Baron-Cohen is a psychologist but his principal field of expertise is in cognitive neuroscience. However, it would be fair to say that he is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Gina Rippon and they disagree strongly on many matters, principally Baron-Cohen's empathising-systemising theory. I am no expert on this (indeed, not many people are) but it does mean that there are differing views and we should be aware of that.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:11 pmNigel Short complains that the author is not a neuroscientist, fails to answer the objections made by neuroscientists to his theory of hardwired gendered brains, and then quotes sources - none of which are neuroscientists. Baron Cohen is a psychologist.
Invisible pieces
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
-
Nigel Short
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am
Re: Invisible pieces
Well said. Thank you, John Moore.John Moore wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:47 pmBaron-Cohen is a psychologist but his principal field of expertise is in cognitive neuroscience. However, it would be fair to say that he is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Gina Rippon and they disagree strongly on many matters, principally Baron-Cohen's empathising-systemising theory. I am no expert on this (indeed, not many people are) but it does mean that there are differing views and we should be aware of that.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:11 pmNigel Short complains that the author is not a neuroscientist, fails to answer the objections made by neuroscientists to his theory of hardwired gendered brains, and then quotes sources - none of which are neuroscientists. Baron Cohen is a psychologist.
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
Let me say, Nigel, that I do not necessarily agree with your views. It is just that it is important to realise that there are views within the scientific community which differ from those of Gina Rippon in certain respects.
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
And none of this has anything to do with the original piece which Justin posted. That, I agree with earlier posters, is well worth reading.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Invisible pieces
This is true. We might struggle though to find views within the scientific community that agreed with those of the New In Chess piece.John Moore wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:04 pmLet me say, Nigel, that I do not necessarily agree with your views. It is just that it is important to realise that there are views within the scientific community which differ from those of Gina Rippon in certain respects.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:13 pmThis is true. We might struggle though to find views within the scientific community that agreed with those of the New In Chess piece.John Moore wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:04 pmLet me say, Nigel, that I do not necessarily agree with your views. It is just that it is important to realise that there are views within the scientific community which differ from those of Gina Rippon in certain respects.
-
Nigel Short
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am
Re: Invisible pieces
A BEAUTIFUL MINEFIELD - Nigel Short, in New in Chess.
“The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and … the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems” - Simon Baron-Cohen, Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge, and Fellow of the British Academy.
In issue two of NiC, this year, I wrote an article, “Vive la Difference” on the subject of women in chess. With a sprinkling of perspicacity, I correctly divined that the topic would prove controversial, although not at all for the reasons I imagined. Indeed, in the first few weeks following publication, the only feedback I received concerned my searing attack on the grandmistress of self-aggrandisement, Susan Polgar, whose highly implausible claim to have broken the world record for playing the most opponents simultaneously I called directly into question. While, predictably, this provoked a barrage of ad hominem barbs, in response, from Susan Polgar Inc. the one thing that has been conspicuously absent, as the chess historian, Edward Winter, dryly noted, has been any attempt to rebut my points. Without independent, verifiable evidence to support her claim, the alleged world record of the elder Polgar must be dismissed as a blatant deceit.
Somewhat naively – probably on account of my low EQ – I expected that this would comprise the full extent of any potential discord, as the rest of my article, on the differences in playing strength between men and women, was written in a subdued and uncharacteristically understated manner. I was very mistaken. On the 20th April an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Nigel Short: Girls Just Don’t Have the Brains to Play Chess”. Never mind the fact I didn’t say that, it was a catchy headline to set me up as a misogynist pantomime villain. In extraordinary rapid succession came a whole series of similar articles, in the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, many with totally fabricated quotes and grotesque distortions- such as the Daily Mail’s “Women aren’t smart enough to play chess because the game requires logical thinking, says British Grandmaster”, despite me having said nothing at all about logic. The story quickly spread throughout the world. Articles swiftly appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, the New Zealand Herald, Der Spiegel, Time, and The Huffington Post. I was interviewed for Sky News and for CNN Sport. The subject was discussed on Indian TV; I was called a “jerk” on Fox, and was repeatedly called a “tw*t” by one female presenter in New Zealand. And this was just the tip of the iceberg: I simply couldn’t keep track of the countless dozens, or hundreds, of other articles in Canada, Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.
What was very clear about this media frenzy is that hardly any journalists, apart from the Telegraph’s Leon Watson, who broke the story, had actually read my original piece. Furthermore, I would go so far as to state that various members of this honorable profession willfully misrepresented my views. The simple fact of the matter is that men play better chess than women. A quick glance at the top 100 reveals that only two of them are female (an historical high, incidentally). In August, that figure will drop to one when Judit Polgar disappears from the ranking list due to inactivity. Only a simpleton (and apparently there are a good many of those) would fallaciously argue that because Judit has a good personal score against me, that this somehow disproves the general point. The gender gap is enormous. The real question is “Why?”
At no point in my article did I ever suggest that societal pressures, or overt and covert sexism, might not account for a large chunk of this disparity. Indeed, I strongly suspect they do. As an approximate means of gauging this, it would be an interesting area for future research to compare the chess gender gap in countries where women traditionally have low status – for example, for religious reasons – with the gender gap in more liberal countries where their status is ostensibly higher. My hypothesis is that there will be a statistically significant difference between the groups. Nevertheless, given the fact that in no single country in the world are women the chess equal (never mind superior) of men, my contention is that biology is the residual factor that cannot be glossed over, or ignored.
Men and women have such dissimilar brains it is implausible to expect their cognitive functions to be identical. For a start, men have roughly 6.5 times more grey matter; women have 9.5 times more white matter. The latticework of synaptical connections between the two hemispheres is denser in females than males. Sexual dimorphism is noticeable in the hippocampus, the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Male brains are also 10% larger on average (certain malicious editors cited this statement of fact as evidence of my sexism – pretending that I either don’t know or understand that it is closely correlated to body size). Indeed sex differences in the encephalon are observable even in fetuses, as early as 26 weeks. Circumstantial evidence suggests women are inherently less interested in the game. Given how early this divergence starts, the phenomenon is unlikely to be explained wholly by nurture. Aggression -essentially the effect of a sex hormone, testosterone, working on the mental organ - might be another factor giving men the edge. In most cases, biology is fundamental.
This, then, is the nub of my argument: while it is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to define exactly which combination of attributes is necessary to become a strong chess player, the existence of fundamentally different cerebral structures between the sexes is, in my view, the ultimate irreducible obstacle to equality in this specific field. It is vital, however, to distinguish between the worthy attempt to scientifically identify and understand sex differences, and stereotyping. The former is useful, whereas the latter – assigning the general characteristics of a group to an individual – is potentially discriminatory and deeply damaging. The point is not that women are incapable of playing good chess - because clearly some of them can - rather that they are less likely to do so, on average.
Depending on one’s political hue, the existence of separate competitions and inferior titles for women is evidence that the chess world is either irredeemably sexist, or that it has pragmatically acknowledged reality. My personal inclination would be to abolish honors on the grounds that they encourage women to aim too low, although this would undoubtedly cause howls of discontent from many (but by no means all) current and aspiring holders. Setting a higher benchmark would at least go some way to narrowing the ability chasm. Incidentally, while, since this topic went viral, we have heard plenty about the (very real) disadvantages under which women in chess labour, we have heard rather less about the advantages they enjoy: a male professional with an Elo rating of 2500, residing in an advanced economy, would be practically destitute if he would rely solely on playing as a means of livelihood, whereas an equivalent female – while never in the slightest danger of becoming affluent – can survive in tolerable comfort, thanks to additional opportunities and prizes.
The feminist lobby has become so tyrannical in its shrill orthodoxy, harping on about nurture over nature, sometimes almost to the point of denying the latter, that my innocent comment, in “Vive la Difference”, that my wife frequently asks me to reverse the car (uphill, at an angle) out of our narrow garage has been paraded as conclusive proof of sexism (perhaps it was just as well that I didn’t mention that my daughter also asks me to do the same). Nevertheless, whether one likes it or not, numerous studies show that men, on average, consistently outperform women in spatial tasks. In contrast, meta-analysis gives women the edge in verbal skills.
Society has, in other ways, thankfully become far more tolerant of diversity. For millennia, homosexuals have been vilified, ostracised, imprisoned and sometimes even killed. As the recent referendum on gay marriage in Ireland shows, they are steadily being accorded more respect and legal rights. In 2008, scientists at the Karolinska Institute, in Sweden, demonstrated that the brain structure of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did of straight men. Conversely, the brains of gay women are asymmetrical like those of heterosexual males. In other words, gays are not primarily attracted to their own sex out of upbringing, but are simply born that way. Their brains are “hard-wired” differently, if you like (a convenient expression, notwithstanding the organ’s considerable plasticity). It would be fascinating to research whether gay males are under-represented in the upper echelons of chess. As I know of only one openly gay player in the top 100, I rather suspect they are, although one should bear in mind that, for obvious reasons, such as fear of ridicule or persecution, some are coy about revealing their own sexuality. Alas, further exploration of this beautiful minefield of a topic will have to wait for another day...
“The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and … the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems” - Simon Baron-Cohen, Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge, and Fellow of the British Academy.
In issue two of NiC, this year, I wrote an article, “Vive la Difference” on the subject of women in chess. With a sprinkling of perspicacity, I correctly divined that the topic would prove controversial, although not at all for the reasons I imagined. Indeed, in the first few weeks following publication, the only feedback I received concerned my searing attack on the grandmistress of self-aggrandisement, Susan Polgar, whose highly implausible claim to have broken the world record for playing the most opponents simultaneously I called directly into question. While, predictably, this provoked a barrage of ad hominem barbs, in response, from Susan Polgar Inc. the one thing that has been conspicuously absent, as the chess historian, Edward Winter, dryly noted, has been any attempt to rebut my points. Without independent, verifiable evidence to support her claim, the alleged world record of the elder Polgar must be dismissed as a blatant deceit.
Somewhat naively – probably on account of my low EQ – I expected that this would comprise the full extent of any potential discord, as the rest of my article, on the differences in playing strength between men and women, was written in a subdued and uncharacteristically understated manner. I was very mistaken. On the 20th April an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Nigel Short: Girls Just Don’t Have the Brains to Play Chess”. Never mind the fact I didn’t say that, it was a catchy headline to set me up as a misogynist pantomime villain. In extraordinary rapid succession came a whole series of similar articles, in the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, many with totally fabricated quotes and grotesque distortions- such as the Daily Mail’s “Women aren’t smart enough to play chess because the game requires logical thinking, says British Grandmaster”, despite me having said nothing at all about logic. The story quickly spread throughout the world. Articles swiftly appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, the New Zealand Herald, Der Spiegel, Time, and The Huffington Post. I was interviewed for Sky News and for CNN Sport. The subject was discussed on Indian TV; I was called a “jerk” on Fox, and was repeatedly called a “tw*t” by one female presenter in New Zealand. And this was just the tip of the iceberg: I simply couldn’t keep track of the countless dozens, or hundreds, of other articles in Canada, Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.
What was very clear about this media frenzy is that hardly any journalists, apart from the Telegraph’s Leon Watson, who broke the story, had actually read my original piece. Furthermore, I would go so far as to state that various members of this honorable profession willfully misrepresented my views. The simple fact of the matter is that men play better chess than women. A quick glance at the top 100 reveals that only two of them are female (an historical high, incidentally). In August, that figure will drop to one when Judit Polgar disappears from the ranking list due to inactivity. Only a simpleton (and apparently there are a good many of those) would fallaciously argue that because Judit has a good personal score against me, that this somehow disproves the general point. The gender gap is enormous. The real question is “Why?”
At no point in my article did I ever suggest that societal pressures, or overt and covert sexism, might not account for a large chunk of this disparity. Indeed, I strongly suspect they do. As an approximate means of gauging this, it would be an interesting area for future research to compare the chess gender gap in countries where women traditionally have low status – for example, for religious reasons – with the gender gap in more liberal countries where their status is ostensibly higher. My hypothesis is that there will be a statistically significant difference between the groups. Nevertheless, given the fact that in no single country in the world are women the chess equal (never mind superior) of men, my contention is that biology is the residual factor that cannot be glossed over, or ignored.
Men and women have such dissimilar brains it is implausible to expect their cognitive functions to be identical. For a start, men have roughly 6.5 times more grey matter; women have 9.5 times more white matter. The latticework of synaptical connections between the two hemispheres is denser in females than males. Sexual dimorphism is noticeable in the hippocampus, the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Male brains are also 10% larger on average (certain malicious editors cited this statement of fact as evidence of my sexism – pretending that I either don’t know or understand that it is closely correlated to body size). Indeed sex differences in the encephalon are observable even in fetuses, as early as 26 weeks. Circumstantial evidence suggests women are inherently less interested in the game. Given how early this divergence starts, the phenomenon is unlikely to be explained wholly by nurture. Aggression -essentially the effect of a sex hormone, testosterone, working on the mental organ - might be another factor giving men the edge. In most cases, biology is fundamental.
This, then, is the nub of my argument: while it is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to define exactly which combination of attributes is necessary to become a strong chess player, the existence of fundamentally different cerebral structures between the sexes is, in my view, the ultimate irreducible obstacle to equality in this specific field. It is vital, however, to distinguish between the worthy attempt to scientifically identify and understand sex differences, and stereotyping. The former is useful, whereas the latter – assigning the general characteristics of a group to an individual – is potentially discriminatory and deeply damaging. The point is not that women are incapable of playing good chess - because clearly some of them can - rather that they are less likely to do so, on average.
Depending on one’s political hue, the existence of separate competitions and inferior titles for women is evidence that the chess world is either irredeemably sexist, or that it has pragmatically acknowledged reality. My personal inclination would be to abolish honors on the grounds that they encourage women to aim too low, although this would undoubtedly cause howls of discontent from many (but by no means all) current and aspiring holders. Setting a higher benchmark would at least go some way to narrowing the ability chasm. Incidentally, while, since this topic went viral, we have heard plenty about the (very real) disadvantages under which women in chess labour, we have heard rather less about the advantages they enjoy: a male professional with an Elo rating of 2500, residing in an advanced economy, would be practically destitute if he would rely solely on playing as a means of livelihood, whereas an equivalent female – while never in the slightest danger of becoming affluent – can survive in tolerable comfort, thanks to additional opportunities and prizes.
The feminist lobby has become so tyrannical in its shrill orthodoxy, harping on about nurture over nature, sometimes almost to the point of denying the latter, that my innocent comment, in “Vive la Difference”, that my wife frequently asks me to reverse the car (uphill, at an angle) out of our narrow garage has been paraded as conclusive proof of sexism (perhaps it was just as well that I didn’t mention that my daughter also asks me to do the same). Nevertheless, whether one likes it or not, numerous studies show that men, on average, consistently outperform women in spatial tasks. In contrast, meta-analysis gives women the edge in verbal skills.
Society has, in other ways, thankfully become far more tolerant of diversity. For millennia, homosexuals have been vilified, ostracised, imprisoned and sometimes even killed. As the recent referendum on gay marriage in Ireland shows, they are steadily being accorded more respect and legal rights. In 2008, scientists at the Karolinska Institute, in Sweden, demonstrated that the brain structure of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did of straight men. Conversely, the brains of gay women are asymmetrical like those of heterosexual males. In other words, gays are not primarily attracted to their own sex out of upbringing, but are simply born that way. Their brains are “hard-wired” differently, if you like (a convenient expression, notwithstanding the organ’s considerable plasticity). It would be fascinating to research whether gay males are under-represented in the upper echelons of chess. As I know of only one openly gay player in the top 100, I rather suspect they are, although one should bear in mind that, for obvious reasons, such as fear of ridicule or persecution, some are coy about revealing their own sexuality. Alas, further exploration of this beautiful minefield of a topic will have to wait for another day...
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
Nigel - I think that this will simply reignite an argument which might best be described as people with inadequate powers trying to batter each other with weapons they don't fully understand. I think that it might have been better left alone.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3495
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Invisible pieces
Hi Nick,
He could have done for all we know.
This anonymous post, has caused what it set it out to do, got everyone arguing.
Hi Justin,
"Because they say so and because they also give some very good reasons because a woman might
wish to remain anonymous and because you might like to think about respecting those reasons."
I'd have more respect if 'she/he or they' used their name or named names.
Justin, you usually demand sources, names and proof. Yet you suddenly accept this on 'their say so.'
Nobody should feel they have to hide behind a wall of anonymity.
If someone is being bullied, flamed or net molested on some chess site then report them, name them.
If the site does not boot them off then go public. It's the only way to sort these people out.
Chess sites may suffer cheats with a shrug of the shoulders but this kind of nonsense cannot be ignored
there is only one way to stamp it out. Name, Blame and Shame. I'm sure the support will be forthcoming.
This subject always set up sides and tempers flare, it's a trolls wet dream.
(I suspect Carl will happen along soon and lock it or close it down.)
Personally I thought the article lacked guts and credibility , he said, she said, I have a friend...
And these two 80 year old look-a-likes sound like they stepped straight out of a Jim Davidson joke book.
Now we are onto quoting experts in their chosen fields - how can they be experts if they disagree with each other.
one of them must be wrong, so one of them is not an expert. (chandler logic in all it's glory.)
An anonymous article written by a man (my expert said so) that includes, Fischer, Short and the Polgars, guess what it is about?
He could have done for all we know.
This anonymous post, has caused what it set it out to do, got everyone arguing.
Hi Justin,
"Because they say so and because they also give some very good reasons because a woman might
wish to remain anonymous and because you might like to think about respecting those reasons."
I'd have more respect if 'she/he or they' used their name or named names.
Justin, you usually demand sources, names and proof. Yet you suddenly accept this on 'their say so.'
Nobody should feel they have to hide behind a wall of anonymity.
If someone is being bullied, flamed or net molested on some chess site then report them, name them.
If the site does not boot them off then go public. It's the only way to sort these people out.
Chess sites may suffer cheats with a shrug of the shoulders but this kind of nonsense cannot be ignored
there is only one way to stamp it out. Name, Blame and Shame. I'm sure the support will be forthcoming.
This subject always set up sides and tempers flare, it's a trolls wet dream.
(I suspect Carl will happen along soon and lock it or close it down.)
Personally I thought the article lacked guts and credibility , he said, she said, I have a friend...
And these two 80 year old look-a-likes sound like they stepped straight out of a Jim Davidson joke book.
Now we are onto quoting experts in their chosen fields - how can they be experts if they disagree with each other.
one of them must be wrong, so one of them is not an expert. (chandler logic in all it's glory.)
An anonymous article written by a man (my expert said so) that includes, Fischer, Short and the Polgars, guess what it is about?
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
Anyway, I'd quite like to watch some chess - except, damn, Sunway Sitges seems not to be on and the European Blitz qualifiers is not of the slightest interest - to me, at least.
-
Kevin Thurlow
- Posts: 5834
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
Geoff Chandler - the voice of reason!
One point maybe needs clarification - "Now we are onto quoting experts in their chosen fields - how can they be experts if they disagree with each other. one of them must be wrong, so one of them is not an expert. (chandler logic in all it's glory.)"
Science works like that - someone says, "I think A is true." Someone else says, "No it isn't." If it's chemistry or physics, you might find a resolution. In some areas, you have conflicting theories and nobody ever finds out if either person is right. (They might both be wrong of course!)
One point maybe needs clarification - "Now we are onto quoting experts in their chosen fields - how can they be experts if they disagree with each other. one of them must be wrong, so one of them is not an expert. (chandler logic in all it's glory.)"
Science works like that - someone says, "I think A is true." Someone else says, "No it isn't." If it's chemistry or physics, you might find a resolution. In some areas, you have conflicting theories and nobody ever finds out if either person is right. (They might both be wrong of course!)
-
Gerard Killoran
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Invisible pieces
I suggest you read this summary of the neuroscientific research in the field - written by a Professor of Neuroscience.John Moore wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:47 pmBaron-Cohen is a psychologist but his principal field of expertise is in cognitive neuroscience. However, it would be fair to say that he is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Gina Rippon and they disagree strongly on many matters, principally Baron-Cohen's empathising-systemising theory. I am no expert on this (indeed, not many people are) but it does mean that there are differing views and we should be aware of that.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:11 pmNigel Short complains that the author is not a neuroscientist, fails to answer the objections made by neuroscientists to his theory of hardwired gendered brains, and then quotes sources - none of which are neuroscientists. Baron Cohen is a psychologist.
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0 ... 3Dtrue#%20
From
https://www.theguardian.com/life/news/p ... 43,00.html
'Baron-Cohen's theory is that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and that the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems. He calls it the empathising-systemising (E-S) theory.' Really? This controversial to say the least.
-
John Moore
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Invisible pieces
Gerard, Lise Eliot is one of those who agree with Gina Rippon's views so you would expect her summary, if that's what it is, to be slanted in that direction. So, I don't think that I will read it. As I said, I am no expert.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Invisible pieces
Why not look at the reasons she gave for being anonymous and have some respect for those. If you can't, who cares how much respect you have?Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:45 pmI'd have more respect if 'she/he or they' used their name or named names.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Invisible pieces
Ah yes, I particularly remember this bit.Nigel Short wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:33 pm
The feminist lobby has become so tyrannical in its shrill orthodoxy
Serves the purpose of reminding us why the lichess piece was written in the first place.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com