1. Comment #154943 by Verylee on April 4, 2008 at 2:54 am

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

Unbalanced being the operative word.

Other Comments by Verylee

2. Comment #154945 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 2:56 am

Well of course there's an unbalanced debate. But that's not exactly our fault is it? When you crazy creationists come up with some evidence, or anything even remotely resembling a decent argument, the debate might be a tad more balanced eh? We'd gladly give it to you if we could think of one, but sadly for you we can't make your position sound any more credible either...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #154948 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 2:59 am

Am I missing something? Is the Free Church creationist? Does that mean that David Robertson is one of the saner ones, trying to drag them into the 19th century?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

4. Comment #154949 by faouloki on April 4, 2008 at 2:59 am

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

I find it odd whenever I hear that religious people feel there is unbalanced debate when it comes to issues such as evolution.

Aside from the fact that Professor Dawkins has and continues to take part in debates with religious figures, and that there is always a right to reply, be it through the press, online or in Churches etc. There have also been thousands of years of persecution against people who go against the accepted religion of those in power; be it through believing in a different religion or by having no religion at all. Maybe they would prefer it if we were all silenced, like we would have been in the good old days?

Other Comments by faouloki

5. Comment #154950 by Ygern on April 4, 2008 at 3:00 am

To my mind the real debate is between science and 'rational' Christians - whether one can really reconcile the two or whether the one flat out disproves the other.

Creationism is just a gibbering idiot frothing on the sidelines, it doesn't really belong in this debate at all.

Other Comments by Ygern

6. Comment #154951 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 3:01 am

Creationism is just a gibbering idiot frothing on the sidelines, it doesn't really belong in this debate at all.

The problem is that it is a rather large and menacing idiot.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

7. Comment #154954 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:03 am

So Robertson turns out to be a creationist?

Other Comments by Bonzai

8. Comment #154955 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

I hope there is going to be a fuller summary of the event than this.

Anyway-

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution

Yes there is. It's due to the overwhelming mountain of evidence against creationism. All we need is some creationist evidence to make the debate more balanced.

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

9. Comment #154956 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 3:05 am

Bonzai-
It's starting to look like that!

Quetz-
I am surprised that Robertson made anything clear. Also, can we trust what he says?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #154957 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 am

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man who will use, abuse or distort anything he can lay his sweaty hands on in order to make himself feel important and worthwhile. I really don't think it matters to him what is actually true or not, just whether he can use it to score points in his own crazy little game of self-aggrandisement.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

11. Comment #154960 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 am

Well while atheists "come out", Robertson was outed as a creationist. Got to ask him next time..

Other Comments by Bonzai

12. Comment #154961 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 am

Comment #154957 by Cartomancer

OK, that sounds like a reasonable summary of Robertson to me. However, the idea of the FCOS supporting creationism in any way is fascinating.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

13. Comment #154962 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

Interesting take on all this here:

"A Date with Dawkins"

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=110603

Note the names of some of the protestors in this article:

Donald Boyd: Used to be a pastor in the hyper fundy Free Presbyterian Church. Done for adultery. No longer a minister in said church

Sandy Shaw. Charismaniac nutter (apologies - tautology there) Stood as a candidate for the homophobic "Scottish Christian party" in last years Holyrood elections.

Notice also, the comments that folow the article - before the feedback even gets started they are arguing over bible versions.

Irate Atheist, please supply the verdict!!!!

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

14. Comment #154963 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

Steve-

I'll qualify my statement. He made it clear that he's not a YEC. He could believe that humanity was specially created. He did mention Adam & Eve in his talk, but never elaborated. I think he was honest about not being a YEC.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

15. Comment #154968 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:14 am

Steve.

One thing that can be said about David is that he is not YEC. Maybe OEC but not YEC

If he were YEC, it would bring him into the uber-fundy camp which he knows is lethal.

He's trying to pitch a "cool calvinism" a la Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Or else Tim Keller and Redeemer Church in NYC

If you want to find the theological position he occupies, these guys are probably the closest.

Of course, others in his church may have other ideas......

SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

16. Comment #154969 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

If Robertson is not a creationist, then it is even more unethical for him to join the creationist chorus to demand "balance", because he is asking for equal time for what even he himself considers lies.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #154972 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #154963 by Quetzalcoatl

I wonder if he really knows what he believes, or if he changes chamaeleon-like to suit his audience.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #154977 by Hobbit on April 4, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #154955 by Quetzalcoatl

EDIT- Robertson isn't a creationist, his Bedford talk made that clear. Some in FCOS are, however.

