text:
I have added another interview to KDE::Enterprise, this time with Adam Wiggins from TrustCommerce. Adam recently wrote a report on their use of Open Source and KDE, and this interview was a chance to further explore the issue. "It's simple: KDE makes the UNIX desktop usable for non-IT workers. If it wasn't for KDE, we'd have to pay a lot of money for proprietary hardware (Apple) or software (Microsoft). More importantly, the machines are more stable and easier for our sysadmin to maintain. [...] I'd like to see a distribution that is entirely based around KDE. All configuration is done through the KDE control panel, and the system is designed from the ground up to never, ever need to access it at the shell level."
This is a very nice and balanced interview. The guy rightfully loves KDE but also made some good points about some GNOME apps pushing the envelope where KDE apps weren't. The guy also says he was a former GNOME fan, to his credit.
I hope this inspires our wonderful KDE developers to even outdo themselves. Of course, we don't have the money and development muscle of companies to profit on for our apps (like Ximian or Netscape or Sun without which the difficulty of GTK/bonobo development would have already slowed down progress -- this is not a flame, even Miguel has admitted this with Mono) but everything is going in the right direction to make this change.
KDE/Qt development is so easy now with KDevelop and even without that plain Open Source KDE apps with almost purely volunteer backing are doing very well.
Hi, I've also thought about the possibility of having a Klinux or K*BSD or whatever in the same way as in the article is explained: Only KDE.
KDE should only need to target their development to this Klinux and ,after, major distributions would have to "port" KDE to their own Linux version.
This would also help KDE people to create a nice KHardwareConfigurator because they wouldn´t need to think in the different ways distributions do the configuration.
I don´t know what KDE developers think about that. I also don´t know if this would require a lot of work for them or if this would simplify their work. Maybe I'll take look and help on that one ;-)
Wy not make a website www.klinux.org and promote the opereting system maby we cane base it one Debian
Indeed, Debian would be a nice choice for this :) I'm using testing right now
and it rocks. I think the best thing to do is basing it on Potato
(stable) and then upgrading all needed components from the ground up.
The installer could be graphical and could set up XFree and the kernel with
hardware autodetection (like kudzu). Actually, I don't think we need
a new debian for this, debian can easly be extended and everybody is
free to do it. The only think you should try is getting it into the
next stable :)
on the other hand "Klinux" could be a new distro based on the LSB, now that would be a nice turn of events, a totally KDE centric Linux that is LSB standard, easy to install (ah la mandrake)and windows easy to install programs.
Why not Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) :)?
Another useless discussion: It will not be done except *you* do it.
As KDE doesn't target to Linux, so will it not to "Klinux".
I have recently been toying around with this concept - I am thinking of creating my own linux distribution (just for fun), based on mandrake linux, and based on a KDE desktop.
I think the goal should be to create something EASIER to use than windows or a mac (most desktop distributions seem to try to reimplement the windows UI - that is certainly true of Xandros, Desktop/LX & Elx - and lets not forget "Lindows"). KDE in my opinion has already far surpassed windows in potential ease of use - the desktop can be customized down to something so simple a chimp could use it, or turned into your own super-personalised mega-desktop.
As far as actually doing this, I have done some of it. I have a kcontrol module that can embed an arbitrary X app in the control center - this lets me embed Mandrake's drakconf tools into kcontrol - they are still GTK apps, so it looks funny, but otherwise it works well. I have also tryed to create a set of config files that setup the desktop with a "best of all worlds" (in my opinion) UI - with mac features: Menu's at the top of the screen, icons appear on the desktop when removable media are inserted, windows features (the k-menu, a taskbar) and of course UNIX (network transparency, remote administration, scriptablity & an (optional) terminal icon.
Which brings me to my question. If you were setting up a linux/KDE computer for your grandma (if your grandma's a tech-head, insert suitable non-computer literate relative here) to use (and self-administrate) how would you do it?
Is someone from Mandrake reading this? *PLEASE* adopt this module for embedding your config apps in KControl. This should be the default when the user chooses the K Desktop Environment. The Mandrake Settings are nothing but a mess otherwise.
I have noticed that integration of drakconf (& other x-admin tools ) into kcontrol is a fairly popular feature. When I get the time I will pretty it up a little and try posting it to mandrake contrib.
The only major problem with it is with keyboard focus - when you run it as an ordinary user, kcontrol steals the keyboard focus after you enter the root password - and ordinary "click to focus" doesnt work, so you have to press tab before typing anything into the embedded config tool.
The way I get around this is through a hack - when you move the mouse over the embedded app, it grabs the keyboard focus, when you move it off, it releases it again. While mostly this works well (ie you dont notice) sometimes you might be surprised where your key presses go.
woops. Making the title my name is a little pretentious - must have typed in the wrong box
Well, seeing that Tichard Dale seems to be working on making Kalyptus generate Perl bindings,
perhaps even a Qt port of interactive.pm would be possible, sometime in future,
making the drak* tools use Qt+KDE?
Well, seeing that Richard Dale seems to be working on making Kalyptus generate Perl bindings,
perhaps even a Qt port of interactive.pm would be possible, sometime in future,
making the drak* tools use Qt+KDE?
(For those that don't know:
Many of Mandrake tools don't use Gtk directly, bur rather an abstraction
library that lets them run transparently as text apps, Gtk ones,
and even thorugh https.
Perhaps this would be a good reason for me to learn some Perl)
Yes I looked at that myself. Unfortunatelly I really can't reconcile myself with perl - I know that some people like perl, but I only understand that in the same sense that I understand sado-masochism: I dont really care, so long as you leave me out of it.
Really the user doesnt care what toolkit an application is written in, so long as there is a consistent (and pleasent) look and feel - something that could be achieved with a kde-default style widget theme for gtk, and judicious use of krdb. Unfortunately noone seems to have written this widget theme, and krdb seems to reduce the interface of some applications (netscape) to giberish if you use the "wrong" font. Perhaps I am missing an option that would allow me to enable it only for GTK apps?
Forget Mandrake if they cared about KDE they wouldn't be using GTK and there CEO wouldn't be making false claims about Gnome and KDE usage. Why go through all the trouble to correct there big mistake by going with GTK? Take a serious look at Desktop/LX and you'll see a great beautiful KDE only distro. Here's an interview i did with there CTO and some screenshots.
My understanding is that Desktop/LX does not release all their software under a GPL, or other free licence (correct me if Im wrong). In this they are like many linux distributions (Suse, Caldera .....), but unlike others: Debian & Mandrake & no doubt a many more Ive never tried. So I think a GPLed distribution that pays people to work on KDE is what I would call KDE friendly, even if they didn't even include kde in their distribution.
Personally, I dont use linux just so I can run a KDE desktop
OK your wrong:) Consider yourself corrected.
OK Im partially wrong (as usual). A quick google search brought me this:
, where Joseph Cheek mentions that the icons & sounds & wallpapers are not freely redistributable. I also know they include various non-free software - eg realplayer, adobe acrobat reader. That is probably what gave me the non-free software impressions I had (I guess icons and sounds arent software?).
However if their software is free I should probably have a look at it. I haven't seen any of the many reviews of desktop/LX, or even the screenshots on their site, actually mention their administration software - if you have tried it perhaps you could point out its cool features, so I can swipe them for myself.
I was wondering how you go about having freshly inserted media be auto mounted and show up on the desktop. I know there's any number of automounting utilities out there but the ones I've tried seem to take the approach of calling system mount(...) functions continuously -- which is a less than optimal approach -- especially on my laptop, wherein my floppy and ultrabay zip drive continously grind and chunder as they perpetually attempt to mount uninserted media. It's noisy, and I imagine a drain on battery. It's also sufficiently crude that, while it does work, it's clearly a kludge and offends the part of me that likes elegant solutions vs. hacks.
Attempting to solve the problem myself, I poked about for a while to see if there were ioctls which could tell you if media was inserted but frankly, I'm new to linux (programmer coming from BeOS) and don't really even know where to start.
I'd love to work on this with you because I think, for one, that even with all the wonderful usability of KDE on top of whatever *nix you're using, you can *never* expect grandma to open a terminal and type "mount /mnt/zip" after inserting a zip disk. Or as is often the case for me, I get zip disks with unpredictable partitionaing/filesystems (don't ask why) and I have to su to root and type "mount -t whatever /dev/hdc /mnt/zip" over and over with different permutations until it works. And then, of course, if it's a FAT filesystem only root gets to modify the files on the mounted disk, since root mounted it. What a pain.
Even as a fella who's been using a terminal of some sort for 7 or 8 years, I *still* hate needing to use one just to mount a zip disk. I remember with fondness being able, under beos, to insert a zip disk with 2 different partitions with 2 different filesystems, and having two fresh icons appear on my desktop. It was very civilized.
Anyway, I'd love to help. This is my biggest pet-peeve with linux (not kde/gnome/whatever).
There are two programs I have tried that do this, and both work,more or less.
The most well established is autorun, used (and made) by redhat in particular to autorun cdroms (load audiocd player if audio cd is inserted, load konq otherwise)., at:
The other is Kamount
Both programs focus on cdroms, although KAMount does mention zip disks etc. Both have features the other doesnt: autorun lets you run arbitrary programs when a cd is inserted/removed, but KAMount can read the windows icon of the drive & make that the device icon (cooooool)- and maybe it supports zip disks (who knows?)
I suggest that you try these two programs, and see if they help with your zip-disk. I already have a few patches & scripts hanging around for both of them, and I would really like to know if one of them supports zip disks, so I can choose finally which I'll use
You can email me at: [email protected]
We actually have been very successful with our KDE only integrated distribution named Desktop/LX. I guess since you are proposing this idea, it means the publicity hasn't been directed towards the dot yet. My appologies. Please visit our site ( http://www.lycoris.com ) and download our latest release, I'm sure you'll find the integrated control panel for networking, X configuration as well as the already set up file associations, realplayer, flash player and java virtual machine quite easy to use.
All my best,
Jason Spisak
Any hopes of Lycoris D/LX available internationally?
We'd be glad to ship on to you right now. We've sent hundreds to places as far apart as Australia and Ireland. As far as the international language availability, yes we are going to be rolling out many national versions in the next few months. If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me.
All my best,
Jason Spisak
as David Johnson suggested just below you, why don't you release your configuration tools in a kde-linux package and make it downloadable for people not using Lycoris ?
I know it doesn't seem like a good idea for Lycoris to make other distro's users to have the same tools but:
you use KDE to promote Lycoris so it would be fair to release your own work to improve KDE and promote it.
More over, if Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian... users can have your configuration tools, you'll get much more feedback from experienced linux users (because lots of Lycoris users are, I believe, beginners) and, thus, your own products will benefit from the community.
I say all that because, in my opinion, the current weakness of Linux comes from its distributions. Most of them are commercial-based (even if free) and always try to re-invent the wheel. That's not good for Linux because ALL distros lack something another one has !
One example:
I installed Mandrake-8.1 and got bad-looking GTK configuration tools, bad network (SMB shares, SMB printers) detection.
I installed ELX and got a QWERTY keyboard whereas I'm using an AZERTY keyboard.
I installed Redmond Linux (few months ago) and destroyed my other linux partition when trying to resize it.
I installed Debian and... gave up, nothing worked well :(
All those problems are specific to each distro and don't exist on others.
What I want is a perfect distribution featuring just what every linux user needs (Kernel, OpenOffice, KDE, XFree, gcc+libs, GNU tools and some servers) without forgetting security and stability, perfect configuration tools and good TTF fonts.
I also noticed in Lycoris that, when you clicked on the web browser icon, mozilla opened. Why not Konqueror ? We don't need 2 good browsers on Linux. If you're making a GNOME distro, use Galeon+Mozilla but if you're doing a KDE distro, just use konqueror !
I hope you'll understand that I'm not trolling but just asking for more cooperation between the different distributions and between distro developpers and the developpers community.
I really doubt the tools are portable. That is the main problem with config tools. Many other distros have config tools (SuSE, Mandrake) but they are not portable either. To make their tools available to everyone, Lycoris would have to spend lots of time porting them, which just doesn't make sense. If they are GPL'd, then anyone can port them. Lycoris has no obligation to do it themselves.
I was also puzzled by Mozilla being the default browser. Perhaps KDE 3 will be able to change their minds about that. IMHO their web browsing capabilities are about equal, but Konqueror has AA fonts and desktop integration while Moz does not.
I've got some other questions too. I am wondering why Lycoris hasn't partnered with CodeWeavers to provide the CrossOver plugin with Desktop/LX, and possibly Wine 1.0 in the future. Has this been considered? Also, aren't some of those icons from WinXP directly (with a palette shift maybe)? It sure looks like it.
Actually Lycoris partnered with TransGaming and has WineX3.0 available.
None of those icons are from XP - they are original
Actually the source code to Lycoris Desktop/LX IS Open Source. Anyone can have the code ANY time they wish to use it.
As far as Mozilla - Mozilla has an e-mail client that is far superior. The mozilla customized for Lycoris Desktop/LX is also enhanced above the typical Mozilla. We need ONE *GOOD* browser in Linux, and Konq just isn't it!!
Destroying your linux partition can't be blamed on a distro. It's always wise to back up before using ANY system.
Maybe you ought to give back to the community and program YOURSELF??
> Maybe you ought to give back to the community and program YOURSELF??
I do.
BTW: this thread is quite old. I changed my mind on LOTS of the things I said back then.
u can buy linux distros on cd/dvd in india at www.linuxbazar.com
Why did change the name from Redmond Linux for? That was a funky name, just imaging the slogan or headline:
"Redmond opens gates to Linux"
oh, well...
This distro seems to have gone belly-up. Too bad, It's the best Linux distro I've used. It does have a few flaws, 4 ports are open and the firewall is enabled. It does not detect usb storage devices. It does have all plug-ins for the browser, which is one important factor between a operational Linux and another wasted disc you burned. Ubuntu is a joke, I don't see what functions that OS is providing. I cannot connect to the internet, and to change the background picture requires you to know where the picture file is, even though you're looking at it in the panel. I think the myth behind Ubuntu is that it has been around for a long time and people download it thinking because it is the first one of so called "stable" releases so it gets another notch on the pole. But it is really crap. Not enough people knew about Lycoris and to realize what kind of OS it is. It boots up faster than any of the other 30+ distros I've tried not to mention it operates considerably faster. Xandros just got the ok to sell it's OS from CompUSA stores. If you can look at a screenshot of Xandros and look at Lycoris, Xandros is ugly. Visually you will not even come close to a "Windows XP" enviroment with Xandros.
Let me rain just a bit on your parade, okay? KDE is an OS neutral desktop. As such, stuff like a hardware configurator should not be a part of core KDE. Distros and systems that want stuff like that should create their own. The wonderful folk at KDE have more than enough to do without having to figure out how to configure hardware on Linux, *BSD, Solaris, IRIX, etc.
Another way to do this is to simply create a kde-linux package where all the Linux specific stuff goes, a kde-bsd package for any BSD specific stuff, another for Solaris, etc.
Way back when Linux started getting ported to different architectures, Linus discovered an amazing thing. Portable software is more stable and robust than non-portable software. Make KDE as system neutral as you can make it, and get improved quality as a side effect.
Well, that's just not going to do. KDE could provide Kontrol modules where the front ends are well-defined (with extensions possible), implemented in a set of fuctions provided separately by the distro. We could provide a standard implementation of those functions that strictly adhers to the LSB, and let distros derive from it if they like.
Well, that's just not going to do. KDE could provide Kontrol modules where the front ends are well-defined (with extensions possible), implemented in a set of fuctions provided separately by the distro. We could provide a standard implementation of those functions that strictly adhers to the LSB, and let distros derive from it if they like.
>[...] I'd like to see a distribution that is entirely based around KDE. All configuration is done through the KDE control panel, and the system is designed from the ground up to never, ever need to access it at the shell level."
This is also my dream. When will KDE be in control of the OS? KDE should not be an accessory (as a Desktop Environment) but an Integral part of the OS. I wonder what happened to the LinuxConf like KSysConf tool? I hope KDE 4.x will be the integral part of most distros...
Hmmm... I was six minutes earlier ;-)
Nice to see that it´s not only me thinking about the same thing.
- Corel/Xandros
- Desktop/LX
"...is designed from the ground up to never, ever need to access it at the shell level"
I hate Windoze for just this reason. Until the arrival of KDE, I was quite content to have a few windows on my screen, one usually running xemacs, but most with a shell prompt. I still have lot of shell prompts arround but one on top of the other with the wonderful kde console and the terminal window at the bottom of konqi. The present KDE/LINUX combination allows the user to grow from naive to expert on a gentle learning path. Under Windoze everyone remains at the naive level.
Don't just look at the price - feel the quality.
I think what's really needed is a generalized configuration interface to everything, for which KDE acts like a frontend. Probalby, this could be accomplished using linuxconf or webmin modules. The big thing is, we don't want to take away the power of UNIX, but going to a shell shouldn't be neccessary unless you really need to tweak something low-level. Adding X resolutions, turning on/off daemons, etc, could all be done from KDE using such a frontend.
I'm just not sure how to code it :-) Details, details...
...would be if the Webmin guys generated their pages using XML. The browser interface could be generated with XSL using the Xalan/Xerces libraries (at least I think that's what they're called), and GUI equivalents could be created using KXmlGui and Glade (after being passed through appropriate XSLs). Implementing the changes would then be a matter of firing up the scripts identified in the XML document.
The great thing is there'd then be a great variety of configuration systems, but all using the one base, so you wouldn't have the repetition of bugs between, e.g., Linuxconf and Webmin. If you wanted you wouldn't even need to have Webmin running, which would ease security worries some people have.
I'm afraid I've neither the time nor the expertise to do this at the moment, but it'd be cool if what's left of the KSysCtrl guys or maybe someone else could have a look at it.
Well, I use SuSE, and since version 7.0, I haven't had to use the shell to configure anything. This is due to YAST2, which is wonderful. I used to do most everything by hand, but this is just so easy, and it works. SuSE has also integrated all of the YAST2 modules into the Kcontrol center, so I _can_ configure my system entirely from KDE.
Actually, I think you have a good point, but you missed the previous point. There's a big difference between needing to have shell control and being able to have complete shell control. Having both options is key.
Let me elaborate : I too like to click a mouse a few times to get something done which, if successful, I won't do again for months (or years). This is of course completely different from my/your frequent use of a command line entry:
% locate something | grep -i somethingelse | grep -v butnotthis
which I find myself doing daily.
But what if there is no success with the click click method:
An example: I recently bought an HP-Office psc 950. Installing under SuSE 7.3 with yast2 was completely unsuccessful - I could neither print nor scan. (Installation under my small Windoze partition was also unsuccessful). But with a some help from the open source community I went through a not inconsiderable number of one line changes entered on the command line and using vi to make other small changes. Now I can print and scan. (But not under Windoze).
Acutally SuSE's (KDE) control center isn't that bad. When it works. But what happens if there are problems. Suppose I was trying to configure kmail and hit a problem. The first thing I would have done in 1976 (UNIX Edition 6) would have been:
% man kmail
and look for the files and/or environment parameters kmail uses.
Ooops! kail doesn't have a man page.
Perhaps its somewhere else.
% locate kmail | grep man
No, right first time, kail doesn't have a man page. So we really are getting to be like a poor man's Windoze.
And don't tell me to use the kdehelpcenter (also no man page) since that dosn't work either (see:
KDE bug report logs - #27240
klauncher said: 'Error loading kio_help'.)
I could go on ...
Debian has a manpage for kmail, konqueror and others. Other distributions are free to use them if they wish.
I didn't know that. Thank you. A very good reason to switch from SuSE to Debian!
Too bad there are many more reasons for not switching. Trust me, you have reaaal easy right now. :-)
-N. (former long-time Debian user)
Such as? Debian and KDE often play nice, albiet the Debian testing and unstable distributions have rather fscked up KDEs at the moment.
it's been a while, but off the top of my head:
- hopelessly out-of-date stable releases
- dselect
- try building .deb's from source packages across releases. not pretty.
- misses many "advances" that make Linux easy. much manual fiddling required. some basic features don't work out of the box.
- flame-ridden debian-devel list and/or too much politics
Debian of course has its nice points when you know what you are doing. I used it for years, and had it installed on at least 10 boxes (for clients). They all loved the results. I just grew tired of it after a while. I say, most of the *BSDs probably beat Debian at its game anyway, and are probably leaner, meaner and cleaner options.
- hopelessly out-of-date stable releases
point given, mitigated (in my eyes) by always running unstable :-)
- dselect
I haven't touched dselect in over 2 years. There is simply no need to. apt-* is your friend.
- try building .deb's from source packages across releases. not pretty.
Don't really know about this one. What exactly is the problem?
- misses many "advances" that make Linux easy. much manual fiddling required. some basic features don't work out of the box.
Like? OOTB, my network, video, and sound work. What else do you need? Esp. when the programs themselves are so sweetly packaged, to give you "workability" out of the box...
- flame-ridden debian-devel list and/or too much politics
Well, the obvious solution to this is: don't read the mailing lists :-) OTOH, I'm on the debian-kde list, and it is no worse (and mostly better) than the other lists I'm on (various kde-*, devel, solaris admin, and web prog, so a fairly wide variety). And while I'll give *BSD all of their well-deserved mad-props, I've never run across something to compare to the simplicity of apt-get update && apt-get upgrade. And no, ports isn't even close (I always ended up having to manually tweak compiles and the order of things, not even counting the enormous difference in time (download/unpack vs. download/unpack/./configure/make/make install/with various pauses for workarounds inbetween(nested parens are cool))).
I use stable for my servers, and unstable for the workstations here at work (about 15). I do the apt-get upgrade routine on my machine first, and if there is any breakage (fairly rare, abo. thrice a year), I just wait for a day and try again. My user's couldn't be happier, especially when they want a new program, call up, ask for it, and before we hang up, it's installed and available in their K-Menu B-). Ain't nothing even close....
All this is IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, BRB, and STFU, addendum, etc, and so on... IOW, no disrespect intended to any individual :-)
P.S. Apparently, I can't use tags. Oh bloody well. I left them in so that you could differentiate...
> point given, mitigated (in my eyes) by always running un0stable
And if I mention that unstable is sometimes buggy and *always* a moving target, then you will probably say it's mitigated by running stable. :-)
Actually, I'm sure it's fine for some users with big pipes and little to lose by apt-get upgrading all the time, or for people with the resources to test and clone a moving target before deploying. I just don't fit in that category.
> I haven't touched dselect in over 2 years. There is simply no need to. apt-* is your friend.
Yes, apt-* is magic, I will give you that. That doesn't mean I still don't fallback on dselect from time-to-time, even if it is just to get a list of available packages. Dselect is also still, afaik, the official and default front-end to managing debian packages. Isn't that what the installation routine dumps you into at the end? Ugh.
> Don't really know about this one. What exactly is the problem?
Building debian binary packages from source packages can be an incredible pain. Especially when you are running a stable distribution and want to update from source packages in unstable. What happens is that the source packages depend on many little utilities and these utilities turn out to be incompatible across Debian releases or sometimes outright missing in one version and present in the other. I always had to hack random perl scripts to get packages to compile, upgrade/downgrade perl*, and sometimes the changes conflicted between packages...
Then there's the little matter of undocumented source dependencies... which has been ostensibly fixed in unstable for many years. Too bad there hasn't been a stable release (or has there?). :)
> Like? OOTB, my network, video, and sound work. What else do you need? Esp. when the programs themselves are so sweetly packaged, to give you "workability" out of the box...
There were always a bunch of small things that I had to fix. "Poweroff" would never poweroff my ATX box, it would just do a normal halt. Then there's the poorly cobbled network configuration files, probably fixed in unstable. Or apache always had to be recompiled to raise an artificially low compile-time limit on MaxServers. A LinuxConf that's included but that doesn't really work. Yes, I made customized .deb's for plenty of things -- unfortunately I can't access them right now.
Tell me, does the Debian install support LVM?
Oh, but I will say that the Debian bug-tracking system is very responsive.
> flame-ridden debian-devel list and/or too much politics
Let me clarify: I am strongly discouraged and have doubts about the future of Debian, when I witness purely political motivation and/or ego-trips causing artificial hardships for the user and would-be Debian developer.
What about the thread that non-free would be made more inaccessible to the new default Debian user? What about the impossibility of becoming a new debian developer after jumping through hoops for many many months? It was that kind of thing that made me lose courage and faith in Debian.
On the other hand, it sure sounds like you have a nice set-up and something that works for you.
I would finally like to point out that although I used to use and advocate Debian, even at the time, I would never advocate Debian to the newbie fresh-from-windows or the newbie i-ve-heard-the-linux-hype. I would always grudgingly name one of the other user-friendly ones, in good faith.
PS I didn't really mean to whine today, but people did ask for it... :)
Use the kde help center.
And don't tell me it doesn't work. It is not KDE's fault that your distribution's packages are messed up so that you can't use KDE the way it was intended. There is no reason for KDE to use man pages whn it has a better alternative available (the help center, which is available in all working KDE installations). KDE has a very powerful command-line interface (thanks to Ian's efforts), it is not abandoning the command line. KDE aims to combine the best of GUIs and Unix.


text:
REILLY A02 Personalized Decanter Set wooden box and Ice 9
REILLY A02 Personalized Decanter Set wooden box and Ice 9
Order can be cancelled or modified within 12 hours after being placed.
Package includes:
- 1 Wooden box (13.2x12.2x4.1inch)
- 1 Decanter - 32oz
- 2/4 Glasses - 6oz
- 6 Ice stones
Looking for a unique and unforgettable gift?
Our personalized whiskey glass sets feature laser-engraved designs that are permanent and one-of-a-kind. Perfect for special occasions like groomsmen gifts, Father's Day, and anniversaries, these whiskey glass sets are sure to impress and make lasting memories.
Lead-free glass, dishwasher safe
Constructed from high-quality, lead-free glass, our decanter is both durable and functional. With a generous capacity of up to 750ml, it can hold a full bottle of wine or spirits, allowing you to serve multiple glasses with ease. The decanter's wide base ensures stability, while the elongated neck and angled spout make pouring effortless and precise.
The decanter's sleek and sophisticated design is sure to impress your guests, making it an ideal centerpiece for any dinner party or gathering. Its clear glass body allows the rich hues and textures of your favorite beverages to shine through, creating a stunning visual display. Plus, its smooth surface and minimalist design make it easy to clean and maintain.
Not only does a decanter enhance the appearance of your drinks, but it can also improve their taste. By allowing the liquid to breathe and oxygenate, it can release aromas and flavors that may have been trapped in the bottle. This process can enhance the overall drinking experience, making your favorite beverages taste even better.
Whether you're a wine connoisseur or a whiskey lover, our decanter is a must-have addition to your collection. Its timeless design and superior functionality make it a versatile and practical choice for any home bar or kitchen. So why settle for an ordinary bottle when you can elevate your drinking experience with a decanter?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Read & Respond: Pig-Heart Boy
This product is not currently available.
To help you find what you're looking for, see similar items below.
Rated 4/5 from 13 ratings
1 review (Add a review)
Delivery information
- FREE postage to schools*
- Postage charges apply to home addresses
- Delivery within 10 working days
Book Club orders
- FREE postage to schools*
- Books will be despatched after the school's order is confirmed
Delivery information and refund and returns policy
*We do not charge postage costs on your order, but border charges are payable and additional customs charges may be levied.
Product description
Raise literacy and attainment through a deep and active reading of a best-loved children's story by a major author. The Read & Respond series takes growing readers into the heart of over 70 timeless stories, chosen to inspire reading for pleasure.
Each teacher resource book focuses on a popular children's story, bringing it alive in a cross-curricular way. Explore every facet of the story through speaking and listening activities, debate and discussion, guided reading, creative writing, quizzes, games and crafts.
This teacher resource book contains everything you need to share Pig-Heart Boy with your class:
- Plot, character and setting activities
- Speaking and listening activities
- Guided and shared reading sessions
- Extended writing projects
- Differentiation and assessment ideas
- Photocopiable activity pages
"Reading and writing for enjoyment are two of the most powerful ways of getting children reading. Read & Respond provides exactly this." Michael Morpurgo
Product Details
Date published
January 7th, 2008
Other details
- 32 pages
UK editionPart of this Series
on 13 March 2010Pig Heart Boy
This book is the best book I have ever read (and I read over 250 books).
This book is for everyone aged 1 to 100 and over.
My teacher even loved it.
I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!5 out of 5


text:
Download File (PDF, 710.48 KB)We use some essential cookies to make this website work effectively. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use ucpi.org.uk and help us deliver content from other sites such as Twitter. Further information can be found in the Inquiry's cookie policy.
Manage cookies OK


text:
In today's market, where demand is outpacing supply in many regions of the country, pricing a house is one of the biggest challenges real estate professionals face. Sellers often want to price their home higher than recommended, and many agents go along with the idea to keep their clients happy. However, the best agents realize that telling the homeowner the truth is more important than getting the seller to like them.
There is no "later."
Sellers sometimes think, "If the home doesn't sell for this price, I can always lower it later." However, research proves that homes that experience a listing price reduction sit on the market longer, ultimately selling for less than similar homes.
John Knight, recipient of the University Distinguished Faculty Award from the Eberhardt School of Business at the University of the Pacific, actually did research on the cost (in both time and money) to a seller who priced high at the beginning and then lowered their price. His article, Listing Price, Time on Market and Ultimate Selling Price, published in Real Estate Economics revealed:
"Homes that underwent a price revision sold for less, and the greater the revision, the lower the selling price. Also, the longer the home remains on the market, the lower its ultimate selling price."
Additionally, the "I'll lower the price later" approach can paint a negative image in buyers' minds. Each time a price reduction occurs, buyers can naturally think, "Something must be wrong with that house." Then when a buyer does make an offer, they low-ball the price because they see the seller as "highly motivated." Pricing it right from the start eliminates these challenges.
Don't build "negotiation room" into the price.
Many sellers say that they want to price their home high in order to have "negotiation room." But, what this actually does is lower the number of potential buyers that see the house. And we know that limiting demand like this will negatively impact the sales price of the house.
Not sure about this? Think of it this way: when a buyer is looking for a home online (as they are doing more and more often), they put in their desired price range. If your seller is looking to sell their house for $400,000, but lists it at $425,000 to build in "negotiation room," any potential buyers that search in the $350k-$400k range won't even know your listing is available, let alone come see it!
One great way to see this is with the chart below. The higher you price your home over its market value, the less potential buyers will actually see your home when searching.
A better strategy would be to price it properly from the beginning and bring in multiple offers. This forces these buyers to compete against each other for the "right" to purchase your house.
Look at it this way: if you only receive one offer, you are set up in an adversarial position against the prospective buyer. If, however, you have multiple offers, you have two or more buyers fighting to please you. Which will result in a better selling situation?
The Price is Right
Great pricing comes down to truly understanding the real estate dynamics in your neighborhood. Let's get together to discuss what is happening in the housing market and how it applies to your home.


text:
Free HD fuck vids are at your disposal on this sex tube. Watch shy trick creampie gangbang thousands of free fucking videos in numerous categories.
XXX VIDEO is the glamour porn site that captures in photos and videos the beauty of the young female body. The collection doesn't come with hardcore content, but it does have lots of reasons for which you can burst a load. First of all, the chicks are gorgeous. They are between 18 and 25 and their body is captured from all angles, with closeups on their perky natural titties, tight asses and delicious looking pussies. The models of this site are coming from two different continents. On the one hand, you have babes from Eastern Europe and on the other hand the Latinas from South America. W4B has been around since 2005 and they put together a massive collection of 2,000+ movies and over 3,200 galleries. The site is still active and new content is uploaded in this library on a weekly basis.


text:
Many people believe that in some fashion it is not possible for a person to be moral without God. So the charge that atheists are somehow lacking morally in this regard is brought up again and again.
There are a lot of confusions embedded in these discussions coming from both sides. We need to get clear on what the claim might mean and sort out some ambiguities. The first ambiguity concerns whether the claim is to be taken in an epistemological sense or an ontological sense. That is, do they mean that if a person doesn't believe in God, they won't be moral, or that if God does not exist, then morality would not exist? The second ambiguity concerns what "be moral," means here. Does it mean act in a morally decent, law abiding manner, or does it mean ground their moral decisions on the right moral considerations?
So that gives us several different ways to interpret the sentence. At the risk of being tedious, let's deal with them one by one. Is it true that unless a person believes in God, then they won't act in a morally decent, law abiding manner? No. There are a billion or so Buddhists on the planet, and several hundred million atheists, just for starters, who do not believe in any sort of divine being, but it would be absurd to suggest that none of them act in a morally decent, law abiding manner.
Is it true that unless a person believes in God, they won't ground their moral decisions in the right moral considerations? Again, this can't be true either. Kant, Mill, Rawls, Aristotle, and many other respectable, plausible moral theories give accounts of how moral decisions should be grounded without any requirement for the actor to believe in God. If the someone wishes to defend this claim, then they will need to argue that none of the widely respected, studied, and emulated moral theories that have been developed in history are right and that no acts that are done in accordance with them are moral. That seems like an extraordinary and implausible position to take. It seems that at least one of these must be at least as plausible as divine command theory. In fact, the vast majority of expert moral philosophers have taken them all to be superior theories.
Is it true that unless God exists, then no one would act in a morally decent, law abiding fashion? It's hard to know what the critic is getting at if they say yes. They might be thinking that it's only the fear of God or respect for God's commandments that makes people behave themselves. But again, this is myopic. There have been billions of people in history who don't believe, don't know about, or who have taken no note of God in their deliberations, but they have behaved morally. So it's not believing that God is present that keeps people in line. Whether God exists or not, there are people who think he does not and who behave morally. So it seems implausible that his existence or non existence makes any real difference in their behavior.
Is it true that if there were no God, then no one would ground their actions in the right moral considerations? We can imagine that the critic would insist that this one is true. Sure, lots of people do ground their actions in other, non-God considerations, and they also behave in what appears to be a morally decent manner. But in fact, says the theist, none of their actions are based on the right considerations. He might insist that if there were no God, then there would be no sense of morality in humanity, or humanity would have never developed an awareness of a moral dimension in their lives, or our natures would be radically different. God is responsible for our capacity to act in moral ways, so if there were no God, then there would be nothing like morality at all. And then this moral capacity, that can't be explained any other way is employed as evidence for the existence of God.
The problem with this position, of course, is that it is danger of being circular reasoning. How is it that the theist came to know that the moral capacity in humans could have only come from God. It's embarrassing if the answer is "from God." It's even worse if that moral capacity, that God told them came from God, is then used as evidence that God exists. God tells me that only God can provide us with morality. My morality proves that God must be real.
The critic might try to go deep here and insist that even though many moral systems like Aristotle's or Mill's make no explicitly appeal to God, if it hadn't been for God endowing humanity with a capacity for moral action or a moral sense, Aristotle and Mill would have had anything in human behavior to theorize about. They wouldn't have even been aware of any moral dimension to our lives. But this argument also seems to beg the question, and it's very hard to see how one might defend it, particularly since we have some plausible alternative accounts of how morality arose in humanity. Evolutionary biologists have given us a large body of evidence now that indicates that evolution built us, along with lots of other species to be moral. We observe proto-moral behaviors in all sorts of animals now, and we have a number of theories that about why evolution might have selected for altruism, sympathy, cooperation, and other social instincts.
It's possible that the capacity for moral behavior that we find in ourselves came from God, but the critic needs to argue that that's the only possible source it could have come from. And that much stronger claim is very hard to give a plausible argument for.
So it looks like whatever they mean by the claim that you can't be moral without God, it can't be right. Some of the things that sentence might mean are obviously false, and other interpretations fall into circularity or have to argue for some claims that can't fit with the facts.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Can't Be Moral Without God? Wrong.
41 comments:
- mikespeir said...
Humans are moral beings. That much is undeniable. After that, though, is speculation. How people can insist that the best speculation involves unseen and unprovable entities is beyond me.
- December 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM
- Bowling4Mac said...
I don't believe that the proportion of religious people who are highly moral is any greater than the same proportion among non-religious people.
I subscribe the the theory that some people have a "talent' for religion and that this trait is separate from the trait of having a lot of moral fibre. By talent I am of corse referring to a characteristic of the brain which gives rise to religious experiences that I have never had.
Furthermore, I would even go one step further and suggest that atheists (and I don't object to being called one since we all need to be labelled) have the ability to be more ethical in our lives given that we believe you only live once and thus one must be as happy as one can be in this life. Religious people spend a lot of time contemplating the afterlife and therefore perhaps forgetting to enjoy this life. Of corse religious people could turn my argument around and claim that the belief that this is the only life we have could well lead us to employ unethical methods to get what we desire. But Im not willing to subscribe to religious doctrines which have obvious flaws just so that I can live with the comfort of knowing that I don't need to rush to get what I desire in this life. As I said I don't think that the amount of moral fibre I posses has any correlation to my ability to take a leap of faith. - December 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM
"It's embarrassing if the answer is 'from God.' It's even worse if that moral capacity, that God told them came from God, is then used as evidence that God exists. God tells me that only God can provide us with morality. My morality proves that God must be real."
Embarrassing? Not to some theists — they use circular reasoning all the time. Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig come to mind. - December 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
It may not bother them, but it belies their position and it's an embarrassment to reason and the rest of us.
MM - December 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM
- BallBounces said...
The question is can morality in any objective or real sense exist in a universe that is as an anti-creation, purposeless, meaningless, mindless and amoral, except as a category of inexplicable absurdity.
The darwinian answer: take stardust, water, and stir, is uncompelling as an explanation. Rational, reasonable people will conclude that darwinism affords an insufficient explanation for morality, and will look elsewhere for a sufficient explanation. - December 14, 2009 at 9:28 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
Thanks for the input RK. You're conflating several important issues. Can Darwinism explain the tendencies in human beings towards moral behaviors. Certainly. If God installed a moral sense in humans, would they have feelings of moral conscience or an awareness of moral right and wrong? Perhaps. But it doesn't follow that if humans have feelings of moral conscience or an awareness of moral right and wrong then God must have put it there. Could humans have acquired their feelings of moral conscience and sense of right and wrong from natural selection? Yes. See Pinker, De Waal, Churchland and Churchland, Church, and a long list of others who have investigated the connection and sketched out the path whereby it could have happened. Is God the best or only explanation of why humans are aware of moral distinctions? No and no.
MM - December 14, 2009 at 9:56 AM
- BallBounces said...
Could humans have acquired their feelings of moral conscience and sense of right and wrong from natural selection? Yes."
Either human beings acquired the ability to sense moral realities that were already "out there", in which case morals objectively exist but must be accounted for, or, morals are nothing more than the product of a mindless, purposeless, amoral process, in which case they are an absurdity, and humans would be irrational to pay any more attention to them than to say, burps or hiccups.
Can the uncreatively mundane produce the sublime? Apparently so.
Such is the world that the materialist is forced to take refuge in. - December 14, 2009 at 10:13 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
See the new post. I've dealt with this objection many times before, as have philosophers for centuries. But for those who don't know their moral philosophy, it still seems salient.
MM - December 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM
- Bowling4Mac said...
Re: RkBall's second comment.
Atheist humans can pay more attention to morals than to burps or hiccups because our morals come from what we learn in our lives and what we learn from other people we decide are trustworthy, based on rational reasoning. It is perfectly rational for an atheist to pay a lot of attention to their morals.
Its very easy to argue that atheists have just as much reason to form morals and to obey them. Religion for many people is just oppression. They do the things their religion tells them to because of fear or for other negative reason.
As an atheist I treat people as I would like to treated not because someone told me to but because I know that Im as human as the next person and perhaps my good behaviour will rub off on the people around me.
Morals are not "out there" anywhere they are in our brains. And for a reason. Morals are not mindless or purposeless. They have a purpose in humankind. Just because there is no divine hand guiding the human race doesn't mean there is no place in humankind for things like morals, you just have to see the logic of their existence. - December 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM
- BallBounces said...
"Atheist humans can pay more attention to morals than to burps or hiccups..." You are suggesting that moral sense is not intrinsic to human nature, nor indwelling, but a product of mere thought or reflection -- then why not call just call them "ideas", or "social obligations that we have invented"? Where does the deeply engrained sense of "ought", of there being actual right and wrong, and an actual obligation to do or not to do something come from? Surely more than just humans sitting around the campfire. Why should there be a moral sense at all, in a universe that is surely amoral and completely indifferent? God provides a coherent and sufficient explanation. Darwinism a banal and indifferent one. Meh.
And, if your morals are nothing more than human invention, then what objective basis is there for saying that one person's artificial construct is any better or worse than another's? One culture believes they ought to love their neighbor, another, that the right course of action is to eat their neighbor. - December 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM
- BallBounces said...
"it's an embarrassment to reason and the rest of us."
Why, if reason is the result of darwinism, should one give any particular weight to reason? It's no more thought out or grand than evacuation. You may trust a reasoning process slopped together by an arrational, mindless, purposeless process, but I wouldn't. Once again, darwinism provides an insufficient explanation.
The only grounds that secure warranted faith in reason and moral sense are theistic. You may deny God, but you live in his rational/moral universe every day of your life. - December 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
- Bowling4Mac said...
Re RkBalls reply
You seem to be looking at the world as if you have never lived and as if you have never experienced anything or learned from it.
I act in what I consider to be a moral way because I am human. I could understand being indifferent to morals if I were not human and I were not living this life but I am. My actions have consequences.
Morals ARE social obligations that we, as society, have created. I live in, and was brought up in, England which has been described as a post-theistic society. Thats a pretty good description and yet I come across people everyday who have managed to develop what I would describe as moral behaviour yet have never been overly exposed to religious dogma. The obligation to do or not do something comes from society. The universe is indeed completely amoral but humans are not and society, at least the one I live in, does not allow me to be amoral without suffering the consequences.
It is obvious to any rational person that the moral behaviour I speak of is "better" than cannibalism. I don't think I need to detail why this is. You don't need a lot of life experience to grasp that understanding. - December 14, 2009 at 12:20 PM
- BallBounces said...
"You seem to be looking at the world as if you have never lived...." No, I am asking "why". I understand that human beings are hopelessly moral individuals to the fibre of our beings and not just, as you suggested in your previous post, because we've thought about it.
What I am trying to get out of you is a rational and deep explanation for why this should be so -- theism provides a full, sufficient and satisfactory explanation -- materialism does not and, I suspect, cannot.
That we, this tiny insignificant species, on this tiny insignificant planet, in this tiny speck of the universe should be uniquely moral, when we are surrounded by an amoral sea of mindless matter, when the rest of the universe made of stardust and water assuredly was not prior to the emergence of life, when matter and molecules are not, when darwinism as a process is not -- requires an explanation.
Unless, you are content to wave your hands and say, "just is". - December 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
See the new blog post on the insufficiency of theism to explain morality.
MM - December 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
- Bowling4Mac said...
Re RkBall's 2nd reply
On a side note, theist explanations for a lot of things, including morals, are far from satisfactory in my book.
On another side note what is your definition of "materialism"? If you are suggesting that worshipping Walmart is the only option after giving up the church this seems somewhat closed-minded.
Scientists and Psychologists do not have a perfect understanding of why we as human beings are uniquely moral. But does that mean I should worship the marshmallow fairy? No.
The reason I find a theist explanation of morality unsatisfactory is because theism requires that I take a "leap" of faith. That is, leap off the cliff of rational thinking. I am content pondering scientific, psychological and philosophical writing until my thirst for answers on life is sufficiently quenched that I can lay in the grass and look into the night sky in sheer awe of the wonder of the universe.
Every bit of the universe, except us, is amoral in the sense that planets do not look out for one another. But it is also amoral in the sense that planets do not throw meteors at one another. That is not to say that a meteor may not crash into the earth tomorrow and destroy us all. It might. But there is little reason for me to get depressed about this. Being an atheist gives me the freedom and mental strength to be comfortable with the understanding that I am no more significant than a bread crumb on my chopping board.
But does this understanding mean there is no reason why I should not walk up to the next person I see and punch them square in the face? No it does not. Because I still know that I am human and I still know that I will feel guilt if I do that. And I still know that I will probably go to prison which will probably be a very unpleasant experience. I can believe that I am an insignificant speck and also believe that I am a slave to my feelings and emotions at the same time. - December 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM
- A Conservative Teacher said...
Averroes, Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas said that the presence of evil can be explained because some people, through their free will, reject God and his teachings, and by doing so reduce the presence of God in thier lives, thus allowing evil to fill that vaccum. It is a sound argument and means that if you reject God, you indeed can not be truely moral.
- December 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM
- mikespeir said...
And what makes this a "sound argument," Teacher? Because you say so? Because Thomas Aquinas says so? 'Splain.
- December 20, 2009 at 5:10 AM
- BallBounces said...
There cannot be evil unless there is also good. The problem in explaining the human condition, or, at the very least, humans' apprehension of it, is that both good and evil must be accounted for. Both are absurd, silly concepts in a materialistic universe in which no good or evil exists prior to the accidental construction by mindless, amoral matter and natural processes, of human beings.
Apart from a source additional to mindless amoral matter, good and evil can be nothing more than some kind of illusion or delusion inside the brains of humans put there either by amoral evolution, or simply invented by human beings.
It is not immoral to strike a rock or pumpkin and smash it into its constituent material parts; it is no more immoral, under materialism, to smash a baby's head in; it's just a human conceit of our self importance or value -- neither of which is, objectively true in a unthinking, mindless, amoral universe. Even Dawkins, the Great One, admits this.
It's either God and moral accountability to him, or absurdity. Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice. - December 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM
- mikespeir said...
No, RkBall, that's not true. You see, I can make bald assertion as well as you can. Think I'm wrong? Show me.
- December 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM
- BallBounces said...
ms -- you sound like an angry person. I made an argument; you made a bald assertion. Since you said nothing, I shall respond in kind.
- December 21, 2009 at 6:30 AM
- mikespeir said...
"It is not immoral to strike a rock or pumpkin and smash it into its constituent material parts; it is no more immoral, under materialism, to smash a baby's head in...."
This is not an argument. It's an assertion. Don't complain about my anger after you've made such a stunningly vicious charge. Astonishingly (?), materialists aren't out smashing babies' heads in. Why not? Because God has infused us with a moral sense, though we don't recognize it? Says who? If you can't demonstrate so, then you must admit that 1) we are moral and 2) we have reasons for being moral that have nothing demonstrably to do with deity. - December 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM
- BallBounces said...
"1) we are moral and 2) we have reasons for being moral that have nothing demonstrably to do with deity."
Of course you are moral -- we are all hopelessly moral. What you don't have is a reason why anyone should think that moral senses in a human being have any more objective validity or ultimate consequence than, say, burps or hiccups. Authentic moral sense inserted by an unthinking, purposeless, amoral process? - December 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM
- mikespeir said...
Let me see if I can spell out what I thought would be obvious. Reference my first post on this thread. We are moral creatures. That is fairly uncontroversial. It's something we'll agree on. Now we can get to guessing why we're moral creatures. Believers such as yourself insist we're moral creatures because God made us so. There's a problem with that. Nonexistent entities don't cause--aren't the source of--anything. They didn't cause the universe, they aren't the reason for its order or its function, they didn't create life, and they don't make us moral. Nonexistent entities don't do anything because ... they don't exist.
Oh, but God exists, you say? Well, then, the task before you is to demonstrate that. That's what you'll need to do first. Once you've shown that God exists, then maybe we can talk about whether he is the cause of our moral sense. But it simply won't do to say, "We're moral agents, therefore God exists." That doesn't work. - December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM
- BallBounces said...
"But it simply won't do to say, "We're moral agents, therefore God exists." That doesn't work."
And that is why I never said this. I simply said that, if God doesn't objectively exist, neither do morals, and the moral sense that we do have is an absurdity associated with the human condition caused by nothing more than a mindless, amoral, purposeless process -- and therefore no more authentic or meaningful than a burp or hiccup. - December 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
- mikespeir said...
"...if God doesn't objectively exist, neither do morals...."
So, you're not claiming the corollary, i.e., morals do exist, therefore, God? You really aren't saying that? Can you imagine why I might have thought you were? What other inference am I to take away from what you said.
The fact is, there are morals. It is equally factual that it cannot be established that God even exists, and much less that he has anything to do with morality. Until you can establish those things you have no business making veiled threats and insupportable claims such as, "Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice." - December 21, 2009 at 12:04 PM
- BallBounces said...
"So, you're not claiming the corollary, i.e., morals do exist, therefore, God? You really aren't saying that?"
"Can you imagine why I might have thought you were?"
I'm just guessing here. You weren't reading carefully? You have trouble following an argument?
"What other inference am I to take away from what you said."
One may indeed infer that God exists, to the extent that one recoils from the absurdity of human life under materialism, and to the extent that one concludes that materialism is an insufficient cause for things like objective morality. But to infer the existence of God from these arguments is something quite different from your bald assertion " morals do exist, therefore, God". It takes a certain suppleness of mind.
"veiled threats and insupportable claims such as, "Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice."
You have done nothing to refute my absurdity argument. Nothing. Nada. Zip. - December 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
I've read your posts over and over, RK. I've seen you assert with great authority that materialism entails moral absurdity. But I haven't detected any sort of argument for that conclusion. Nor have I seen you actually address any of the arguments I've given in the posts--mostly there are just adamant denials of their conclusions.
Furthermore, it would be another mistake to conflate materialism with atheism.
MM - December 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
On a related note, Plantinga himself, the patron saint of modern theist philosophers, argues forcefully against the view that using teleological language commits one to some metaphysical views about the existence of a supernatural designer. There's no conflict between using the language as a sort of short hand without making any assumptions or having any requirements about an actual designer. See Warrant and Proper Function, and catch up on your philosophy of biology.
MM - December 21, 2009 at 4:06 PM
- mikespeir said...
I think Matt's pretty much summed it up, RKBall.
You can only be doing one of two things here: feinting toward (not making) an argument or making unsubstantiated assumptions. Considering the context of this thread and that your comments are all about morality, the argument you would be hinting at would be the Moral Argument. But you've said in no uncertain terms that you're not making that argument. (Which is obvious enough, anyway.) And you're not even waving at any other argument. Thus, I'm forced to reiterate my initial accusation: you're making bald assertions. Now, you're free to do that, I suppose, but you can't expect us to take simple, unsupported claims seriously. Despite what you apparently think, the truth of what you're saying is anything but self-evident. - December 22, 2009 at 3:02 AM
- BallBounces said...
Mike -- Of course I'm making an argument, but it is an inferential argument, rather than the kind of QED argument you are looking for.
"But you've said in no uncertain terms that you're not making that argument."
No, I did not say this.
It is possible to say that something points to, or indicates, as opposed to "proves". You need to develop a suppleness of mind and an appreciation for nuance. - December 22, 2009 at 5:58 AM
- BallBounces said...
Matt -- I am arguing from the premise of sufficient cause. One of the principles of software engineering is that "what goes out, must have come in" i.e., there must be sufficient inputs to produce a given output.
All the closed-system of materialism has to offer us is human beings which are the product of mindless, amoral, purposeless processes (and nothing more). If I'm wrong about this first premise, let me know.
Now, humans are, by nature, moral creatures. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)
What is the foundation of this moral sense? I see only two possibilities -- man himself, or nature, i.e, darwinian processes. (Wrong, let me know.)
Man himself.
The first source is man himself, with morality not being innate, but, as intelligent apes, or worms, or bacteria, being rationally determined by man as a rational creature (rationality is another problem for materialism, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.)
Morality in this view is the result of human reflection and contemplation -- and nothing more. In other words, we are not wired to be moral creatures, we overlay moral thinking upon our amoral urges.
In this view it is nothing more than a subjective overlay by humans upon more foundational realities -- that we are nothing more than stardust and water, re-mixed by an amoral, unthinking process, for no purpose.
Morality is then, at foundation, subjective. The human race may develop one set of moral constructs, an alien race another. And it would not be a question of one being right and the other wrong -- because in the closed system of materialism, morality is not intrinsic to the universe, it is some kind of overlay, and there is no external arbiter.
Indeed, different human groups or cultures could conceivably develop different moral systems, and there same problem would apply -- no outside, objective arbiter.
Now, the higher we go in moral thinking -- thinking that human beings have "value", thinking that human beings have "intrinsic worth", thinking that harming another human being is "wrong" or "evil", the higher we go in the disconnect from our origins from mindless, dead molecules -- and the more absurd and incongruous we become. Surely we deceive ourselves when we think we are worth something or have value! Our moral sense "emerges" like a vapor from the elements, but that's all it is at heart, vapor. It is grounded in nothing, ultimately.
Our moral thoughts are grounded in nothing more than utilitarian thinking -- I don't like to have pain inflicted upon me, so I won't inflict pain on others -- but this does not make inflicting pain "wrong". I feel good when I give to charity, so I'll give to charity -- but this does not make giving "good". This is not objective right and wrong, good and evil. This is just pragmatism, dressed up as right and wrong. This may get us to pragmatic advice for getting along in life, but it does not get us to objective right and wrong or good and evil. It falls short.
And, since there is no objective criteria "out there", anyone can refuse to play the game. Some people find pleasure in inflicting pain -- who's to say this is "wrong"? - December 22, 2009 at 6:46 AM
- BallBounces said...
Darwinian foundations.
I prefer the view that moral sense is not just a human overlay, that it is indwelling, innate, and persistent. But this makes the problem even worse. Forget about rational foundations for morality. At least we are rational whereas the processes of nature, being mindless, are not. Now morality is rooted in nothing greater than darwinian wiring.
Darwinian processes are themselves mindless, amoral and purposeless (would you agree with that).
If so, there is just insufficient input to take the output -- moral sense -- seriously. To trust it. To think that it actually means something. To think that it is anything more than a survival strategy (and strategy is the wrong word), it is really nothing more than a cruel burp of mindless, amoral evolution that doesn't care even if we survive or not, let alone develop moral sense.
So, we are endued, as you like to say, with the sense of "ought", the sense that some things are right and others wrong, in the same way that there is something wrong with the notion that 2 + 2 =5 and that it is not just a matter of rational constructs of the human brain (view one) that 2 +2 should be 4, or feelings (view 2) that 2 +2 feels like four, but an apprehension of an objective fact that lies outside of human sense experience and is true whether we recognize it or not.
The problem, of course, is, that in a closed-system materialistic world, there is no place for objective morality to exist outside of the molecules themselves. Unless you posit that morality somehow existed potentially in the stardust and water that begat us and is part of the fabric of the universe.
So, that is why I argue from absurdity. The materialist, in positing the objective existence of good and evil, right and wrong, cannot adequately account for it.
He can argue why we *think* there is right and wrong, but good and evil themselves cannot be sufficiently accounted for. And a truly scientific materialism would seek to debunk such thinking.
And that is why I conclude that have two fundamental choices: a) freedom from God and moral accountability to him coupled with the absurdity of the human condition or b) God and accountability to Him, and authenticity.
It does not "prove" the existence of God. But it does demonstrate why rational human creatures should at least lean towards hoping that God in fact does exist. - December 22, 2009 at 6:46 AM
- BallBounces said...
"There's no conflict between using the language as a sort of short hand without making any assumptions or having any requirements about an actual designer. "
One might think that those whose whose main mark in life is to adamantly and persistently deny a teleological dimension to cosmological reality would be eager to describe said reality without recourse to teleological language. In fact, you would think they would insist on it. The fact they don't is curious; the fact they perhaps cannot, suggestive, to say the least.
What an odd reality you claim we inhabit -- an intrinsically a-teleological process wires us to be hopelessly teleological in thought and speech.
If the universe, and life, cannot be described without recourse to teleological language, then why should one believe that the a-teleological view is true? If it is "true", then "we" are not. At a minimum it supports my contention that we are absurd creatures -- hopelessly out of tune with the a-teleological, a-moral essence of our surroundings.
Thanks for all the references and suggested areas for further study. That's what I like about your site. - December 22, 2009 at 8:46 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
Those look a lot more like arguments, RK. I'm not going to try to address all of it in the comments section. As I see it, there are several problems in your reasoning: you're still ignoring the arguments that I (and others) have given that show that the dilemmas you're giving--morals come from man's imagination, or from God--are false dilemmas. 2) An argument that God offers no explanation or justification for morality (which I've been giving) does not amount to an argument for materialism. So limitations of materialism are beside the point. 3) you're committing the fallacy of composition. Since you cannot conceive of how molecules can be moral, you refuse to accept that combinations of them could be. I cannot imagine how a large airport can function smoothly, but the limits of my knowledge or my sense of wonder impose no impossibility on the event. By a similar argument you might think that it is impossible for complicated computer software program to run or for a plant to grow. 4) this brings us to the insufficiency of your "sufficient reason" argument. What you've done is string together several complicated human behaviors where you don't have a clear grasp on the mechanisms and then leapt to the conclusion that only God (Christian?) could explain how we could have all of those things. If you do your homework and actually try to understand the scientific accounts that we now have that go a long way towards explaining each one of those (instead of rejecting them as impossible at the outset) you'll see that we have closed many of these so-called gaps. Furthermore, suppose that x,y, and z are all unaccounted for phenomena in humans. You assert that they would all be explained perfectly well if we adopt the God hypothesis. Therefore we should. But that's a fallacy too. There's an infinite list of other supernatural hypotheses that will offer the same mysterious blanket explanation: Sobek did it, Thor did it, aliens did it, Allah did it, invisible magic elves endowed us with a moral sense, and so on. It simply doesn't follow that since you can come up with an explanation that might work, that it therefore must be true. This is the theist's equivalent of making the Just-So story mistake that evolutionary biologists sometimes make.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
MM - December 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM
- mikespeir said...
"No, I did not say this."
Ah, I see. You're going for the Moral Argument after all. But it takes a greater "suppleness of mind" than I possess to sense the path you're on. Wow.
But now you've put out such a flood of stuff, and I'm not so sure I care to fight a world war.
I don't know that there's anything objectively (if by "objective" we mean something like "hardwired into reality") "wrong." So what? The fact is, we all subscribe to some code of morality. And it generally works. Furthermore, when it doesn't work it doesn't seem to break down along the line between believer and unbeliever, which is telling. We can quibble about where it comes from but, again, if you're going to insist that source is the Divine, you'll first need to show that the Divine exists, not simply suggest that without the Divine morality is subjective and expect us to jump the several intuitive chasms to your conclusion. - December 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM
- Bowling4Mac said...
I still do not see that you have said anything about why God should exist other than the fact that we as absurd, as you like to say, human beings "like" to think that he exists. Or that it gives us comfort to "believe" that he is out there somewhere. Of course "believing", whatever that means, becomes a lot easier if everyone around you does and you were brought up to believe.
I find your point of view highly unsatisfactory.
It still seems blindingly obvious to me that religion is a human construct. It also seems obvious that our sense of right and wrong is nothing sacred or mysterious its just a by-product of society. This becomes more obvious when you think of other animals having a sense of right and wrong and even punishing each other for doing something they think is "wrong".
Im not sure whether you are suggesting that we should be depressed about our plight as humans on this earth but I find your posts highly depressing! If there is one thing I can definitely say I disagree with you on, its that we can still be positive people despite the burden on all this knowledge. - December 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM
- BallBounces said...
"Im not sure whether you are suggesting that we should be depressed about our plight as humans on this earth but I find your posts highly depressing!"
Well, "From nothing. By nothing. For nothing." is not exactly a mantra for elevating one's self-esteem. But what else has the materialist got?
20th cc. existentialists denied God's existence, then from this concluded that human existence was absurd. I think they got it right, and anything else is window-dressing and self-deception.
Have a great (ultimately meaningless, purposeless, destined-for-extinction) day! - December 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
Once again, an argument that appeals to God do nothing to provide us with answers to moral problems is not an argument for materialism. And atheism should not be conflated with materialism. Furthermore, materialism comes in several different varieties: eliminative, methodological, ontological, etc. None of them, as far as I can tell, match with what you're calling materialism.
MM - December 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM
- D.C. Willis said...
It is hard to believe that a book (Bible), which is full of immorality can be expected to teach morality.
http://subtledeceit.com/index.php?p=1_16_GOD-OF-ISRAEL - August 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM
Some moral skeptics claim morality is bunk and moral pronouncements no more meaningful or practically relevant than the claim of a superstitious Polynesian that eating a certain type of coconut is taboo.
We, like the Polynesian, are hypnotized by nonsense words.
He is hypnotized by "taboo" and we are by "wrong," "right," and "duty."
Have you commented on that sort of skepticism?
On the meta-ethical level it rests on a kind of error theory but on the normative level instead of being reformist it is flatly rejectionist. - December 23, 2011 at 7:51 AM
"Evolutionary biologists have given us a large body of evidence now that indicates that evolution built us, along with lots of other species to be moral. We observe proto-moral behaviors in all sorts of animals now, and we have a number of theories that about why evolution might have selected for altruism, sympathy, cooperation, and other social instincts. "
Here is the big problem. All those theories about how we evolved to have these moral beliefs have nothing to do with them being true.
The truth of whether it is good to be altruistic or cooperative or sympathetic has nothing to do with these theories. It could be morally wrong to have these traits and the theories would still work just as well.
Its interesting that you give several moral systems just like you give several different religious systems. But when you give the religious systems you suggest that just like we don't believe the majority of them we shouldn't believe say Christianity. But you withhold that logic when it comes to moral systems.
In fact you seem to imply the opposite that since there are so many theories (albeit contradictory theories) of how morality can work without God surely one is correct. - April 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM


text:
This is an example of a text widget which can be used to describe a particular service. You can also use other widgets in this location.
Examples of widgets that can be placed here in the footer are a calendar, latest tweets, recent comments, recent posts, search form, tag cloud or more.


text:
Astrology Atelier Zodiac Candle Cancer
- Gift Wrapping Availbale
- Free Shipping Available For Orders Over $150 *Conditions Apply
- In-Store Pickup Available - From 35 Booth St Annandale NSW 2038
- Low stock - 2 items left
- Inventory on the way
The DAN300 Astrology Atelier™ candle takes you on a celestial journey to your soul.
With the movement of the sun, stars and moon each star sign has a story and a zodiac. Our Astrology Atelier™ brings you closer to all the fascinating character traits, nuance and wonders of each star sign.
Fragrance- White flowers, Melon, Lotus and Vanilla with a Hint of Fir & Blackcurrant
The Dan300 Luxe scented candles are hand poured in Australia, using the highest quality non-toxic soy based wax and natural lead-free cotton wicks. All our candles are wick and safety tested.
We usually despatch within 48 hours, although on occasion we may be waiting for stock. We will do our best to accommodate a deadline. Why not call us to check stock availability?
We ship our goods throughout Australia and charge a flat rate shipping cost of $10.00 per order. Free shipping applies to all orders over $150.00. Flat rate shipping applies to all products under 3kg, additional charges may be applicable for bulky items and we will contact you accordingly.
The Corner Booth offers international shipping at a flat rate of $55. Bulky items may incur additional shipping charges and we will provide a quote based on weight and location of delivery. All duties and taxes will be the responsibility of the customer.
Our products at times may be available for Pre-Order and these will be marked with approximate delivery time. If your order includes pre-order items, we will ship your order once complete. Requests for partially shipped orders may incur additional shipping charges.
We endeavour to have all products on our website available for immediate delivery ( unless marked pre-order) on occasions some items may be out of stock. You will be contacted immediately in this instance and we will either order the item in for you or suggest an alternative.
To minimise our impact on the environment where possible we package orders in recycled boxes and packaging. Our boxes may not be pretty but it is one small step in minimising waste.
Our parcels are sent with couriers and tracking details will be provided. Deliveries are marked Authority To Leave which means the courier will leave your package in a safe place. Please contact us if a 'safe place' is not available and we will amend this.
We are not responsible for shipping delays, incorrectly addressed parcels or lost goods. We will endeavour to assist you, should we need to contact our shipping partners.
We accept Visa and Master Card .All prices shown include GST. Additional charges do not apply for our gift-wrapping service.


text:
- This event has passed.
PAP Sunday Brunch Buffet w/Bottomless Mimosas
November 27, 2022 @ 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
An event every week that begins at 11:00 am on Sunday, repeating indefinitely
Make Sundays your day for a good ol fashioned Haitian brunch & mimosas by chef Don Berto! PAP's Sunday brunch is ●$35● per person and will include a bowl of soup joumou, and an all you can eat brunch menu served buffet style with bottomless mimosas🥂. Don't drink? The cost will be ●$25● per person. Children 13 and under pay ●$17● for the brunch buffet and bottomless Orange Juice.
☆☆There will be a 90 min ⏰ seating limit☆☆
■■■BRUNCH Menu■■■
●Bowl of Soup Jou mou
●Mori en sos (stewed salted cod)
●Ke Bef (ox tail stew)
●Ze Fri (scrambled egg with potato and veg medley)
●Mayi Moulen Kole ak pwa rouj avek Zaboka (maize with red beans)
●Fig, Yanm, ak Patat Bouyi (boiled green bananas, yam and sweet potato)
●House churned ice cream
●Haitian tea or Haitian Coffee
👉🏿👉🏿The chef reserves the right to add items to the menu!😉
ALERT: Please be aware the kitchen will close at 2p and will reopen for PAP's regular Sunday Dinner menu at 3:30PM.


text:
Your Name:
Phone Number:
- Trendy leopard print faux fur coat- Oversized design- Buttton fasten in front - Two side pockets- 100% Acrylic
Delivery fee:
£10 +VAT (Order amount £1-£200)
£20 +VAT (Order amount £201-£500)
£30 +VAT (Order amount £501-£800)
£40 +VAT (Order amount £801-£1000)
£50 +VAT (Order amount £1001-£1500)
£60 +VAT (Order amount £1501-£2000)
More Than £2000 order, extra delivery invoice will be email to you in the next working day.
Delivery type: Next Day delivery
*Order is paid before 10:30AM, shipment will be processed in the same day
*Order is paid after 10:30AM, shipment will be processed in the next day.
Tracking Number will be email to you and online tracking is faster and easier.
Cargo Company:
*Please email or call us, if you want to use other shipping company.
If you have any questions related to your delivery please contact us
European Counties' delivery fee is based on items weight and destination. Please contact us and find out the delivery fee price.
Or Customer could arrange the cargo company to collect cartons from the showroom.
Outside European delivery is not available. Please arrange the cargo company to collect cartons from showroom. Certificate of Shipment is required from Cargo Company.
Search our store


text:
Soccerball.ai/Mirage (Genie Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc.) is one of the Largest Wholesale Distributors of AC mini split units in the United States. Looking for quality Air Conditioner units nearby? Contact us for a wide variety of heat pump, mini splits, room air conditioners, window air conditioners, PTAC, wall air conditioners, indoor and outdoor a/c units, and heating and cooling accessories for your AC needs. Wholesale Distributors is accomplished by our great buying power!
We are one of the largest wholesale distributors of air conditioner and heat pump ac mini split systems in the United States. Contact us for a wide variety of climate control systems. We carry top brands such as: Genie Aire, LG, Midea, Cooper and Hunter, Alice, Sophia, OLMO, Victoria, Frigidaire, Samsung, Soleus, Amana, Arctic King, General Electric, Emerson, and so many more. Soccerball Mirage.
15041 Calvert Street • Van Nuys, CA 91411(818) 785-4151 We Cover Thousands Of Cities ThroughoutThe United States!


text:
Let me first back up to a few months ago when we were remodeling our kitchen I bought a new garbage disposal and arranged for an installer to come put it in for me. The appointment was for 9 am but the time slipped by until the workman was an hour late. I had things to do and as I waited for him to come and do his job (which I'd already paid for at the store) I got more and more irritated until when he finally pulled into the driveway and rang the doorbell I was ready to get downright snippy with him.
But the funny thing was that when I opened the door all my rude intentions disappeared. He apologized for being late, saying that he'd drove in from the valley--a good hour drive--and got to work putting in my new garbage disposal. It occurred to me that the mere $50 I'd paid Lowe's to have him do this job hardly covered the cost of the gas for the round trip to my house, let alone the cost of his labor after Lowe's took their cut of the money. He looked tired and worn out but was polite and helpful. In fact, the salesperson who'd sold me the appliance had failed to tell me that I needed a certain piece of hardware for the installation. The workman kindly told me he had extra parts in his van which he gave me for no extra charge. For goodness sake, he probably lost money from the whole experience.
By the time his visit was over I was ashamed at myself for my initial irritation but was grateful that I'd at least had the self-control not to be rude. It surprises me, however, how many times I see people treating those in service-oriented jobs with appalling rudeness. It's as if some people think that if another person is providing a paid service that they're also being paid to be abused. Ticket agents, sales people, bank tellers, coaches, flight attendants, secretaries, waiters, they all deserve the courtesy that they're expected to afford their clients.
I hear complaints that customer service is a dying art but it seems no less accurate to say that the customers themselves aren't winning any points for manners. For example, I've always thought that to wait tables, even in the nicest restaurant, would be a tough job. You're on your feet late into the night, you're always trying to go faster, you're the middle man between the invisible kitchen and the hungry patron and you're often paid primarily out of tips. If the woman bringing me my dinner accidentally messes up my order, given the stress of the job I should certainly be able to cut her some slack. But if I'm rude to her what's my excuse? I wasn't getting my dinner fast enough? That's the way a child would respond, but it's surprising how many adults think that a little hunger justifies belligerence.
Rudeness is never justified. As soon as you stoop to sarcasm, offensiveness, disrespect or even plain old "speaking your mind" you've lost whatever high ground you may have had. If the service provided was poor talk to them about it or don't give them your business in the future, that's your right as a customer, but once you've said something belittling you've committed a worse offense. I've heard someone say that you can tell the measure of a person's character by what they do in private but character is no less defined by the way that one treats those in public who are working for or serving them. What has happened to the Golden Rule?
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Children watch adults and copy what they see. The guaranteed most effective way to teach a child to be polite and courteous is to practice what is preached. All the lectures from teachers and anti-bullying school programs in the world won't have half of the effect of a mother or father who have learned to keep their temper under great provocation.
For goodness sake, a good part of my job is being a laundress, waitress, short-order cook, janitor, chauffeur, tutor, banker, seamstress, gardener and teacher. If I want my children to respect what I'm doing and recognize the value of serving others, a good place to start would be to treat people who serve me with some kindness and respect. So on behalf of waitresses everywhere, let's teach our children that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt and a little compassion.
Congratulations to Elizabeth who won the beautiful hedgie mug from Purple Petunia in last week's Saturday Giveaway.
Technorati tags: parenting, motherhood, courtesy


text:
Order online or call us 028 3084 9798
Username or email *
Password *
Remember Me
Log in
Email address *
A password will be sent to your email address.
Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy.
No products in the cart.
There are no reviews yet.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked
Your review *
2 in stock
40 in stock
94 in stock
10 in stock
17 in stock
4 in stock
9 in stock
5 in stock
Cable Carrier
Bell Push White
4 Gang 2 Way Brush Chrome Switch
16A 24Hr Mechanical Timer
New Beats By Dre starting from $559.99
New iPhone 7 from $559.99
New XBox One plus Fifa17


text:
SIZE IN INCHES: 9.5" Long X 5" Wide X 3.2" High
SIZE IN CENTIMETRES: 24 Long X 13 Wide X 8 High
WEIGHT: 920 grams
Country of Origin: India
★★★★★Promita SahaYour Kamal Incense Stick Holder has brought so much beauty to my small temple. Thanks!!
Dombivli, Maharasthra
★★★★★Sai GeethaThey helped me exchange an order quickly and deliver it in time for my new home set-up. Very helpful to the end.
Hyderabad, Telangana
★★★★Mihir SenYour products are awesome - my only advice - your packaging should be better looking. Make it as good as your products.
Kolkatta, West Bengal
★★★★★Ritika AroraVisiting morataara.com is like opening a box of treasures. I find so many things, each one unique & so pretty...
Mumbai, Maharashtra
★★★★★Ruchi NehraIt was my first shopping experience with Mora Taara and it was superb, I'm totally in awe of this beautiful piece, thanks a lot:)
Hyderabad, Telangana
★★★★★Priyanka GhodeWonderful customer service, prompt delivery and outstanding products. I am waiting for the angels - I hope these will be back in stock soon!
Pune, Maharashtra
★★★★★Manju SwamyMy home is filled with Mora Taara products. Each one is an investment that I cherish. Quality is excellent.


text:
Fork and Beans
Making food fun for the family
May 23, 2013 by Cara Leave a Comment
Based in Chicago with her husband and son, Cara is the creator behind the site Fork and Beans: A place where kids can have fun with their food.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.