<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Thanks again, Wayne.<BR>
<BR>
First, I’m not surprised that Popper thought that the principle of the uniformity of nature was falsifiable. And if you can find five contemporary philosophers of science who still take Popper seriously, I’ll buy you a hat. Even if one could prove that “a certain fundamental ‘constant’ of nature may be very, very slowly changing” how would it follow that nature was not uniform? Change happens all the time. And if it is true that nature is not uniform, what becomes of our scientific claims? What use is it that the law of gravity has been “proven” time and time again if it turns out that nature is not uniform and tomorrow things might be different? What becomes of science, of the status of laws of nature then?<BR>
<BR>
It is interesting that you mention Wittgenstein. Here is a nice quote from On Certainty, where he responds to G.E. Moore’s suggestion that we can have certain knowledge of our basic empirical beliefs: “I believe that every human being has two human parents; but Catholics believe that Jesus only had a human mother. And other people might believe that there are human beings with no parents, and give no credence to the contrary evidence. Catholics believe as well that in certain circumstances a wafer completely changes its nature, and at the same time that all evidence proves the contrary. And so if Moore said ‘I know that this is wine and not blood’, Catholics would contradict him.” (239) My own views on this subject were very much influenced by Wittgenstein.<BR>
<BR>
Further, there need not be a “ghost in the machine” assumption behind the doctrine of transubstantiation. The view I argued for below holds that the substance changes (from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ) yet none of the sensible qualities change. The sensible qualities are accidental properties, meaning none of them are essential to the physical substances; the qualities might remain the same even though the substances change. After the change, it appears to be bread and wine but it is not. The view is not that Christ’s soul inhabits the bead and wine but that the bread turns into his body and the wine turns into his blood. The body and blood of Christ, like the original bread and wine, are physical things not immaterial “ghosts.” I find it puzzling how you could have distain for a view that you don’t seem to fully understand.<BR>
<BR>
I’m not asking you to believe the doctrine of transubstantiation. I don’t believe it. My own views about the nature of the world are pretty close to yours. Where our views differ is in our epistemological beliefs. You seem to think that our world view is logically and empirically superior to others whereas I have my doubts. And I know as well as I know anything that your overly simplified logical positivist view won’t work. To the extent that our view of the world is supported it is supported to a large extent by pragmatic considerations, like simplicity, and there is no way of reducing simplicity, etc. to logic and experience.<BR>
<BR>
You might reply that if two things share all of their sensible qualities, and if there is no possible way to distinguish them, then the “two” things are really just one and the same thing. But this strikes me as just another metaphysical principle given without argument in an effort to prop up your/our world view and make it look more rational than it in fact is. Given the principle it seems like the view follows from logic and experience alone. But since the principle itself is not supported by logic and experience, things are not as easy as you make it seem.<BR>
<BR>
Lastly, you still seem to think that Christians who hold the doctrine of transubstantiation are dangerous, even though you have not produced one shred of empirical data to support your claim. You write: “If someone actually believes the doctrines of their religious faith, then those doctrines cannot help but influence/guide their behavior. To the extent that these doctrines are not testable and lead to harmful actions, those doctrines and their basis ought be questioned, discussed, and exposed as bunkum, including using ridicule to do this where possibly effective.” <BR>
<BR>
Give me a break. What, precisely, is the harmful action that will result from a belief in transubstantiation? As it stands, this is nothing more than an unsupported accusation. It is ironic that some of my Christian friends make the same false accusations about atheists: Atheism leads to harmful actions, for after all if there is no God what is to prevent you from acting any evil way that you’d like? You have given no more reason to believe your claims than my Christian friends have given me to believe their claims. From my point of view, both are equally absurd.<BR>
<BR>
I agree that there are instances in which one lets his irrational world views get in the way and that this might have dangerous consequences. Bush’s views about the environment in general, and global warming in particular, might be a good example. So I’m not suggesting that pointing out religious views, or world views in general, should be off-base. Nor am I suggesting that humor and even ridicule about these matters is off-limits. (I thought that some of Tom’s jokes in this thread were pretty funny, for instance.) But if I’m going to comment on No Weatherman’s ridiculous, racist rants against Muslims and Africans, then I should be willing to say the same against equally ridiculous claims about Christian doctrines, or Chas’s even more ridiculous claim that religion is “a transitional stage between the childhood and the adult phases of human development.” A view where one’s opponents — and over half the population of the world — come off as infantile idiots is a little too convenient and certainly worthy of commentary. Not that I think that I’ve convinced you or Chas of anything, mind you!<BR>
<BR>
Best, Joe<BR>
<BR>
On 12/30/08 4:48 PM, "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Joe,<BR>
<BR>
Backwards:<BR>
<BR>
Apparently, I have not meet the same scientists and/or philosophers of science that you have. Most that I have read or debated with in person (Karl Popper, Herbert Feigl, et al) hold that the so-called uniformity of nature doctrine is a convenient but falsifiable assumption. In fact, a very interesting article in an issue of <I>New Scientist</I> earlier this year raises the question of whether a certain fundamental "constant" of nature may be very, very slowly changing. At his point the perceived change may be due to the difference of measurement methods and/or accuracy; again, it may not -- it may be real -- time will tell.<BR>
<BR>
On the issue of transubstantiation: If no actual "accidental" properties are changed by the mutterings of mumbo-jumbo, what is changed? I have posted just below a part of a previous post containing a slightly modified quote</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#FF0000"><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><B>*</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> from an apostate Catholic, who was a protégé of Wittgenstein, which uses humor to show how ridiculous "ghost in the machine" claims similar to transubstantiation are. Just because a "ghost in the machine" claim cannot be disproved, does not mean that it is true and should be acted upon. Another example: Mental illness is really caused by being possessed by demons.<BR>
<BR>
Further, not in theory, but obviously in practice, Catholicism is a cafeteria religion. On many important points of doctrine, many Catholic choose to believe or not, but still consider themselves Catholics. Philosophically, this is really a linguistic problem and may make for an interesting discussion, but like the question of who is the greatest athlete ever, hardly amenable to agreement on any final answer. (Catholics are not the only Christian sect with "loose in the cafeteria" members.)<BR>
<BR>
Further, not all Christians view transubstantiation in the same way as Catholics, as Keely pointed out. Some sects/cults use it in part to con their members into believing they are part of a special chosen few and the eating of the specially prepared flesh of some alleged God keeps them that way or demonstrates their closeness. I can attest, as can several others on this list, that this belief does influence their behavior and in ways you and I would consider harmful -- racism, sexism, homophobia and its attendant discrimination and denigration, theocracy, etc. You do not have to look outside the immediate area to find such sects/cults -- there are at least two large ones.<BR>
<BR>
There may be some Catholics/other Christians whose behavior is not much altered by their belief in transubstantiation. However, many view it a an integrated, non-separable important component of their faith, and as part of the price of their ticket to some alleged eternal bliss, their hope of ultimate destination. Some of these people use that entire, allegedly integrated faith and/or questions/attacks/ridicule of it to resort to violence, discrimination, etc to defend and promulgate it, and to motivate/justify many harmful acts.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Here's the main point: If someone actually believes the doctrines of their religious faith, then those doctrines cannot help but influence/guide their behavior. To the extent that these doctrines are not testable and lead to harmful actions, those doctrines and their basis ought be questioned, discussed, and exposed as bunkum, including using ridicule to do this where possibly effective.<BR>
<BR>
Minor point: Is it wrong to make fun of something just for the hell of it? You write:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">"If there is some other purpose — literary merit, dialogue, whatever — I don’t have much of a problem with it."<BR>
</FONT> <BR>
Making fun of something is an act at least with some purpose(s), if only for entertainment, etc. The issue then becomes what purposes are legitimate? Like the question of who is the greatest athlete ever, it would be hard to find universal agreement on an answer. Both you and I are likely to agree that making toxic fun of someone's race, sexual orientation, ethic/geographical origin, etc. is not appropriate. In some cases, I think that we would agree that using humor to show the absurdity of beliefs that result in harmful action is not only OK, but laudable, if effective.<BR>
<BR>
I personally think that religious/social/political/ethical beliefs based on "ghost in the machine" concepts like transubstantiation are harmful in that they cannot be disproven in any way, and can be used to irrationally motivate/justify harmful behavior. Encouraging such actions based on "ghost in the machine" concepts is encouraging/reinforcing people to act without carefully thinking through the consequences of their actions based on the probable/estimated results of those actions, but instead acting on some nonsensical and/or incomprehensible principle. Using reasoning and logic to guide behavior is not perfect, and such certainly can result in errors, sometimes grave ones. However, in my opinion, using that method such gives much better results in the long run than using superstition, ignorance, and nonsense.<BR>
<BR>
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.<BR>
<BR>
W.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF0000"><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><B>*</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Neighbors A & B were having an over-the-back-fence discussion:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: I heard you have a new kind of powerful watchdog or something.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: Yes, it is called the Odg.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: What does it do?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: It watches over us continually and protects us and our property from harm.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: I haven't seen anything. Where is it?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: The Odg is invisible.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: I have heard any barking or anything.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: The Odg makes no sound.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: You don't have a fence. How do you keep the Odg in?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: The Odg stays with us always. It is the loving nature of the Odg to do so.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: Your lawn is immaculate. I don't see any Odg droppings at all.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: The Odg never eats. Consequently, it makes no droppings. It doesn't slobber or have bad breath either.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: Tell me again what it does.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: It watches over us and protects us from all harms. It requires only unquestioning belief, obedience, and adulation on our part in return.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>A: But wasn't your home robbed of everything of value, weren't you badly beaten up, and wasn't your wife taken for and enjoyed a month-long sexual romp by a motorcycle gang a few months ago?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>B: Yes, but it must of been good for us, else the Odg would not have let it happen. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
Can you do anagrams?<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
----- Original Message -----<B>From:</B> Joseph Campbell <a href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu"><mailto:josephc@wsu.edu></a> <BR>
<BR>
<B>To:</B> Art Deco <a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><mailto:deco@moscow.com></a> ; Vision 2020 <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><mailto:vision2020@moscow.com></a> <BR>
<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:04 AM<BR>
<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks, Wayne.<BR>
<BR>
Note that I said it wasn’t a good idea to make fun of beliefs just for the sake of making fun. If there is some other purpose — literary merit, dialogue, whatever — I don’t have much of a problem with it. I’m not trying to be a stick in the mud. I think it is fine to poke fun in the midst of serious discussion but I just don’t seem much point in the continued jokes about transubstantiation. Back when No Weatherman was making fun of the practices of Kenyans and Muslims I found it needlessly offensive and I would say the same about some of the comments in this thread. I don’t see much discussion here or much of a dialogue.<BR>
<BR>
I agree that some religious beliefs are harmful, as are some non-religious beliefs. Ted had a nice post on this topic a while back where he noted the example of Bush and his “religious” beliefs playing a role in the war in Iraq. But what really was the problem in this case? It is Bush’s religious beliefs or his arrogant, dogmatic attachment to them and the refusal to consider the views of others as being equally meaningful? I’d say it was the latter, not the former. I really don’t care what people believe but certainly I care what they do. And it is dogma more than anything else that leads to an easy transition from belief to action. All the more reason to preach tolerance, respect, and acceptance of other view points.<BR>
<BR>
Two other things about transubstantiation (which I never believed, by the way, even when I was Catholic). By your definition it does not count as an important* belief since it rarely if ever is manifested in some action. Some Catholics believe in transubstantiation and some don’t and I doubt you could tell the difference by following them around and seeing how they behave.<BR>
<BR>
Second, it is absurd to suggest that transubstantiation can be “challenged by evidence and logic.” What evidence disproves it? According to the doctrine, the substance of the bread and wine changes by not the accidental properties. In other words, the appearance of the bread and wine is exactly the same after it has been transubstantiated. Of course, you might note that the doctrine is not falsifiable but that is another issue. To say it can be challenged by evidence is absurd. And, as I’ve noted before, science is full of its share of unfalsifiable doctrines (the principle of the uniformity of nature, to name one example), so it has no advantage here!<BR>
<BR>
Nor am I anti-science. I just think, like any system of beliefs, it has its limits.<BR>
<BR>
Best, Joe<BR>
<BR>
On 12/30/08 10:13 AM, "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Joe,<BR>
<BR>
We may all have irrational beliefs. However, the point Chasuk via Freud was making is this:<BR>
<BR>
Part of becoming an adult is to begin weighing evidence to decide if <B>important</B></SPAN><B><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>*</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> beliefs are really true; and to begin weighing the evidence for our <B>important</B></SPAN><B><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>*</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> beliefs when they are challenged by evidence and logic, as in this forum, or by reflection and/or direct experience.<BR>
<BR>
As for making fun of people's beliefs, religious or otherwise, a lot of great literature does just that. Should we just throw this literature away? Is it somehow unworthy because it uses humor to make a point about various irrationalities?<BR>
<BR>
Further, some religious beliefs are very harmful, for example, those that led to the inquisition, those that support clitoridectomy or witch hunts, and those that promulgate racism, homophobia, sexism, ethnic discrimination, theocracy, etc. If humor can be used as a tactic to emasculate/eviscerate/point out the folly these toxic beliefs, why not? Humor often works in persuasive discourse when other methods fail.<BR>
<BR>
[Not sent from an iPhone.]<BR>
<BR>
W.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><B>*</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Beliefs that shape and determine our actions especially when the outcome of these beliefs affects, directly or indirectly, other sentient beings.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>
<BR>
<B>From:</B> Joseph Campbell <a href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu"><mailto:josephc@wsu.edu></a> <BR>
<BR>
<B>To:</B> Chasuk <a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com"><mailto:chasuk@gmail.com></a> <BR>
<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> vision2020@moscow.com ; nielsen@uidaho.edu <BR>
<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:31 AM<BR>
<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Fragments of our Lord<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I don't think think it is good to make fun of people's beliefs - <BR>
religious or otherwise - just for the sake of making fun. All of us <BR>
have irrational beliefs since we have far more beliefs than we could <BR>
possibly support with argument and evidence.<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my iPhone<BR>
<BR>
On Dec 29, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> I agree with Freud, and with Paul.<BR>
><BR>
> Paul wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> 1 Corinthians 13:11-12<BR>
><BR>
> When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I<BR>
> thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish<BR>
> things.<BR>
> For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I<BR>
> know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.<BR>
><BR>
> Freud believed that religion was a transitional stage between the<BR>
> childhood and the adult phases of human development; that, as a<BR>
> species, we currently see "through a glass, darkly," but that it is<BR>
> now time for us to "put away childish things."<BR>
><BR>
> Amen!<BR>
><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><BR>
> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
<BR>
=======================================================<BR>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> <BR>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><BR>
=======================================================<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"> </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'>=======================================================<BR>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> <BR>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><BR>
=======================================================<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'>=======================================================<BR>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> <BR>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><BR>
=======================================================<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>