jump to navigation

Seeds for the Next Renaissance October 17, 2007

Posted by dorigo in news, science.
trackback

Not a guest post, but my lazyness today is triggered by a nice comment by Amara, who sent a piece she wrote for the International Herald Tribune a few years ago. It discusses Italy and research, as perceived by westerners. As I often do with comments I find interesting, I decided to elect it to an independent post…

Seeds for the Next Renaissance

by Dr. Amara Lynn Graps (Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Deutschland and Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma/Frascati, Italia), October 2002

As a result of Riccardo Giacconi’s well-deserved Nobel prize award for his astrophysics research that led to the discovery of cosmic X-ray sources, an unusual discussion has emerged in Italian public life of the phenomena of Italian scientists who emigrate out of Italy to pursue their research. As a foreign (American) astronomer in the process of immigrating into Italy to continue my work, I don’t have enough deep background information of this phenomenon.

Currently to my unexperienced eye, the brain drain shouldn’t surprise casual observers, as government-supported scholarships are very low, salaries to scientific researchers are barely higher than for bus drivers, large research networks are being told they must close, so then some Italian scientists eventually become too discouraged and vote with their feet. The word ‘discouraged’ is an understatement. Scientists generally have mild and forgiving characters and do what they do for the love of their work, much more than for fortune and fame. Therefore, the conditions leading to their departure was likely extreme.

However, any situation can change, and if one adopts the stance: ‘Yes, we’ve done that, now how can we make it better?’, I think I can offer perspectives to consider during your reflection on the role of science in Italian cultural life.

Italians have much to be proud in their past scientific and cultural accomplishments. Their long cultural history displays a vast range of experiences lending to a ‘done it all’ attitude and, hence, a daily focus of living well (eternally) in the present, according to the wisdom of what it has learned. With this as one’s environment, one might think that looking towards the future and making novel changes could be difficult. Is change difficult for Italians? One needs only to stand on a Roma streetside during peak traffic times, becoming dizzy with the whirl of mosquito-scooters, to know that Italy is a society in motion. To where does the society move? To where _can_ the society move? What guideposts can the culture use from its past?

Italy had and currently has many scientists one can imagine as role models, however, I can think of no better scientific and cultural guideposts for Italy’s future than Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci and the Italian Renaissance.

Friends and colleagues have told me that Italians seem curiously nonchalant about the scientist Galileo. In our opinion, however, Galileo was one of the most important figures of the last one thousand years. He introduced mathematics into physics and hastened the separation of physical science from philosophy. Many U.S. high school and first-year university science students perform duplicates of Galileo’s laboratory experiments. Galileo’s house arrest and Pisa Tower exploits, either exaggerated or real, are prominent in the classroom stories. The NASA/ESA space mission to Jupiter and now orbiting Jupiter since late-1995, was named after Galileo. For my eight hundred planetary science colleagues at a 1999 science meeting hosted by our kind Italian colleagues, one of the most memorable events in our scientific careers was sitting in Universita di Padova’s “The Galileo Galilei Great Hall” and seeing Galileo’s pulpit, from where the great man lectured to his students.

Galileo Galilei was an astronomer, mathematician, physical scientist, and budding entrepreneur who advocated experimental evidence and individual experience over authoritarian elements. Two of my favorite quotations by Galileo Galilei are “You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to find it for himself,” and “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” As a guidepost for the future, Galileo Galilei’s achievements could remind Italians of the value of dogged determination and scientific rigor, of listening to one’s own heart and mind, and of observing technical progress and supporting new opportunities.

Leonardo da Vinci shared Galileo’s enthusiastic love of observation, investigation and discovery. His genius was that he excelled in an astonishing variety of fields that are now considered artistic and scientific specialities. For both his wide-ranging accomplishments and the period of his achievements, the description of him as a “Renaissance Man” uniquely suits his large stature in our history books.

How can Leonardo and the Italian Renaissance be a guidepost to Italy’s future? The Renaissance was triggered, in part, by a revival of Greek ideas. The Renaissance do-ers didn’t want to just recreate again, what the Greeks accomplished, instead, the creative individuals in the Renaissance wanted to build on those ancient ideas and then take those ideas further into new directions, permeating all aspects of society. The conditions in Italian civilization seemed to be primed for the first Renaissance seeds to germinate and flower, then those ideas spread to the rest of Europe like a breath of fresh air.

In our present complex times, increasing technological advancements swirl around us demanding more of our attention. Scientific education, research and awareness is essential, not only to keep pace with our fast-paced world, but also to provide a psychological comfort zone for all people in society, showing that humans are linked with the delightful discovery traditions from our past. We are all children at heart, perhaps Italians even more so, eternally seeking answers to age-old questions, and playing in the stream of time. I suggest to use the current discussion of the role of science in Italian culture, not as a way to lament past actions, but, instead, to embrace your past and present accomplishments and channel your endless energy to create seeds for the next Renaissance to germinate and flower.

Comments

1. changcho - October 17, 2007

Wow Amara, that’s a great article, thanks. What a nice tribute to both Galileo and Leonardo!

2. Louise - October 17, 2007

Wonderful post! We should remember the examples of Galileo and Leonardo every day. I hope we can create conditions for another renaissance.

3. Tony Smith - October 18, 2007

Can you compare Italy (of course, it wasn’t a unified Italy back then) of Galileo and da Vinci
with
Germany (around 1900, only having been really unified since the Franco-Prussian War) of Planck and Einstein ?

One common theme, I would conjecture to try to start discussion, would be that they both had diverse schools of thought, and efforts to enforce monolithic consensus of thought resulted in failure:
the Roman Catholic Inquisition’s attempted enforcement of consensus (in the long term) failed and is now disgraced;
and
the attempted enforcement of a German Nationalist consensus, although it gained power after World War I, also failed (it even drove out for its sphere of influence people such as Lise Meitner who figured out how fission could be harnessed) and is now disgraced.

My view is that such things show that attempted enforcement of rigid consensus views is bad for science.

Tony Smith

4. dorigo - October 18, 2007

Hi Tony,
your bottomline is too easy to agree upon, try to be a bit more controversial here or you’ll kill the discussion🙂
Cheers,
T.

5. Matti Pitkanen - October 18, 2007

In monday there had been a TV document about the impoverishing of intellectuals, both artists and highly educated scientists, that has occurred in Finland. I am not really the only person living on the minimal unemployment money and receiving the rest of my income from social office and friends in order to to do science seven days a week. The situation is not made at easier by the prevailing supracynical attitudes of the survivers of the academic world.

Matti Pitkanen

6. Tony Smith - October 18, 2007

Tommaso said that I should “… try to be a bit more controversial …”.
OK – here is a revised bottomline:

Balkanization (fractionating into lots of small centers of power instead of just one dominant consensus center of power) is good for science and other intellectual activities.

Obvious positive examples include Italy of Galileo/da Vinci, Germany of Planck/Einstein, and China of Confucius/Lao Tze (i.e., before the Qin unification).

A less obvious, but more recent, example is the science of the Soviet Union, as to which Alain Connes, in an interview in Tehran, said:
“… I believe that the most successful systems so far were these big institutes in the Soviet union, like the Landau institute, the Steklov institute, etc.
Money did not play any role there, the job was just to talk about science. It is a dream to gather many young people in an institute and make sure that their basic activity is to talk about science without getting corrupted by thinking about buying a car, getting more money, having a plan for career etc….”.

Although the Soviet Union was a monolithic political structure, its “big institutes” were not (except in a few cases in which politics became involved, as in Lysenko) parts of a uniform consensus, but were a lot of independent (and comptetitive with each other) individual islands.

It will be interesting to see how China evolves:
either
on the Soviet model, with independent scientific institutes under a PLA-monolithic political umbrella,
or
on the USA model of large collaborations rigidly enforcing consensus throughout the physics community, enforced by threat of excommunication from collaboration facilities.

Tony Smith

7. jeff - October 18, 2007

Well I didn’t find the post of Amara Lynn-Graps particularly wonderful. Actually I found it conventional and quite annoying as I don’t find it very useful or stimulating to pick heros of a distant and discontinuous past. It rubs me the wrong way when I hear italians say how wonderful they WERE (the Romans, the medieval city states, the Renaissance, the baroque,…) just as it rubs me the wrong way when I hear people sing the many wonderful contributions to science and math of islamic civilization ….. of 800 years ago. Account for what happened SINCE THEN, and then, on the positive side, mention those that worked wonders recently and especially those that work them NOW! They are the heros of today.