Hang on, they want a balanced debate when they can't even decide amongst themselves what their position is.

Give me a break!

Other Comments by Hobbit

19. Comment #154980 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:24 am

And just to keep to the Pythonesque theme of this sorry business, Derick Gilliesd is NOT Free Church . He is actually a member of the "Free Church (Continuing)"

The FC(C) is a breakaway church from the FC. They broke away in 2000 over numerous issues, main one of which was the FC's failure to deal properly with allegations of adultery against a FC College professor

You cant make this stuff up. You honestly cant.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

20. Comment #154981 by troyreynolds86 on April 4, 2008 at 3:27 am

This may only be my naive little brain being unable to ascend to higher thoughts, but to what extent are religious people ever not creationists to some extent?

Though some may shun the idea of people just being popped into existence in some garden paradise in exchange for a different mechanism of our development (evolution, for instance), is there really any major difference? A religionist who accepts our descent from other species does so with a keen devotion to the idea that some god micromanaging the entire process, pulling the intricate levers of selection pressure. How very different are the IDer of the irreducible complexity, the YEC and the evolutionary religionist really when we get to the heart of the matter?

Troy

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

21. Comment #154984 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:31 am

More comment from the local nverness newspaper here:

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5695/Dawkins_warns_of_human_extinction_.html

Heres an absolute cracker of a comment:

A protester who gave his name only as Kenny the Christian stood outside as people filed into the lecture.

The 62-year-old said he had travelled from Dornoch to tell people about God's love. "I am here motivated by the love for the people who are attending this meeting," he said.

"Secular fundamentalism is sweeping this nation and people are being deceived by the devil. The devil works through people.

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker and he has expressed this boldly. He believes in evolution, that nothing produces everything. But God produces everything."

(picks self up off floor after an amazingly sore ROFLMAO...)

:-))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

22. Comment #154986 by scottishgeologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:34 am

Hobbit

In the FCOS, you'll get the whole spectrum from YEC through OEC to Theistic Evolution.

And that is supposed to be a "conservative" church.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

23. Comment #154987 by BillySands on April 4, 2008 at 3:36 am

Why were these muppets not at the prayer meetings that prevented rev fanny baws to attend?

Isn't it great when Robertson's own fundies prove he is talking shit about christian tolerance - I know I shouldn't laugh at the pathetic, but fuck it!

Ha ha hahahahahahahahaahahahah


ha

Author of The God Delusion appears despite sore throat.

If he were a god botherer he would have prayed to his sky daddy about this. Being an atheist, he has no such retarded mentality about it and just gets on with it.
The idea that someone doesn't need an invisible friend to hold their hand must have Jesus spinning in his grave.

ha

Other Comments by BillySands

24. Comment #154989 by Duff on April 4, 2008 at 3:41 am

This "unbalanced debate" silliness reminds me of something Bertrand Russell said: "Religion is just the traditionalists fighting in vain against new knowledge." It is an unbalanced debate all right, just not in the way the religionists envision it.

It must be debilitating for them to know they are always going to lose. Poor things.

Other Comments by Duff

25. Comment #154990 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

This would have to be the funniest quote I've seen for quite a while! Atheists publish a handful of well-selling (I'm not even going to say 'best selling' - Rick Warren's christian apologist book "The purpose driven life" alone has outsold TGD by about 20-fold) books over a span of 3 or 4 years and suddenly the 'debate' becomes unbalanced? Haven't we just endured 2,000 years of a virtual monopoly by the Christian Churches in the West over people's thoughts, behaviours, and moral and ethical standards and they have the gall to say now that they're not getting a fair go!? You must be effing joking!! Unhinged would be a better description of Derick's statement, I would have thought...

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

26. Comment #154991 by Ygern on April 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

The problem is that it is a rather large and menacing idiot.

I've never really seen them as menacing.

Tiresome in that no matter how badly they are trounced & disproven, they keep on coming back with the same old codswollop.
Problematic in that they insist on teaching lies to children.
Deceitful in that they have no intention of ever educating themselves.

Maybe my point of view is skewed by the fact that up until now Creationists are relatively thin on the ground on this particular side of the pond (Ireland).

Other Comments by Ygern

27. Comment #154993 by osoiretsim le on April 4, 2008 at 3:46 am

Boobies!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Booby_chick.jpg/250px-Booby_chick.jpg

Other Comments by osoiretsim le

28. Comment #154994 by Freelance Scientist on April 4, 2008 at 3:47 am

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

This still confuses me to this day. There seems to be the implication that creationism and evolution are two opposing beliefs ?

One is there to be either believed or not believed.

The other is there to be understood or not understood.

Amazingly evolution appears not to require belief, only understanding.

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

29. Comment #154995 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 3:48 am

Oh, and why do there never seem to be 'outspoken Christianists' giving lectures? There do seem to be quite a few of them about the place you know!

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

30. Comment #154996 by osoiretsim le on April 4, 2008 at 3:54 am

More boobies:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:GfH_TGXAN261EM:http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/Booby_nazca-masked-RLP.jpg

Other Comments by osoiretsim le

31. Comment #155004 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 4:15 am

Another review from Inverness here:

http://theviewfromthepond.blogspot.com/2008/04/dawkins-in-inverness.html

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

32. Comment #155006 by Stafford Gordon on April 4, 2008 at 4:16 am

If only they would stop wasting time squealing and listen to the evidence.

They're so used to having what they proclaim accepted by their flock that they probably feel their power base is threatened when another view point is put forward; hence the pre-emptive strikes as an attempt to stifle debate.

Evolution and god are totally different matters. The first is established and as far as the second is concerned if god exists we all found out soon enough and if not it's irrelevant.

I only worry about the effect all this stuff has on children; it's vital that youngsters be left to make up their own minds.

Preacher, leave that kid alone!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

33. Comment #155011 by Paula Kirby on April 4, 2008 at 4:27 am

Quetz I hope there is going to be a fuller summary of the event than this.

What would you like to know? :-)

There's also a slightly longer article in today's Inverness Courier, but it hasn't reached their website yet - I'm sure it will within the next day or so.

And the event was filmed and the plan is that it will be on both the UHI and Richard Dawkins websites as soon as possible (Josh is a bit snowed under with the backlog from Richard's US tour at the moment, I gather).

Poor Richard was suffering from a nearly-lost voice, and it was an incredibly intensive event, with him as the focal point for the best part of two hours - quite draining even when your voice IS working properly, I should imagine.

The biggest challenge for me as his on-stage interviewer was what level to pitch the questions at, given that we only had 40-45 minutes and that I wanted to cover science as well as religion. I also wanted to avoid questions that were extremely likely to be covered during the audience Q&A session anyway, whilst at the same time covering enough of the basics for those people in the audience who would only know Richard from reviews to TGD, and the flea books, rather than from actually having read anything of his for themselves.

So, so far as I can remember, I started off by asking what it was about science that thrilled Richard so much and made it, in his view, the best way of gaining knowledge about the world; then an outline of evolution - what it is, how it works, and the evidence that makes it such a certainty; then a brief detour to The Selfish Gene, as an opportunity to clarify what that really meant, which Richard also then used as an opportunity to explain why "Social Darwinism" does not in any way have to follow from "Darwinism". This was followed by an explanation of why humans should not be seen as the desired end-point of evolution, and why the claim of some Christians that evolution is simply God's method of creating humans simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This all took up rather more than half of our allotted time.

From there I moved onto TGD, and the hostile response to it, asking Richard to explain why he thought the response had been so hostile. I asked him to explain succinctly his main arguments for "why there is almost certainly no god"; and whether he had any sympathy for the view that religion is a purely private matter and is therefore an inappropriate object of his kind of opposition. To this Richard responded that he wouldn't mind nearly so much if only religious people WOULD treat it as a purely private matter and would stop ramming it down everyone else's throats - which elicited one of the most enthusiastic rounds of applause of the evening! And, of course, he outlined as well a number of the ways in which religion exercises undue influence on public discourse and ethical debates. Finally (I think - I don't have my notes to hand at the moment), I asked about the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and its objectives - and with that my time was up and I went and sat in the audience for the rest of the event, which was devoted to Q&A with the audience.

There was the best part of an hour for this, so there were a LOT of questions and they were pretty well balanced between those asked by atheists and those asked by Christians. There were some interesting questions, but also some pretty odd ones - on both sides, it has to be said.

One questioner was drunk (a colleague of mine had been sitting in front of him so was in a position to confirm this!) and slurred his way through a question which he then repeated several times over, until the whole of the audience was just laughing and Gary Robertson, the chairman at this point, had to become quite assertive to get him to stop. Another asked a very bizarre question about why, if a 25-year-old man reproduces with a 25-year-old woman, the resulting embryo doesn't also start life at 25 years old ..... (I told you it was bizarre).

But "bizarre" was also in evidence from the religious side of the audience, with one chap (who I gather from some of the comments above may have been from the Free Church Continuing) claiming that God is proven by his ability to prophesy the future, as demonstrated by the Old Testament. Richard and Gary both asked him more than once for some examples, to which the questioner repeatedly replied "These arguments are extremely familiar to Christians" ... which didn't clarify matters much. However, he finally proffered a prophecy from Daniel that the Messiah would die before the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Now, call me pedantic, but it strikes me that MILLIONS of people would have died between the date of that "prophecy" and the destruction of the Temple so that leaves an awful lot of people in the frame as potential Messiahs. This was truly very odd.

And yes, the final question came from someone who I have today learned is a pastor, who asked Richard what he had to say to someone who had walked with the risen Jesus all his life and KNEW he was real. To which Richard replied that he didn't for one moment doubt his sincerity, but that the power of the brain to mislead us is well documented and that he (Richard) believed that the questioner was hallucinating.

There was a very nice question from someone who said she didn't find it too hard to imagine how chimpanzees might evolve into humans (yes, I know that isn't QUITE how it happened!) but found it harder to imagine how bacteria might have evolved into chimpanzees - to which Richard gave an absolutely spectacular reply, outlining 4 billion years of evolution in about 3 minutes. And this got the other huge round of applause of the event.

All in all the audience was much more positive than I'd thought might be the case. I got the impression that there were a lot of people there who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves as atheists as such but who were sick and tired of having religion rammed down their throats and were delighted that someone was standing up to that at last - especially here of all places.

Loads of very positive comments about the event from the audience as they went out, as well as delight that Inverness had actually managed to put on an event like this; and, of course, a very significant book-signing queue as well. Lots of happy, smiley faces. Though I did see a few frowny ones in the audience too!

I hope this fairly full description doesn't spoil the video when it's available - but it'll always be more fun to watch it for yourselves than to read about it anyway.

As for me, well, I just had the most fantastic time and enjoyed every minute of it. I'm afraid the rest of 2008 is likely to be something of an anticlimax after the excitement of the last few days.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

34. Comment #155014 by RobDinsmore on April 4, 2008 at 4:30 am

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man who will use, abuse or distort anything he can lay his sweaty hands on in order to make himself feel important and worthwhile. I really don't think it matters to him what is actually true or not, just whether he can use it to score points in his own crazy little game of self-aggrandisement.

I don't think it is fair to call these people dishonest. They are more then likely fully unaware of how irrational their beliefs and behavior are. True they certainly ignore evidence that contradicts their ideas, but it is because their ideas control their mental programming. Or in other words their minds are pretty much impaired and we should probably feel sorry for them more than we should attribute malicious intent to their actions.

But the problem with labeling them as mentally defective is that it is just as "offensive" to these people as calling them liars. But I do believe we can use softer terms and promote the ideas that religious people are blindly controlled by their own personal bias and that their actions and statements reflect this aspect of human psychology rather than active dishonesty, which would require them to really know that they are wrong.

He may not be a full fledged creationist, but he certainly has a strong belief in the xtian god and he is desperately defending his belief, because for some reason that too is a common human behavior.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

35. Comment #155016 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 4:33 am

Well done Paula. I'm glad it went OK.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #155018 by Enlightenme.. on April 4, 2008 at 4:35 am

Treyreynols86,
Quite right - even a Deist who clings to a belief in the great knob-twiddler is still a creationist.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

37. Comment #155024 by Enlightenme.. on April 4, 2008 at 4:49 am

"I hope this fairly full description doesn't spoil the video when it's available - but it'll always be more fun to watch it for yourselves than to read about it anyway."

Agreed.
Paula, I don't want to stifle, please don't be tempted to tell us any further whodunnitt - I'm looking forward to when the film comes out!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

38. Comment #155026 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 4:52 am

RobinDinsmore, comment #34 -

With most relgious people I would be inclined to agree with you, but as far as Robertson goes I think he has demonstrated outright, knowing duplicity on this very site far too many times to be let off with the excuse that his mental programming makes him do it.

Just ask Paula Kirby...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

39. Comment #155030 by Enlightenme.. on April 4, 2008 at 4:56 am

RobDinsmore - Apologist for apologists

Sorry! ;)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

40. Comment #155033 by Dr Benway on April 4, 2008 at 4:58 am

The protesters didn't get the memo. The "creationist vs. evolutionist" debate is over. That gap for God has closed. Give it up. Move on.

Take cheer in the last gap you have: subjectivity.

If Robertson is there with a little group of creationists, he's batting for their team regardless of what he says to a more enlightened crowd.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #155034 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:59 am

Paula-

glad you enjoyed it. I'll definitely watch the video when it's available.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

42. Comment #155045 by serendipity1 on April 4, 2008 at 5:28 am

"unbalanced debate"

Classic stuff - wonder what the reaction would be if I stood outside my local church service this Sunday protesting about the unbalanced debate going on inside .......

Other Comments by serendipity1

43. Comment #155051 by black wolf on April 4, 2008 at 5:36 am

One of the Christians at the FCOS site left a respectable and somewhat insightful comment. She said that all the preaching of scripture, handing out tracts and claiming fulfilled prophecies will get them nowhere, as she realized that these are meaningless to someone who doesn't believe in the basis for them in the first place. She said that what needs to be demonstrated are not the same old 'Proofs of God' (PRATT), but evidence of God's love. I say, fine, have at it. Christians, examine the real world and show us evidence of how disease, disaster, atrocities and warfare fit into all-encompassing love for humanity, and then maybe we'll listen. Centuries of theology have failed at demonstrating this, and almost all theologians acknowledge that theodicy is the greatest problem which they've not been able to solve. This is the Poodle's Core: when an analytical method fails completely regarding the greatest problem, any reasonable human being will realize that this method or viewpoint is deeply flawed and inadequate. That's the point where rational thinking lets go of false assumptions. C'mon Christians, you can do it. Overcome your fear and drop it.

Other Comments by black wolf

44. Comment #155054 by nalfeshnee on April 4, 2008 at 5:43 am

Paula,

"There was a very nice question from someone who said she didn't find it too hard to imagine how chimpanzees might evolve into humans (yes, I know that isn't QUITE how it happened!) but found it harder to imagine how bacteria might have evolved into chimpanzees - to which Richard gave an absolutely spectacular reply, outlining 4 billion years of evolution in about 3 minutes. And this got the other huge round of applause of the event."

That's what makes it worth coming to this site.

Thank you,


Ed

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

45. Comment #155067 by Matt7895 on April 4, 2008 at 6:04 am

I hope Richard also told that woman that chimpanzees certainly did NOT evolve into humans.

Other Comments by Matt7895

46. Comment #155069 by j.mills on April 4, 2008 at 6:05 am

Limerick Summary News Service!

The latest people with the hots
For our friendly old Prof are the Scots.
But in fair Inverness
The Free Church liked him less,
But off them the good Prof knocked the spots!

Bit tortured, that last bit. But hey, this service is free! :)

Other Comments by j.mills

47. Comment #155070 by Dr Benway on April 4, 2008 at 6:07 am

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man...*snip*

I don't think it is fair to call these people dishonest...*snip*

I've seen this several times on this site. "He" becomes "they." Comments about a specific person are taken as comments about a group of people. That's a mistake we ought to avoid.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

48. Comment #155071 by Michael King on April 4, 2008 at 6:10 am

Sandy Shaw. Charismaniac nutter (apologies - tautology there) Stood as a candidate for the homophobic "Scottish Christian party" in last years Holyrood elections.

Surely not the lady in bare feet who sang 'Puppet on a String' all those years ago?

Other Comments by Michael King

49. Comment #155073 by Paula Kirby on April 4, 2008 at 6:12 am

Matt7895: I hope Richard also told that woman that chimpanzees certainly did NOT evolve into humans.

Yes! That came up in a different context too, when the chairman (who was otherwise very good, I thought) asked: "So if we evolved from chimpanzees, how come there are still chimpanzees?" This was not a highlight of the event.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

50. Comment #155079 by Barry Pearson on April 4, 2008 at 6:27 am

My Boobies!

Blue-footed Booby:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/pictures/eg95/eg95_15_16_3.htm

Nazca (Masked) Booby:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/pictures/eg95/eg95_14_09_3.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson