving the existence of nonentities - its been a philosophical problem for thousands of years. Quine worked extensive on trying to get rid of the problem of meaning talk about such things as "unicorns" etc. Clearly, you have no idea what I am talking about and I hope you are not a Phil student. You continue to reply with a partisan nature that is antithetical of a Phil student.
Also, you don't seem to understand logic that well. if I cannot disprove an entity then how must I believe in it? That is what you are suggesting with your list of Gods. Every heard of many valued logic? Its a type of logic that gives way to agnostic views, which are deemed with an "I' truth value.
Brush up on your critical thinking skills kid and drop the act... - March 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Perhaps you can explain to Mr. tully what I am getting at? He doesnt seem to be considering Plato's beard... - March 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM
- M. Tully said...
Look, when you wrote, "You're embarrassing yourself here. Its not just Plato who proposed the dilemma of proving the existence of nonentities"
Here's the challenge:
I can imagine a gravity defying lead brick.
You demonstrate its existence and I'll take you seriously. Until then, go read "The Secret." Its epistemology is every bit as valid as yours. That is to say, not at all.
Anon, its about possibilities and probabilities. If you accept something simply because its not linguistically impossible, you must accept all things that are not linguistically impossible. Otherwise you are either being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.
Which are you Anon?
Please continue. - March 25, 2009 at 7:33 PM
- M. Tully said...
Anon, you really are a Poe!
"I hope you are not a Phil student. You continue to reply with a partisan nature that is antithetical of a Phil student."
You were the one who stated:
"This may be way over your head"
And "Your post is convoluted and full of philosophical jargon that I do not think you fully understand"
And "Tully, You're embarrassing yourself here"
Hypocrisy much?
Hey, if your goal is to put your reasoning before a rational audience and see what comes of it, please continue. I really do mean please. - March 25, 2009 at 7:47 PM
"I can imagine a gravity defying lead brick.
You demonstrate its existence and I'll take you seriously. Until then, go read "The Secret." Its epistemology is every bit as valid as yours. That is to say, not at all."
This is proof Plato's beard is over your head. All you ahd to do is ask a philosophy professor. When you refer to batman you make an ontolgical commitment to that entity, negating or affirming. "There is no batman" seems to have no subject matter but only a referent if you think he does not exists. But you cannot refer to nothing and still claim to have meaningful conversation...
"Anon, its about possibilities and probabilities. If you accept something simply because its not linguistically impossible, you must accept all things that are not linguistically impossible. Otherwise you are either being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest."
This paragraph really doesnt make sense. but if you're talking about what you have previously argued i.e. that If I cannot negate entities that I must believe in them then you are misinformed. A person can be undecided about an entities existence. Surely, your belief set doesnt have all T's and F's! - March 27, 2009 at 4:52 AM
Tully and Poe,
I am just trying to help you save face. i presume you are a phil student at the school of matt the professor? Your peers may or may not be watching but the things you say are highly pretenious to say the least. If you do not understand something then dont respond. Don't assume I am some ignorant theist. I may or may not have studied philosophy but to assume either is unfounded. - March 27, 2009 at 4:58 AM
- David said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- April 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM
- 逆円助 said...
- July 4, 2009 at 5:38 AM
- 精神年齢 said...
- July 6, 2009 at 6:50 AM
最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ firstname.lastname@example.com 連絡待ってるよ☆
- July 17, 2009 at 8:01 AM
- 家出 said...
- July 19, 2009 at 4:25 AM


text:
- The standard sizes are an approximation and may not account for all the minute details that result in a perfectly fitted outfit. Keeping this in consideration, we offer customized tailoring for all our outfits to make sure each and every outfit fits perfectly and is tailored according to each body type and measurements.
- While placing the order, please select one of the sizes closest to your measurements and we will send a custom measurement form upon receiving your order confirmation. You can enter all the detailed measurements and customizations desired for the outfit in the measurement form.
- We do accept plus size measurements. However, if the bust size is beyond 44 inches (XXL) size, for example, then additional charges might incur depending the way the dress is got ready. The charges will be informed to the customer at the time of processing the order. Special expertise of our team goes in getting these orders ready within the time commitment period.
- We understand the concerns of online shopping especially for ethnic outfits as these are worn for special occasions. To ease the concerns of our new clients, we have improved our quality assurance policies. Once the dress is tailored and is ready to be shipped, we send the images and/or videos of the finished product just before shipping. This way the customer can make sure the product is exactly what they have ordered and stitched as per their given measurements and as seen on our online store.
- The actual images of the finished product will also display the measurements as given by the customers in their submitted measurement stitching forms.
We do not provide Cash On Delivery (COD) at this time to any country.
Payment on our website can be made safely using all major CREDIT & DEBIT cards - MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, Western Union, Bank Deposit..
We also accept PAYPAL for all online purchases as a safe & secure mode of payment.
If you're unable to make a purchase on our website, we accept BANK TRANSFERS or money transfers through WESTERN UNION in our Bank Account. SEND ALL BANK TRANSFERS UNDER THE HEADING OF "FAMILY MAINTAINANCE"
BANK ACCOUNT Details :-
Account Name : PAVNEET SINGH SETHI
Bank Name : IDBI BANK
Savings Account No. : 040104000160582
IFSC Code : IBKL0000040
Address : RAJOURI GAREDEN State : New Delhi Pincode : 110027. Country : INDIA
PAYTM Mobile Wallet Details :-
Payment for the purchased item can be made in our INDIAN BANK ACCOUNT or PAYTM through your Net Banking or Western Union. Western Union now has a new provision for sending money using the BANK ACCOUNT upi or PAYTM Mobile Wallet option.
For sending money thru Western Union, use the link below :-
Your order will be processed once the payment reflects in either our BANK ACCOUNT or PAYTM wallet.
If money transfer option is used, then any charges incurred will be paid by the customer.
We deliver to more than 200 countries worldwide, and offer different shipping options as applicable.
We only use reputed couriers for dispatching our products - such as DHL, FedEx, UPS and India Post Courier services.
We provide tracking information for all orders once dispatched. Once you receive a tracking number for your order, you can use our Track Your Order option on our website to get status updates. Please note that it takes 24-48 hours for tracking information to be updated from the date & time of dispatch.
Order cut-off times are provided as guidelines only, and do not take into account possible delays caused due to delay in payment authorization or holidays.
We aim to dispatch all Ready-to-Ship (or Ready-made) items within 24-48 hours of payment & order confirmation.
All Made-to-Measure (or custom-stitched) items are dispatched within 7 days from the date of confirmation of the Measurements given by the customer.
Estimated delivery times are to be used as a guideline only and commence from the date of dispatch. We are not responsible for any delays caused by customs in your respective country.
We are unable to redirect orders to a different address once items have been dispatched.
All domestic orders within India will take about 3-4 days for delivery from the date of dispatch.
International orders take a standard duration of 10 - 15 days for delivery from the date of dispatch depending on the respective destination.
For express shipping, please send us an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com for information on pricing & delivery times.
We provide Standard Shipping for all orders below $150 USD at a flat rate of $10 USD. Festival & any holiday promotions might affect the shipping rates and cutoff values.
Free Shipping is offered to all domestic orders within India.
Free Shipping is provided on all orders above $150 USD without any ongoing promotion.
Free Shipping on all items may be offered for international orders as part of the promotions/discounts. However, free shipping is applicable on a per item basis depending on the cost of the order as indicated in the promotions.
Saira's Boutique insures each purchase during the time it is in transit until it is delivered to you.
We require a signature for any goods delivered, at which point liability for your purchased goods is transferred to you. If you have specified a recipient who is not you for delivery purposes (for example as a gift) then you accept that evidence of a signature by them (or at that delivery address) is the evidence of delivery and fulfillment by Saira's Boutique and transfer of responsibility in the same way.
Our items are shipped on a DDU (Delivery Duty Unpaid) basis, which means product prices displayed are exclusive of all import duties.
As the recipient, you are liable for all import duties which may be payable, such customs and local sales taxes levied by the country you are in. Payment of these at the time of delivery is necessary to release your order from customs on arrival.
We always send a copy of an under-invoiced invoice with your shipment so that custom duties, if levied, are nominal.
Order Cancellation, Refunds & Processing
If you wish to cancel an order or want a refund, please drop an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com within 24 hours of order confirmation.
Please note a 25% restocking fees will be deducted for all cancellations done after 24 hrs. There is no fees for all cancellations done within 24 hrs of placing the order. In case of a Refund after 24 hrs of placing the order, a "Goodwill Credit Refund" will be issued in which you shall receive a Purchase Coupon for your next purchase from our store of your paid amount price + USD $25 EXTRA, thus enabling you to go in for a purchase for a higher priced item from our online store. The "Goodwill Credit Refund" can be used one time and has lifetime validity !! In case of orders placed online and the payment not made timely, we shall not be liable for the dress not being available, if the payment comes in late. A Goodwill Credit of (The $$ amount +$50) will be given for any order whose payment has been made, of the order being placed outside the Online Store since refunding the amount is not possible as per RBI Guidelines in India.
If you cancel your order before it has been shipped, you will be assessed a 25% cancellation fee before credit is issued. If you cancel your order after it has been shipped, please follow our Return Policies and Procedures. Any cancellations after an order is shipped are treated as a Return with all applicable fees.
At Saira's Boutique, we strive for 100% customer satisfaction and provide the best shopping experience. We give a personalized support to our customers to make sure that the product is processed as per their requirement. However, we understand that sometimes the product you ordered might not appeal to you once you receive it and you would want to return it. Since we want our customers to be fully satisfied with their purchase, we strongly advise you to review the following reasons that DO NOT qualify for a return.
Custom Stitched Outfits
Every outfit is individually created and made to fit perfectly in accordance with the measurements/instructions provided by the customer upon order. Our tailoring department stitches all outfits to perfection according to the given measurements and the end-product is thoroughly inspected to make sure that the outfit has been tailored as per the given measurements. As such, ill-fitting is NOT a reason for return as it is the sole responsibility of the customer to provide accurate measurements. In case of any tailoring issues, we shall NOT be liable to refund or exchange any custom stitched outfit under any circumstances.
Product Care & Manufacturing Defects
In order to keep your product in the best condition after usage, we strongly recommend Dry Cleaning. It's important to note that the garments are completely hand-made using complex procedure of dyeing, surface ornamentation & stitching. Any irregularities within product style may arise which adds to their inherent uniqueness. Therefore, owing to complex procedures of natural over dyeing and surface treatments, some colors might run and some fabric might shrink upon Dry Cleaning.
Ready-made Outfits & Shawls
In case of ready-made outfits like kurtis, tops, Lucknowi Chikankari products and ready-to-wear items like shawls/stoles, we will gladly accept returns only if the item does not have any stains, damages, body odors or perfume scents. If an item is found to be used/worn or altered (by the customer) during our inspection after receiving the return product, then the product will be shipped back to you at your own expense.
Damages during transit
Before the product leaves our warehouse and reaches the shipping facility, it is thoroughly inspected for any defects or errors. The product is packaged in a way that it reaches you in an excellent condition. If at all a damage occurs to the product while in transit because of the shipping/courier agency, then we shall not be responsible for the same as it's completely out of our control to monitor how perfectly the product is delivered to your doorstep. You should get in touch with the Delivery Courier Company in your Country for any issues you might have for damaged/soiled items that you might have received through them.
If any of the above conditions are not the reasons that you would like to return the product, please follow our return policy/procedure as outlined below:
1. Send us an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com within 24 hours of receiving the item in question with your Order number and describing the reason for return along with digital images for verification purposes.
2. Please DO NOT send back any item without consulting us. It's very important that you DO NOT send the item back to us until it's verified - no credit or replacement shall be given on such items that are sent without our consent.
4. Please return within 7 working days of confirmation from our end. Make sure to include a copy of the invoice (if any) you received with your order.
5. All merchandise must have original tags attached to it with original packing & in original condition (worn, washed, used, or altered items will not be accepted for returns).
6. Return your items using registered airmail / courier as advised in our return authorization mail. Once you have shipped the item, please forward the details to us & keep the airway bill or postal receipt until the shipment gets delivered to us.
7. As safe delivery to you is our responsibility, in the same way, sending back safely to us is your responsibility. If something happens in transit and the package doesn't get delivered to us, we won't be able to help you. Once you ship the order, please forward the details to firstname.lastname@example.com within 24 hours and keep the airway bill or postal receipt till it gets delivered to us.
1. All custom stitched products cannot be returned/refunded.
2. For Fabric Only orders, unstitched outfits, and ready-to-wear products, we do accept returns as outlined below:
In the event of returning the outfit once you receive your order, if a return request is accepted by us for an unstitched dress, then it's the customer's responsibility to pay the incurred shipping & custom/duty charges. Pictures of the item to be returned would have to be sent to us for preapproval before starting a return.
If your original purchase included shipping charges, then these charges are non-refundable. The shipping charges will be deducted from the total price of the initial purchase.
In the event of a "Free Shipping" promotion, the shipping charges will be deducted from the original price. The customer will still have to pay the shipping & custom charges for returning the product to us.
After careful inspection of the returned unstitched item, a refund will be issued in 3-5 business days. Please allow additional 7-10 business days for the processing of the refund to be completed depending on your bank or your chosen payment method.
"We value our customers and make constant efforts to provide an excellent shopping experience. Since returning an item is a time-consuming and a complicated process, we advise all our customers to make up their minds thoroughly before placing an order. If you have any questions regarding any item before placing an order, please feel free to get in touch with us to avoid any hassles in the future. We really appreciate all our customers giving us the opportunity to serve them; we value your time & money and our team at Saira's Boutique is always working hard to make the shopping experience as pleasant as possible."
- The Saira's Boutique Team
ADDITIONAL INFO : The outfit comes with complimentary santoon pants besides the lehenga
STITCHING : Available as semi-stitched fabric, can be stitched using standard size option (+$30).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Open Data Commons Attribution License is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Data(base) subject only to the attribution requirements set out in section 4.
Databases can contain a wide variety of types of content (images, audiovisual material, and sounds all in the same database, for example), and so this license only governs the rights over the Database, and not the contents of the Database individually. Licensors should use this license together with another license for the contents, if the contents have a single set of rights that uniformly covers all of the contents. If the contents have multiple sets of different rights, Licensors should describe what rights govern what contents together in the individual record or in some other way that clarifies what rights apply.
Sometimes the contents of a database, or the database itself, can be covered by other rights not addressed here (such as private contracts, trade mark over the name, or privacy rights / data protection rights over information in the contents), and so you are advised that you may have to consult other documents or clear other rights before doing activities not covered by this License.
The Licensor (as defined below)
You (as defined below)
agree as follows:
"Collective Database" – Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Database will not be considered a Derivative Database.
"Convey" – As a verb, means Using the Database, a Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database in any way that enables a Person to make or receive copies of the Database or a Derivative Database. Conveying does not include interaction with a user through a computer network, or creating and Using a Produced Work, where no transfer of a copy of the Database or a Derivative Database occurs.
"Contents" – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as images, audiovisual material, text, or sounds.
"Database" – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License.
"Database Directive" – Means Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended or succeeded.
"Database Right" – Means rights resulting from the Chapter III ("sui generis") rights in the Database Directive (as amended and as transposed by member states), which includes the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents, as well as any similar rights available in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4.
"Derivative Database" – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database.
"Extraction" – Means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a Substantial part of the Contents to another medium by any means or in any form.
"License" – Means this license agreement and is both a license of rights such as copyright and Database Rights and an agreement in contract.
"Licensor" – Means the Person that offers the Database under the terms of this License.
"Person" – Means a natural or legal person or a body of persons corporate or incorporate.
"Produced Work" – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.
"Publicly" – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant).
"Re-utilisation" – means any form of making available to the public all or a Substantial part of the Contents by the distribution of copies, by renting, by online or other forms of transmission.
"Substantial" – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents.
"Use" – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by copyright or Database Rights whether in the original medium or any other; and includes without limitation distributing, copying, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and preparing derivative works of the Database, as well as modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format.
"You" – Means a Person exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Database, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.
Words in the singular include the plural and vice versa.
2.1. Legal effect of this document. This License is:
a. A license of applicable copyright and neighbouring rights;
b. A license of the Database Right; and
c. An agreement in contract between You and the Licensor.
2.2 Legal rights covered. This License covers the legal rights in the Database, including:
a. Copyright. Any copyright or neighbouring rights in the Database. The copyright licensed includes any individual elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Contents independent of this Database. See Section 2.4 for details. Copyright law varies between jurisdictions, but is likely to cover: the Database model or schema, which is the structure, arrangement, and organisation of the Database, and can also include the Database tables and table indexes; the data entry and output sheets; and the Field names of Contents stored in the Database;
b. Database Rights. Database Rights only extend to the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents. Database Rights can apply even when there is no copyright over the Database. Database Rights can also apply when the Contents are removed from the Database and are selected and arranged in a way that would not infringe any applicable copyright; and
c. Contract. This is an agreement between You and the Licensor for access to the Database. In return you agree to certain conditions of use on this access as outlined in this License.
2.3 Rights not covered.
a. This License does not apply to computer programs used in the making or operation of the Database;
b. This License does not cover any patents over the Contents or the Database; and
c. This License does not cover any trademarks associated with the Database.
2.4 Relationship to Contents in the Database. The individual items of the Contents contained in this Database may be covered by other rights, including copyright, patent, data protection, privacy, or personality rights, and this License does not cover any rights (other than Database Rights or in contract) in individual Contents contained in the Database. For example, if used on a Database of images (the Contents), this License would not apply to copyright over individual images, which could have their own separate licenses, or one single license covering all of the rights over the images.
3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the future.
The rights granted cover, for example:
a. Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents;
b. Creation of Derivative Databases;
c. Creation of Collective Databases;
d. Creation of temporary or permanent reproductions by any means and in any form, in whole or in part, including of any Derivative Databases or as a part of Collective Databases; and
e. Distribution, communication, display, lending, making available, or performance to the public by any means and in any form, in whole or in part, including of any Derivative Database or as a part of Collective Databases.
3.2 Compulsory license schemes. For the avoidance of doubt:
a. Non-waivable compulsory license schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License;
b. Waivable compulsory license schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and,
c. Voluntary license schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License.
3.3 The right to release the Database under different terms, or to stop distributing or making available the Database, is reserved. Note that this Database may be multiple-licensed, and so You may have the choice of using alternative licenses for this Database. Subject to Section 10.4, all other rights not expressly granted by Licensor are reserved.
4.1 The rights granted in Section 3 above are expressly made subject to Your complying with the following conditions of use. These are important conditions of this License, and if You fail to follow them, You will be in material breach of its terms.
4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
a. Include a copy of this License or its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) with the Database or Derivative Database, including both in the Database or Derivative Database and in any relevant documentation; and
b. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this License.
c. If it is not possible to put the required notices in a particular file due to its structure, then You must include the notices in a location (such as a relevant directory) where users would be likely to look for it.
4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.
a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3:
Contains information from DATABASE NAME which is made available
under the ODC Attribution License.
DATABASE NAME should be replaced with the name of the Database and a hyperlink to the location of the Database. "ODC Attribution License" should contain a hyperlink to the URI of the text of this License. If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI's with the above notice.
5.1 Moral rights. This section covers moral rights, including any rights to be identified as the author of the Database or to object to treatment that would otherwise prejudice the author's honour and reputation, or any other derogatory treatment:
a. For jurisdictions allowing waiver of moral rights, Licensor waives all moral rights that Licensor may have in the Database to the fullest extent possible by the law of the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4;
b. If waiver of moral rights under Section 5.1 a in the relevant jurisdiction is not possible, Licensor agrees not to assert any moral rights over the Database and waives all claims in moral rights to the fullest extent possible by the law of the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4; and
c. For jurisdictions not allowing waiver or an agreement not to assert moral rights under Section 5.1 a and b, the author may retain their moral rights over certain aspects of the Database.
Please note that some jurisdictions do not allow for the waiver of moral rights, and so moral rights may still subsist over the Database in some jurisdictions.
6.1 This License does not affect any rights that You or anyone else may independently have under any applicable law to make any use of this Database, including without limitation:
a. Exceptions to the Database Right including: Extraction of Contents from non-electronic Databases for private purposes, Extraction for purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, and Extraction or Re-utilisation for public security or an administrative or judicial procedure.
b. Fair dealing, fair use, or any other legally recognised limitation or exception to infringement of copyright or other applicable laws.
6.2 This License does not affect any rights of lawful users to Extract and Re-utilise insubstantial parts of the Contents, evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively, for any purposes whatsoever, including creating a Derivative Database (subject to other rights over the Contents, see Section 2.4). The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may however amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents.
7.1 The Database is licensed by the Licensor "as is" and without any warranty of any kind, either express, implied, or arising by statute, custom, course of dealing, or trade usage. Licensor specifically disclaims any and all implied warranties or conditions of title, non-infringement, accuracy or completeness, the presence or absence of errors, fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability, or otherwise. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so this exclusion may not apply to You.
8.1 Subject to any liability that may not be excluded or limited by law, the Licensor is not liable for, and expressly excludes, all liability for loss or damage however and whenever caused to anyone by any use under this License, whether by You or by anyone else, and whether caused by any fault on the part of the Licensor or not. This exclusion of liability includes, but is not limited to, any special, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages such as loss of revenue, data, anticipated profits, and lost business. This exclusion applies even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
8.2 If liability may not be excluded by law, it is limited to actual and direct financial loss to the extent it is caused by proved negligence on the part of the Licensor.
9.1 Any breach by You of the terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this License with immediate effect and without notice to You. For the avoidance of doubt, Persons who have received the Database, the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents, Derivative Databases, or the Database as part of a Collective Database from You under this License will not have their licenses terminated provided their use is in full compliance with this License or a license granted under Section 4.8 of this License. Sections 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 will survive any termination of this License.
9.2 If You are not in breach of the terms of this License, the Licensor will not terminate Your rights under it.
9.3 Unless terminated under Section 9.1, this License is granted to You for the duration of applicable rights in the Database.
9.4 Reinstatement of rights. If you cease any breach of the terms and conditions of this License, then your full rights under this License will be reinstated:
a. Provisionally and subject to permanent termination until the 60th day after cessation of breach;
b. Permanently on the 60th day after cessation of breach unless otherwise reasonably notified by the Licensor; or
c. Permanently if reasonably notified by the Licensor of the violation, this is the first time You have received notice of violation of this License from the Licensor, and You cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
9.5 Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Database under different license terms or to stop distributing or making available the Database. Releasing the Database under different license terms or stopping the distribution of the Database will not withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
10.1 If any provision of this License is held to be invalid or unenforceable, that must not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms and conditions of this License and each remaining provision of this License shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
10.2 This License is the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the rights granted here over the Database. It replaces any earlier understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Database.
10.3 If You are in breach of the terms of this License, You will not be entitled to rely on the terms of this License or to complain of any breach by the Licensor.
10.4 Choice of law. This License takes effect in and will be governed by the laws of the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law and Database Rights in the relevant jurisdiction includes additional rights not granted under this License, these additional rights are granted in this License in order to meet the terms of this License.


text:
Need help?
Follow Us
Quick Links
Enter your e-mail and password:
New customer? Create your account
Lost password? Recover password
Enter your email:
Remembered your password? Back to login
Please fill in the information below:
Already have an account? Login here
Spend R 2,900 more and get free shipping!
Your cart is empty
12V / 220V – 240V / 50W Tilt Cut Out: 70mm Diameter: 83mm
Electric Wholesalers offers nationwide delivery throughout South Africa subject to the following conditions.Refunds will only be allowed by pre-authorisation and at our sole discretion. We reserve the right to refuse refunds and/or charge a handling charge up to 25%. Courier charges will not be refunded. If a refund is approved, then the cost to return goods to us will be for the account of the customer.
The following Delivery Policy is only valid for merchandise purchased via thee www.electricwholesalers.co.za website ("the Webstore"). This policy has been developed to ensure the accurate and secure delivery of all purchases according to your delivery needs. Should you have any questions with regards to deliveries, please contact us accordingly prior to purchase.
Free Delivery
On orders over R2900
Secure Shopping
100% Secure Shopping
Customer Support Available
Secure Payments
100% Secure Payments


text:
This privacy policy governs your use of the software application Plant Tissue Plus for mobile devices that was created by Rock River Laboratory, Inc. The Application allows users to submit plant tissue samples and information about the samples for a variety of tests offered by Rock River Laboratory, Inc.
User-Provided Information
The Application obtains the information you provide when you download and register the Application, including your user credentials and user information tied to your account.
When you register for an account with us and use the Application, you generally provide (a) contact information such as your email address (b) identifying information such as your company's name; and (c) information about and photos of your plant tissue sample.
We may also use the information you provide us to contact you from time to time to provide you with important information, required notices, and marketing promotions.
No mobile information will be shared with third parties/affiliates for marketing/promotional purposes.
Automatically Collected Information
In addition, the Application may collect certain information automatically, including, but not limited to, the type of mobile device you use, your mobile operating system, and information about the way you use the Application.
The Application does not collect precise information about the location of your mobile device.
Access to information obtained by the Application
Only aggregated, anonymized data is periodically transmitted to external services to help us improve the Application and our service. We will share your information with third parties only in the ways that are described in this privacy statement.
We may disclose User Provided and Automatically Collected Information:
- as required by law, such as to comply with a subpoena, or similar legal process;
- when we believe in good faith that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, protect your safety or the safety of others, investigate fraud, or respond to a government request;
- with our trusted services providers who work on our behalf, who do not have an independent use of the information we disclose to them, and have agreed to adhere to the rules set forth in this privacy statement.
If Rock River Laboratory, Inc. is involved in a merger, acquisition, or sale of all or a portion of its assets, you will be notified via email and/or a prominent notice on our Web site of any change in ownership or uses of this information, as well as any choices you may have regarding this information.
Your opt-out rights
You can stop all collection of information by the Application easily by uninstalling the Application. You may use the standard uninstall processes as may be available as part of your mobile device or via the mobile application marketplace or network. You can also request to opt-out via email to email@example.com.
Data Retention Policy, Managing Your Information
We will retain User Provided data for as long as you use the Application and for a reasonable time thereafter. We will retain Automatically Collected information for up to two years and thereafter may store it in aggregate. If you'd like us to delete User Provided Data that you have provided via the Application, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com and we will respond within a reasonable period of time. Please note that some or all of the User Provided Data may be required in order for the Application to function properly.
We do not use the Application to knowingly solicit data from or market to children under the age of 13. If a parent or guardian becomes aware that his or her child has provided us with information without their consent, he or she should contact us at email@example.com. We will delete such information from our files within a reasonable period of time.
We are concerned about safeguarding the confidentiality of your information. We provide physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect information we process and maintain. For example, we limit access to this information to authorized employees and contractors who need to know that information in order to operate, develop or improve our Application. Please be aware that, although we endeavor to provide reasonable security for information we process and maintain, no security system can prevent all potential security breaches.
This Privacy Policy may be updated from time to time for any reason. You are advised to consult this Privacy Policy regularly for any changes, as continued use is deemed approval of all changes.
Your Consent
By using the Application, you are consenting to our processing of your information as set forth in this Privacy Policy now and as amended by us. "Processing" means using cookies on a computer/hand held device or using or touching information in any way, including, but not limited to, collecting, storing, deleting, using, combining and disclosing information, all of which activities will take place in the state of Wisconsin. If you reside outside the state of Wisconsin, your information will be transferred, processed and stored there under Wisconsin privacy standards.
Contact us
If you have any questions regarding privacy while using the Application, or have questions about our practices, please contact us via email at email@example.com


text:
Our hospital offers a wide range of specialized programs. Therapy at a rehabilitation hospital like ours is significantly more intensive than the average therapy program offered by "rehabilitation centers," in that patients at our hospital receive therapy a minimum of three hours a day, five days a week.
Our hospital takes a unique approach to rehabilitation:
Join us for a virtual tour of our hospital where you will see our patient rooms, exercise facilities, and more. You can also set up a personal tour by calling our hospital.
Learn more »
Contact us to learn more about our rehabilitation programs or to set up a tour at our hospital.


text:
Chocolate Sponge Cake (Donna Hay)
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The library is a perfect place for the a one-night stand.
Well, perhaps a three week stand. And you can enjoy it even more with a renewal.
Borrowing cookbooks from the library is a great way to give a new book a spin around the kitchen before any commitment.
This happened with Donna Hay's Simple Essentials: Chocolate book.
I got it at the library, fell in love with it, and after a few clicks on Amazon, it arrived at my door.
Donna Hay suggests a layer of jam, cream, and/or berries in the center of two 9" sponge cakes. And that sounds real nice.
But what do you do when you just bought a new jar of Nutella? You go with Nutella. No questions asked.
I sliced some California strawberries. Yum.
The only thing missing is a nice layer of whipped cream. I tried! I put the bowl and whisk in the freezer and was all ready. Reached into the fridge. And pulled out an expired carton of whipped cream.
So, when you make this...include the layer of Nutella and add a layer of sweetened whipped cream.
That would be dreamy.
Donna Hay's Chocolate book, page 58
42 comments:
- Unknown said... [Reply to comment]
That looks so good to me right now! I totally agree with you on adding a layer of whipped cream in the middle as well. I need to see if my library has that book immediately :)
- July 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM
- Steph said... [Reply to comment]
I was thinking of making a chocolate sponge for a lighter chocoalte dessert. Your cake looks so good!
- July 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
- Audrie said... [Reply to comment]
Looks so gorgeous and yum! Those are some of my favourite things in the world -- Nutella / chocolate, strawberries and Donna Hay! When I was living in Australia, I had one of her cookbooks and it saved me a lot of headaches with daily meals and such.
- July 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
- Bethie said... [Reply to comment]
Oh gawd, you're killing me here. I would be in heaven.
You mentioned one night stand and all I thought of was CAKE stand when I saw your pic. LOVELY!! - July 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM
- Susan from Food Blogga said... [Reply to comment]
Chocolate, Nutella, and strawberries? I'm in love.
- July 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM
- Mary Jo said... [Reply to comment]
the exact same thing happened to me on father's day, i knew i had heavy cream but it just went and expired on me :( i have two cook books i've borrowed from the library right now, trying to decide if they are worth the purchase :) cake looks great!
- July 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM
- Parita said... [Reply to comment]
The sponge looks awesome, perfect, i got to get my hands on this book!
- July 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
- Lisa said... [Reply to comment]
I've never met a Donna Hay I didn't love. And you're right: I've been checking out cookbooks left and right and my Amazon wish list is much better for it. :)
- July 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM
- Cori said... [Reply to comment]
Such pretty pictures! That would so hit the sport right about now.
- July 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM
- Kerstin said... [Reply to comment]
What a beautiful cake! I love strawberries and Nutella together - yum!
- July 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM
- Eileen said... [Reply to comment]
That cake looks absolutely divine. :)
- July 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM
- 2.46% said... [Reply to comment]
I totally agree about borrowing cookbooks from the library. It's the best! If I make at least half a dozen recipes and it turns out well, I buy the book. In Lexington, we can check out a book for a month and renew it twice so I've been guilty of keeping cookbooks for 3 months!
The cake looks delicious. Have a great holiday weekend! - July 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM
- Nutmeg Nanny said... [Reply to comment]
Super delicious!!! I love the added Nutella.
- July 2, 2009 at 4:19 PM
- Mary Bergfeld said... [Reply to comment]
This does look lovely. It's hard not to fall in love the ingredients you've used. You have a lovely blog. I'll be back often.
- July 2, 2009 at 6:19 PM
- Pamela said... [Reply to comment]
Whipped cream would've been wonderful, but this cake looks pretty darned stellar on it's own. Yum!
- July 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM
- Monica H said... [Reply to comment]
This is dreamy already- no whipped cream necessary.
- July 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM
- Liz said... [Reply to comment]
Chocolate, strawberries, and Nutella? You had me at hello!
- July 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM
- betty geek said... [Reply to comment]
WOW . . I want to dive right into that.
- July 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM
- Carrie said... [Reply to comment]
Hello, my name is Carrie and I am addicted to Nutella! This would make a perfect 4th of July dessert! It, looks awesome!
- July 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM
- Mary Ann said... [Reply to comment]
This looks so good! Nutella in the middle? heavenly! I agree about borrowing cookbooks from the library. Great way to find out about new things.
- July 3, 2009 at 4:36 AM
- Patricia Scarpin said... [Reply to comment]
I love Donna Hay recipes - this is a luscious cake! What a wonderful idea to use Nutella. :D
- July 3, 2009 at 7:34 AM
- Creative Classroom Core said... [Reply to comment]
This turned out so beautifully! Love it!
- July 3, 2009 at 8:05 AM
You had me at Nutella.
Racheal - July 3, 2009 at 8:06 AM
- Esi said... [Reply to comment]
Chocolate + Strawberries = BLISS
- July 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM
- Madam Chow said... [Reply to comment]
Oh, I know what you mean! I made a pie (for guess what blogging event?), the whipped cream was no good, so I had to use the canned stuff. My guests didn't mind. Boy, this cake looks so good.
- July 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM
beautiful and so so simple! Thanks for sharing.
- July 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM
- Snooky doodle said... [Reply to comment]
oh this looks divine! I love chocolate especially with nutella :)
- July 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM
- Audrey said... [Reply to comment]
I have strawberries, and Nutella, and chocolate, and my library network does not own this book. I checked about 30 seconds after I read your post.
I am a very responsible patron. Can you please arrange an interlibrary loan? :) - July 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM
- maris said... [Reply to comment]
Hehe. I think this CAKE is great for a one-night stand because it wouldn't last more than that in my house :)
- July 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM
- Mary said... [Reply to comment]
Nutella...yum...that sounds great. I have seen Donna Hay on TV last time I was in Korea and she is fabulous. I think she has a magazine too..they always have it in cool airport magazine stands...hmm...must borrow soon...
- July 3, 2009 at 4:21 PM
- eatme_delicious said... [Reply to comment]
Mmm this sounds like a delicious dessert. I agree that taking books out of the library is a great way to see if you'll like the cookbook or not. Unfortunately I've purchased some cookbooks from Amazon, having never seen them before, and I've barely (or not even) cooked/baked from them.
- July 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM
- Deeba PAB said... [Reply to comment]
Just gorgeous...nutella takes it to another level.Too bad about the expired cream.I'm thinking mango wih chocolate as strawberries are out of season now!!
- July 4, 2009 at 8:40 AM
- Ingrid_3Bs said... [Reply to comment]
Looks good..makes me wish I liked chocolate!
Hapy 4th!
~ingrid - July 4, 2009 at 11:50 AM
- Marta said... [Reply to comment]
No questions asked indeed: Nutella was clearly the way to go! Plus, Nutella and strawberries are heavenly! Great cake!
- July 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
- Tasty Health Food said... [Reply to comment]
I've got to make this for my family! I'm not a cake fan, but they can't seem to get enough. :P
- July 5, 2009 at 2:11 AM
- Katrina said... [Reply to comment]
Yum--especially with the Nutella!
- July 5, 2009 at 8:24 PM
- vibi said... [Reply to comment]
Mary, you are the master of perfect dessert... as well a a pro of amazing photography!
All is always soooooo neat! - July 5, 2009 at 9:55 PM
- April said... [Reply to comment]
Oh gosh I might want to have a long-term commitment with that cake. You had me at the picture of Nutella...
- July 6, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Tiny tip! Most dairy products with a higher fat content are good to use a few days after the expiry date. Of course give it a sniff and small taste test, but in my experiences I've gotten away with 3 days past due.
- March 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Could anyone post the recipe for this cake? I love how it looks, but I live somewhere where I cannot get/buy the book. - June 4, 2012 at 3:21 AM
- The Food Librarian said... [Reply to comment]
@Megan Megan, email me. - mary ::: thefoodlibrarian (at) gmail
- June 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM
- Rose THERESA said... [Reply to comment]
Nutella and cherry preserves (or brandied cherries) instead of the fresh berries...
- July 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM


text:
Golden Nugget
View Joel Haber, PhD's video on Golden Nugget...
Related Videos
Expert Bio
More from Expert
Joel Haber, PhDPsychologist, Bullying & Parenting Expert, Author
Dr. Joel Haber is a Clinical Psychologist and internationally recognized bully prevention and parenting expert. He was selected as a webinar leader and a speaker for the Obama Administration Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention initiative. He was also an invited participant to the Second Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit in 2011. His recent book, Bullyproof Your Child for Life: Protect Your Child from Teasing, Taunting and Bullying for Good set the bullying standard for schools, camps, sports, organizations and families dealing with bully prevention and intervention. He recently published The Resilience Formula: A Guide to Proactive, Not Reactive Parenting. He is a consultant and expert to the American Camp Association, and to LG Electronics as a member of (LGTextEd.com), providing cyberbullying and mobile harassment expertise to parents and families. He is an advisor to Cartoon Network's anti-bully campaign: Stop Bullying: Speak Up. He is an expert for No Snap Judgments: The Addams Family Broadway Show- National Campaign to promote acceptance and tolerance amongst our youth. He is also co-founder of Tool Kits for Kids (toolkitsforkids.com), recipient of five national parenting awards for helping parents and kids develop the tools and emotional life skills to overcome worry, build confidence and develop resilience. He has written and published extensively, speaking each year to thousands of parents and educators to help make children's lives, safer and better.


text: Sarajevo wall map. Largest laminated map. Our wall map is part of our posters – 92 cm short size – of quality laminated maps available to purchase online here in our laminated map shop. The range includes our famous laminated maps of the world, laminated European and continent maps, laminated country, regions and city maps series plus much more!. Buy your wall map now!. Free transport worldwide via UPS – Fedex