Regards science and technology Italy shamefully lost Leonardo’s and Galileo’s trains a very long time ago. It DOES make sense to note how and wonder why the italian penninsula lost the trains for modernity and science after Galileo was attacked by the catholic church, in the particular way that he was, while other countries learned his message and carried on (for Galileo and Church of Rome I suggest reading “Galileo’s daughter” by Dava Sobel). BUT IT IS FAR BETTER to look for more recent heros and learn from recent mistakes that still have real effects in everyday life. Italians should seriously look to the future and learn from recent past, not bullshit about very old glories. As a physicist I think of Fermi and Bruno Rossi, Rubbia, Giacconi,… and of the many unsung heros that work at Cern and Fermilab and elsewhere in the world such as Amara Lynn-Graps that works, I gather, at Max Planck. Italy doesn’t deserve them or her. As a physicist I also admire and praise those that manage to do good science IN Italy inspite of living in Italy. Italy doesn’t deserve them either.

Jeff

p.s. I suspect that had Mussolini not gone to power Fermi probably would have gone to the US anyway as there was no real interest in science in italy then. He needed a cyclotron to make progress and would have left anyway. Sure Fermi’s wife was jewish as was Rossi and the Fermi family and Rossi fled once the stupid racial laws were issued. But REGARDLESS of the Catholic Church and of Mussolini, italian politians of all colors and shades and their shoe licking intellectuals don’t give a hoot about science. And this is still true even though the bastards pay lip service. Of course ask why! The catholic church? A sterile truism that explains distant events, but practically useless! Regards science the disease of Italy is clientism. “I’ll rub your back if you rub mine”. “I’ll help you now. One day I’ll ask you to pay back.” Actually this is the main disease. It has contaminated everyway they think, join forces and act… to castrate one another.

8. Amara - October 18, 2007

Dear Jeff, It looks like you missed the full context of that piece. (I was amused to and I hope Tommaso was amused too). Believe me, I tried! However, from these perspectives in 2005, RAI radio interview and le Scienze, the scientific and daily life didn’t get any better for me. If one considers what kind of broken infrastructure would permit a government scientist to also be an illegal immigrant (me), then one has a glimpse of the enormous beautiful mess that is the reality of Italian daily and scientific life. Italy is a gorgeous place to visit, but living and working in the country is an entirely different story.

However, I do hope that those who still have optimism about Italian science and Italian life (such as Tommaso) can see these seeds that I so idealistically described back in 2002, and understand why people like me tried so hard and then couldn’t take it any more and gave up. It could build some bridges to understanding. Ciao.

9. changcho - October 19, 2007

“Although the Soviet Union was a monolithic political structure, its “big institutes” were not (except in a few cases in which politics became involved, as in Lysenko) parts of a uniform consensus, but were a lot of independent (and comptetitive with each other) individual islands.”

Very true; lots of good science came out of such structures. It is also the same structure that produced the R7 rocket and Sputnik.

Jeff, you mentioned Fermi; I believe Emilio Segre was in the same situation as well.

10. dorigo - October 19, 2007

Hi Tony, I think the good things of the communist system have died with it. Quoting Shakespeare, “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with [Lenin et al.]”. China is in the XXIst century as we are, and I think it is not going in the direction of enlarging freedom, with the censorship of the internet…

Jeff, I agree, clientelism is a plague in Italy, but in academia is a derived effect, not the other way round IMO. So I think it is to be fought in the society, and the situation in science will improve.

Amara, yes, I was indeed amused by your piece. I think one is entitled to lose hope after five years, but somebody else can pick up the flag when you leave it. These things take a long time to change!

Changcho, indeed there were many scientists, famous and less, who fled Italy in the thirties, and not all of them to the US. I think Jeff is right about Fermi, who would have wanted to do research in the US anyway, but largely, a big chunk of the advanced research that was being done in italy then was lost because of racial laws and prosecutions, and left a big hole.

Cheers,
T.

11. Tony Smith - October 19, 2007

Tommaso, you say that you think that “… China … is not going in the direction of enlarging freedom, with the censorship of the internet…”.

From the web site of the Institute of Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, it appears that 5 of their 11 Research Divisions have been established since 2000:

Nanoscale Physics and Devices Laboratory
Laboratory of Soft Matter Physics
Laboratory of Condensed Matter Theory and Materials Computation
International Center for Quantum Structures
Laboratory of Microfabrication

Their emphasis on nano-quantum physics may not mean that they are not doing fundamental theory and experiment. It may be that they are very interested in doing useful things with fundamental theory and experiment (compare, for example Warburton’s work at University College London on Josephson Junctions related to Dark Energy).

So, just because China is rigidly censoring the web against political nonconformity does not mean that it is not creating (as did the Soviet Union) a lot of independent institutes that might with respect to physics ideas “let a thousand flowers bloom” and so discover a cat (no matter whether it is black or white) who catches mice.
If so,
then China may soon dominate the rest of the world just as Europe has done for the past few hundred years.

Tony Smith

12. Andrea Giammanco - October 19, 2007

I’m skeptical about the supposition that Fermi would have emigrated anyway.
It’s true that in USA he found the means to do Big Science, but he had already done marvels as a theorist and as a table-top experimentalist.
You can claim that after WWII the experimental progress started to be mostly in big labs with large facilities, which post-war Europe couldn’t have until a few decades after (but remember that Pancini and Piccioni were able to make an experimental breakthough DURING the harshest moments of the war!), but given the peculiar scientific profile of Fermi (the last great “complete” physicist, meaning both theoretician and experimentalist) I think that, in case, he would have just focused more on theory than in experiments and applications.
Which he did anyway, by the way, since his very last important contributions to science were theoretical.

13. jeff - October 19, 2007

Andrea
Fermi did what he could using natural radioactivity. He knew it and you should too. To do more to understand the nucleus needed higher energies achievable only by cyclotrons. He asked the CNR to fund him a cyclotron but they turned him down inspite of the fact that he was already an international celebrity! Do YOU really think he was satisfied with what he had done without an accelerator knowing that as they were becoming easily available that others would use them to make to great effect? Come on!

The usual myth of italian inventiveness. Pancini and Piccioni did great experiments. Bravi. Do YOU really think, by mentioning them, you can attenuate or delay the obvious conclusion that Italy was and still is politically and intellectually backwards regards science? Come on!

14. amara - October 19, 2007

Jeff: I suspect that had Mussolini not gone to power Fermi
probably would have gone to the US anyway as there was no real
interest in science in Italy then.

There was The ‘Via Panisperna’ team (Fermi, Segrè, Amaldi, Rasetti,
D’Agostino, Majorana, Pontecorvo) Maybe part of the reason that Fermi
left was because Ettore Majorana pulled such a perfect disappearance
act?

Jeff: Of course ask why! The catholic church? A sterile truism
that explains distant events,

distant? The previous pope didn’t get involved in Italian politics,
but Ratzinger did and does. Have you forgotten The “Committee of Science
and Life”
(I prefer to call them the “Committee of Decay and
Death”) ??

If you have forgotten, let me remind you that with this well-funded
organization, you will find pink pictures of pregnant mothers and
babies and sterile test tubes. You will find ‘scientific’ reports
about assisted reproductive technology that “doesn’t work” and that
puts “the future of mankind in danger”. And *who*, you ask, is
funding the “Committee of Science and Life?” The Vatican, of course.

At one point I proposed to _Reason Magazine_ to write a story on the
situation, but they never responded, so probably it wasn’t of a large
enough interest after the initial hoo-haw died down. No one talks
about it anymore, except for policy analysts, and occasional articles about the Italian couples going to Spain
for IVF
, and government-manufactured propaganda about more babies
being born as a result of Legge 40 (discussion of that murky business
here.

================================================================

(my 2004 proposal outline to Reason Magazine)

Introduction
In 2004, as a gift to the Vatican, Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition in
the Italian Parliament passed a series of assisted reproductive
technology (ART) laws that are widely considered to be the most
restrictive in the western countries. These laws passed quietly,
_too_ quietly, and in an angry backlash, a group of people gathered
the necessary half million signatures to petition the Constitutional
Court for a Referendum to the overturn these laws. After losing the
petition _in whole_, the Court offered a Referendum _in part_ for
voters to overturn the most controversial parts of the ART laws. The
four laws were voted by the Italian citizens on June 12-13, and, in a
shockingly low 25% turnout, the Referendum was extinguished.
In the mother and family-oriented Italian culture, how could a set of
draconian laws that marginalizes women and family choices, and was
delivered by an extremely unpopular prime minister, be extinguished
so easily? Enter the ‘Committee of Science and Life’, and dirty
politics from the richest country in the world, that is, the Vatican.

suggested title:
Italian Voters Choose the Beach

Outline:
I. Italy as the Wild West of Assisted Reproductive Technology
II. Berlusconi’s ‘Gift’
III. Comedies and Tragedies of the the Assisted Reproductive Technology Laws
a) NonScience Nonsense
b) the Barely Catholic Majority
c) Paradoxes of the Modern Church (or how the Pope forgot
about Thomas Aquinas and learned to love the Internet and mass
marketing)
IV. Signori Average-Italian-Public Hears about Stem-Cells for the First Time
V. Nondemocratic Tricks for a Democratic Society
VI. Italians Choose the Beach Instead of the Voting Booth (and the
Referendum is dusted)

================================================================

I still have my pink brochure from ‘the Committee of Science and
Life’ that arrived in my postbox from that time, and I remember the
pink posters that were put up all around my town. The Vatican spent
enormous amounts of money blanketing Italy with their propaganda to
influence people’s vote (they urged Italians _not_ to vote, for one
thing, since a 50% turnout was necessary to change the laws). I was
deeply offended by their ignorance and the ignorance of the nonvoting
Italians around me, but that was my problem.

15. Andrea Giammanco - October 19, 2007

Jeff, I was not doubting anything else than your conclusion about willingness to emigrate😉
Emigration is painful, I and you (if I understood from an old comment) are emigrants, and I don’t know if you are happy about this condition, but you should know that most people emigrate only when *really really* forced to (although a minority do that just because they like to enlarge their horizons and stuff like that). This is valid at almost any level of society and scholarizations: there is an adventurous minority and a majority whose worst fear is to die in a place different from where they were born.
I don’t have proofs that Fermi would have remained in Italy, if Italy had not started to follow Germany along the path of antisemitism. But *you* are saying that, so yours is the burden of the proof🙂
After all, he had remained in Italy despite fascism, although he was not a supporter of the regime. And fascism had already been in power for 16 years, before his emigration; he only decided that it was too much when the antisemitic laws appeared (and his own wife was concerned).
I’m not criticizing him, I’m just saying that if he had accepted awful work conditions + awful political climate, it’s hard to maintain that with a democratic government he would have emigrated anyway. Maybe yes, maybe as you say he would have been moved by ambition, for the desire to use the new available facilities instead of trying to do the best that he could with cosmic rays or restricting his active contribution to theory only. But I don’t see such a clear evidence; if you know some elements of his biography which motivate your claim, I’d like to learn more.

16. dorigo - October 19, 2007

Hi Tony,

I agree- China is putting a lot of effort in developing new technologies and research there is blooming. However, I do not know whether that really means freedom of thinking. I hope so…

Cheers,
T.

17. dorigo - October 19, 2007

Jeff, Andrea,

the matter is largely impossible to settle by argument. What we know is that Fermi adversed the italian regime, and that he fled with his family when things got really tough for jews. The rest are speculations. I do think that the burden of proof is in Jeff’s court though.

Cheers,
T.

18. dorigo - October 19, 2007

Amara, the 25% at the referendum did shock me too, and I was even more shocked to hear about colleagues of mine deserting the referendum. In Italy people sometimes just pull the power cord of their brain and act as their political or spiritual leaders tell them to.
It is not the country I want, and I am ashamed to be italian when these things happen.

Cheers,
T.

19. Amara - October 19, 2007

Dear Tommaso, the link above (I messed it up) by a policy analyst (or scientist?) at the Università di Roma said that the scientific community did not do a good job at explaining the Referendum. Your colleagues are similar to my colleagues that seemed to not know or understand (or most importantly to explain to others) some of the key points of ART. I can’t vote in Italian things, but I do pay heavy Italian taxes, so the Referendum experience was for me, frustrating and maddening. The other link, that I messed up: here, is an obvious Referendum result.

20. jeff - October 19, 2007

burden of proof? I suspect that Fermi would have left anyway. Some of you seem more convinced that he wouldn’t have. I find it plausible he would have left for I have a reason to think so. You guys think he would have stayed for no real reason. Studying nuclear physics using the low energy projectiles emitted from radioactive decay had run its course! That is a fact and Fermi, a major actor in that exciting and brilliant phase, realized that it was over and progress would be done elsewhere. I have a reason to think he would have left sooner or later. What are you REASONS for thinking he wouldn’t have?

21. Fred - October 20, 2007

I would have to lean towards Jeff’s assertion based on an article I read by Valentine L. Telegdi: ‘Enrico Fermi in America’, written in Physics Today, June 2002.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-55/iss-6/p38.html

An excerpt:
“Before emigrating to America in January 1939, Fermi had already visited the US several times. In 1930, he had taught a course in quantum electrodynamics at the famous University of Michigan summer school, a course that led to his celebrated–and still very readable–Reviews of Modern Physics article on the subject.2 (See Schweber’s article.) In 1936, he was a visiting professor at Columbia University, where he taught a course on thermodynamics. The course lecture notes, edited into book form by Lloyd Motz,3 are still in use today.
It was during this 1936 visit that physics department chairman George Pegram first offered him a permanent appointment at Columbia. Fermi was not particularly critical of Mussolini’s fascist regime prior to the dictator’s promulgation of anti-Jewish laws in 1938.”

The author has an admiration for Fermi so I’m not sure how that slants the writing. It seems he could not have refused the opportunities presented to him time after time. Mussolini’s system just made it convenient and quite easier to accept his destiny. Capitulation, also, has it’s silver linings.

22. Amara - October 20, 2007

The publisher’s description of the book: Atoms in the Family: My Life With Enrico Fermi – Author: Laura Fermi says: “Laura Fermi traces her husband’s career from his childhood, when he taught himself physics, through his rise in the Italian university system concurrent with the rise of fascism, to his receipt of the Nobel Prize, which offered a perfect opportunity to flee the country without arousing official suspicion, and his odyssey to the United States.”

I don’t have this book, but the Table of Contents (which can be seen at amazon) indicates the answer to your questions should be between page 115 and page 125.

Emilio Segrè should be able to say something too, perhaps in his book: _Enrico Fermi Physicist_

Of Emilio Segrè J. David Jackson says::

“Rightly proud of having filled a gap in the periodic table by their discovery of technetium, Segrè apparently was disturbed by lack of recognition in Italy and by perceived hindrances to his career caused by academic and national politics in Rome. The edge to his personality, visible in later years, and his tendency to criticize, were not moderated by these events.10 Without knowing his mind at the time, one can imagine that he viewed the discovery of technetium as research of Nobel-prize quality and smarted internally from lack of what he felt was sufficient recognition. Such speculations aside, he began seriously in 1937 to look elsewhere for a position, at least in part because of the hints, and more, of trouble for Jews.”

I heard hints from someone who was in physics at the University of Rome in the 1970s that after Segrè’s Nobel Prize and retirement from Berkeley, he returned to Rome, he tried to teach and was not permitted because he did not have the proper teaching credentials (?!!). I could have the story wrong. Jackson says in the link above:

“In 1974 Segrè was honored by the Italian Parliament with an ad hominem chair at the University of Rome. He served one year before reaching the mandatory retirement age.”

23. Andrea Giammanco - October 21, 2007

> What are you REASONS for thinking he wouldn’t have?

No, Jeff, you continue to misunderstand.
I don’t have an opinion on this subject, YOU have. It’s like the difference between a believer and an agnostic😉
What I pointed out is that you have to provide very convincing motivations, and this for a very trivial statistical reason: the majority of people don’t emigrate, even when they would have an advantage of some nature for doing so.

By the way I can help you to find an answer (that I find convincing) possibly useful for the next time that somebody expresses skepticism about your opinion on this issue: it’s just sufficient to notice that he didn’t return to Italy after the war. There were no racial laws, no fascism, but of course no money (even less than before) for large experiments.

24. ecomhg » Blog Archive » Seeds for the Next Renaissance - October 22, 2007

[…] here for more This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pm and is filed under […]

25. dorigo - October 22, 2007

Andrea, you first convince me that Jeff was supporting a lost cause, and then with your last line you totally turn the tables: bad guy!

Cheers,
T.

26. jeff - October 23, 2007

My dear friends. I wasn’t supporting a “lost cause”, nor do I feel I had or have the “burden of proof”. By Jove it seems that words are put into my mouth and/or what I wrote is overstressed. And there is even a chap that says I continue to not understand.
You guys are really funny! LOL

27. dorigo - October 24, 2007

Hi Jeff,
🙂 of course we argue because it is fun to do it, not to make anybody’s life difficult…

Cheers,
T.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: