Giordano Brunos

Giordano Brunos
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Computer Forum Forum Index -> diet

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

cormac
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Quote:

The issue is not about engineering. It is about science.

So what he discovered?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

A vast number of stars, an infinite and eternal universe.

Cormac.

Google
Sponsor

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Advertisement

trigonometry1972@gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

On Feb 25, 4:15 pm, DZ <5...@182916209.510932127.1391.25482.1532>
wrote:

Quote:

trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:29 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dnia 2008-02-25 cormac napisa³(a):
You are indeed dizzy when you associate Bruno with quacks and
charlatans.

They wish I did.
And they wish they were "Brunos"...

What Giordano Bruno *invented*?

Sure Bruno was a quack and as were those who had him
killed. It was about power over others not truth.
And now too the issue is often about power over
others and controlling the masses and not truth.
The modern "quackbusters" have their own corporate
funders and hence a corporate (chamber of commerce type)
agenda. And they like Bruno are also likely motivated
by pride and the feeling of being important.
The names and social structures have
changed a bit but the much of the same game is
foot.

... but (continuing my sentence) there is no such thing as a
modern Giordano Bruno.

We should not confuse "unpopular" and "kooky". You can publish
unpolular "theories" quite easily. The problem for the kooky ones is
that they will not make it through review. The "system" is pretty good
at filtering them out. BTW, there are new trendy journals that require
that public access is granted to all editorial correspondence, which
would include names of reviewers as well as their remarks.

Peer review is not a part of anybody's job, and there is no official
record of that. For example, 2-3 papers a month that I do is a
completely voluntary activity, with no reward, or recognition. This is
very typical. There is no mechanism by which I can be persuaded to
write a biased review, or recommend junk for publication. In fields
like molecular biology, to be affiliated with industry is only going
to lower your chances for a successful publication. This is because a
stereotype is such that industry is a sink for those who are not smart
enough, or otherwise incapable to lead independent research. IOW,
reviewers you get will assume that your manuscript (well, and you too)
is second class, before even reading it.

Finally, check Figure 2 herehttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508025

It shows that a typical Nobel-prize recipient in physics would have
such 40 papers that each of them would be cited at least 40 times.

I see we were on different wavelengths. Yes, peer review is useful.
Though I still seen some pretty bias articles in peer reviewed
journals.
I am thinking one specific NEJM article on a topic I have an
interest ;-)

The so called quackbusters are something else and have little
to do with real science. Humm... I am sorry this thread isn't on the
MHA forum
the home of both the Usenets self styled resident quackbusters and
some of its most wild eyed quacks as well.
Ok we're on a couple of the better forums on the topic of science
at least in USENET terms.

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-26 cormac napisa³(a):

Quote:

The issue is not about engineering. It is about science.

So what he discovered?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

A vast number of stars, an infinite and eternal universe.

It hardly qualifies as a discovery. And Bruno wasn't a scientist. He
was a mystic, who accidentally liked heliocentricism, but many others of
the same type liked various mystical doctrines. Nobody put them on
pedestals and rarely on stakes, so we don't remember them.

You can make a parallel between Bruno and various Flat Earth quacks.
It's possible to be right for all the wrong reasons, it just doesn't
happen very often.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-26 Taka napisa³(a):

Quote:

On Feb 26, 9:15 am, DZ <5...@182916209.510932127.1391.25482.1532
wrote:
trigonometry1...@gmail.com | <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Peer review is not a part of anybody's job, and there is no official
record of that. For example, 2-3 papers a month that I do is a
completely voluntary activity, with no reward, or recognition.

Big mistake, you are not unknown to the editor when he chooses you.
And you do him a favor by accepting the job. Next time he will do a
favor to you, be it smooth acceptance of your own paper or
recommendation for your new position etc. Also you review the work of
your competitors and can thus delay the publication while picking up
on the their new findings before others know (it the stock market this
is called an insider trade) ...

How far would it go? Let's say, that DZ is reviewing for a prestigious
journal with big readership and he delays or dismisses the publication
he doesn't like. He's a bad guy, you know. Do you think that the
author of the paper is denied a publication rights? That's absolutely
wrong. He sends his work to a different journal, where there is no DZ
to stop him. Most of the promotion of findings is done on scientific
conferences and during informal discussions anyway, so not being able to
publish in the best journals matters relatively little. Sure, in the
long run it pays to be seen, but how much it actually matters if you
have a good idea?

Quote:

And finally, you don't have to do the
review by yourself, just order it to your students/postdocs in the
lab.

That's stupid.

Quote:

And because it's an extra work with no reward for them they
don't do it properly and put off with it.

They can't do it properly mostly because they don't know how. They are
called students for a reason.

Quote:

Taka

"Who understands it is doing it, who does not understand it is
teaching it and who knows completely nothing of it is writing about
it."

Not true, when it comes to science. Those who teach often understand
and do it best. Universities are the staple of science, not institutes.
Doing helps teaching and if you think that teaching doesn't help doing
you never did or taught.

Quote:

"The most famous scientists are those who master stealing the work and
ideas of others."

Let's see. Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Gauss or Darwin. From whom
they stole their most renown works?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Taka
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

On Feb 26, 10:59 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Time is what counts in novadays speedy world ... Who will be first
with that discovery, DZ or the original author?

Quote:

"The most famous scientists are those who master stealing the work and
ideas of others."

Let's see. Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Gauss or Darwin. From whom
they stole their most renown works?

You never know but that's too old honest World. Look at something
more recent like this:

Double-helix double cross?
Biographer looks into charges that Nobel winners stole woman's DNA
work

Rosalind Franklin
The Dark Lady of DNA

When I learned about DNA in an undergraduate genetics class, my
instructor paced back and forth on the podium, telling the story of
James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins -- the men who won the
Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA in 1953.
But there was a catch, she told us. Those men didn't discover DNA's
structure at all; they stole it from a King's College scientist named
Rosalind Franklin, then let her die in obscurity, never giving her the
credit due for her work.

Franklin's story, passed from generation to generation, has helped
turn her into a symbol of the feminist struggle. Now, in her new
biography, "Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA," Brenda Maddox
has done a great service to science and history by giving this story a
serious journalistic treatment. In the process, she's created what
will surely become known as the definitive Franklin biography.

Maddox has long been interested in stories of unsung but vital women
who influence the lives of creative men. She has written provocative,
convincing books that re-examine the familiar biographies of such
writers as James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence and William Butler Yeats, in
light of their powerfully important wives, Nora Joyce, Frieda Lawrence
and George Yeats. What she reveals in each case is these women's
profound influence, sometimes amounting to a virtual co- authorship,
that is seldom acknowledged elsewhere.

In many ways, this makes Maddox the ideal biographer for Franklin,
though given her past work, it might seem that she would approach this
story with an agenda: to prove the Franklin story of a woman wronged
by men. But in addition to her intensive research and attention to
detail, one of Maddox's most impressive accomplishments is the rigor
with which she views her subject. "Rosalind Franklin has become a
feminist icon, the Sylvia Plath of molecular biology, the woman whose
gifts were sacrificed to the greater glory of the male," writes
Maddox. "Yet this mythologizing, intended to be reparative, has done
her no favours."

In telling Franklin's story, Maddox shows that there was more to
Franklin's life than a battle over the structure of DNA and, in the
process, she brings to life a brilliant, somewhat tortured woman --
arrogant, often unhappy and unpleasant to those around her and
struggling against a culture in which men viewed women as inferior.

Born into an Anglo-Jewish London family in 1920, Franklin was
immediately recognized as an "alarmingly clever" girl. Her cold,
aggressive father found it unfortunate that of his four children, the
girl turned out to be the "brightest and most determined," and she
resisted family pressures to settle into the role of a traditional
woman. Much of her early life -- especially her struggle to become a
scientist -- sheds light on the strange and often adversarial
relationships she developed with most men. But excessive biographical
detail, which is often dry and dense, weighs down the first quarter of
the book. Perhaps because Franklin, who died at 37, never had much of
a life outside of her science, the book doesn't become engaging until
it begins exploring her scientific life.

Franklin used X-rays to determine the structures and functions of
crystals. Initially, she did extensive work on coal, and by age 29,
she was headed toward an impressive career, with nine research
articles already published in peer-reviewed journals. After moving to
a lab at King's College, she was instructed to begin working with
crystallized DNA. Franklin made impressive contributions to early X-
ray crystallography by fine-tuning instrumentation, and through her
photos, she was the first to show that there were two forms of DNA
(the A and B forms).

She was at King's College for only 27 months, but there she found
herself in the middle of a viciously competitive race to identify the
structure of DNA.

But Franklin was no innocent bystander. She insulted her colleagues by
calling them "so middle class," she glared and snapped at them if they
entered her lab or came too close to her data, and two colleagues
claim she came after them threatening physical attacks. In many ways,
she was a worthy opponent for Watson, who is famous for his
condescension and aggression and whose patronizing attitude toward
women was something she spent her lifetime fighting in others.

Though Franklin was clearly difficult to work with, readers will
probably come away sympathetic to her, as the author is. We watch her
struggle to develop personal relationships, especially with men, with
whom she succeeds only on occasion and never beyond friendship. And we
watch her fight in vain to keep her research to herself, only to stand
at conferences and give it all away in her talks. That was precisely
how Watson first learned of her work.

As the story goes, Franklin took a now-famous X-ray image of DNA that
showed its double helix structure, then her colleague Wilkins stole it
from her and gave it maliciously to Watson and Crick. In fact,
according to Maddox, Wilkins tried to collaborate with Franklin for
years, though she spurned him. Eventually, he began talking with
Watson and Crick about the DNA work in his lab (including Franklin's).
He felt free to discuss details because neither Watson nor Crick were
working on the DNA structure. But once Watson saw Franklin's pictures,
he immediately saw that they showed the structure of DNA and rushed to
create a model and publish it. Though Franklin had developed her
images of DNA months earlier, she hadn't published them. As Maddox
writes, "In the excitement of discovery it seems to have escaped
[Watson's and Crick's] notice that while Rosalind's work was
fundamental to the discovery, she had not been consulted on its use."

Franklin spent countless hours working in the dark with X-ray beams,
shunning protective gear, working sometimes directly in the beam. When
she developed large invasive tumors on both of her ovaries, she stayed
away from the lab only long enough for surgery and worked in the lab
until just before her death. Surprisingly, Maddox never draws a
connection between Franklin's unbelievable radiation exposure in the
lab and the cancer that killed her. This is a surprising oversight,
though minor in light of Maddox's overall achievement.

SOURCE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/10/RV180325.DTL

Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD
when he discovered the secret of life

FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was
under the influence of LSD when he first deduced thedouble-helix
structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.

The abrasive and unorthodox Crick and his brilliant American co-
researcher James Watson famously celebrated their eureka moment in
March 1953 by running from the now legendary Cavendish Laboratory in
Cambridge to the nearby Eagle pub, where they announced over pints of
bitter that they had discovered the secret of life.

Crick, who died ten days ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist
that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used
in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD,
not
the Eagle's warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of
DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

Despite his Establishment image, Crick was a devotee of novelist
Aldous Huxley, whose accounts of his experiments with LSD and another
hallucinogen, mescaline, in the short stories The Doors Of Perception
and Heaven And Hell became cult texts for the hippies of the Sixties
and Seventies. In the late Sixties, Crick was a founder member of
Soma, a legalise-cannabis group named after the drug in Huxley's novel
Brave New World. He even put his name to a famous letter to The Times
in 1967 calling for a reform in the drugs laws.

It was through his membership of Soma that Crick inadvertently became
the inspiration for the biggest LSD manufacturing conspiracy-the world
has ever seen the multimillion-pound drug factory in a remote
farmhouse in Wales that was smashed by the Operation Julie raids of
the late Seventies.

Crick's involvement with the gang was fleeting but crucial. The
revered scientist had been invited to the Cambridge home of
freewheeling American writer David Solomon a friend of hippie LSD guru
Timothy
Leary who had come to Britain in 1967 on a quest to discover a method
for manufacturing pure THC, the active ingredient of cannabis.

It was Crick's presence in Solomon's social circle that attracted a
brilliant young biochemist, Richard Kemp, who soon became a convert to
the attractions of both cannabis and LSD. Kemp was recruited to the
THC project in 1968, but soon afterwards devised the world's first
foolproof method of producing cheap, pure LSD. Solomon and Kemp went
into business, manufacturing acid in a succession of rented houses
before setting up their laboratory in a cottage on a hillside near
Tregaron, Carmarthenshire, in 1973. It is estimated that Kemp
manufactured drugs worth Pounds 2.5 million an astonishing amount in
the Seventies before police stormed the building in 1977 and seized
enough pure LSD and its constituent chemicals to make two million LSD
'tabs'.

The arrest and conviction of Solomon, Kemp and a string of co-
conspirators dominated the headlines for months. I was covering the
case as a reporter at the time and it was then that I met Kemp's close
friend, Garrod Harker, whose home had been raided by police but who
had not been arrest ed. Harker told me that
Kemp and his girlfriend Christine Bott by then in jail were hippie
idealists who were completely uninterested in the money they were
making.

They gave away thousands to pet causes such as the Glastonbury pop
festival and the drugs charity Release.

'They have a philosophy,' Harker told me at the time. 'They believe
industrial society will collapse when the oil runs out and that the
answer is to change people's mindsets using acid. They believe LSD can
help people to see that a return to a natural society based on self-
sufficiency is the only way to save themselves.

'Dick Kemp told me he met Francis Crick at Cambridge. Crick had told
him that some Cambridge academics used LSD in tiny amounts as a
thinking tool, to liberate them from preconceptions and let their
genius wander freely to new ideas. Crick told him he had perceived the
double-helix shape while on LSD.

'It was clear that Dick Kemp was highly impressed and probably bowled
over by what Crick had told him. He told me that if a man like Crick,
who had gone to the heart of human existence, had used LSD, then it
was worth using. Crick was certainly Dick Kemp's inspiration.' Shortly
afterwards I visited Crick at his home, Golden Helix, in Cambridge.

He listened with rapt, amused attention to what I told him about the
role of LSD in his Nobel Prize-winning discovery. He gave no
intimation of surprise. When I had finished, he said: 'Print a word of
it and I'll sue.'

SOURCE: http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html

DZ
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Taka <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How far would it go? Let's say, that DZ is reviewing for a prestigious
journal with big readership and he delays or dismisses the publication
he doesn't like. He's a bad guy, you know. Do you think that the
author of the paper is denied a publication rights? That's absolutely
wrong. He sends his work to a different journal, where there is no DZ
to stop him.

Time is what counts in novadays speedy world ... Who will be first
with that discovery, DZ or the original author?

Statistically, that would be the person who came up with the idea
first. Some of us even put manuscript drafts on the web for everyone
to see. I have done that. The H-index paper I just mentioned
(http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508025) was in fact posted there while
being a draft, submitted to PNAS. Why didn't anyone steal it? That
idea made the author famous well outside his field.

Reviewers are obligated to give you hell, that's their job. You are
incorrectly assuming that peer-review is some kind of cozy Oprah book
club, and that my paper would be in a better situation, because I had
developed a buddy relationship with the editor. Here is a fact: in
those "prestigious" journals, invited manuscripts are rejected at the
same rate as those regularly submitted. Think about that for a
second. The editor is inviting you because he knows you/your work, but
then rejects your paper. Wouldn't you be a bit upset? Yes, but not at
the editor, because of the nature of that relationship.

DZ
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Dnia 2008-02-26 Taka napisa³(a):
On Feb 26, DZ wrote:
And finally, you don't have to do the review by yourself, just
order it to your students/postdocs in the lab.

That's stupid.

Taka has a vivid imagination, and I admire that. Of course, if a
student/postdoc writes a review, that would be HIS review, and whether
he is Ok to do it is up to the editor to decide. There is also a
stereotype that postdocs are slaving away while all the credit is
taken by their supervisors. This is lightheartedly promoted by both
postdocs and their supervisors. Now if you excuse me, I will go back
debugging a postdoc's program Smile

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-26 Taka napisa³(a):

Quote:

On Feb 26, 10:59 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

How far would it go? Let's say, that DZ is reviewing for a prestigious
journal with big readership and he delays or dismisses the publication
he doesn't like. He's a bad guy, you know. Do you think that the
author of the paper is denied a publication rights? That's absolutely
wrong. He sends his work to a different journal, where there is no DZ
to stop him.

Time is what counts in novadays speedy world ... Who will be first
with that discovery, DZ or the original author?

Original author, of course. Who was the first with discovery of theory
of evolution, Darwin or Wallace? Wallace published it first, but
chances are that you don't even remember his name.

Quote:

Let's see. Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Gauss or Darwin. From whom
they stole their most renown works?

You never know but that's too old honest World.

You obviously never heard about the enmity (that's the right word for
it) between Newton and Leibnitz. They quarreled about who first
discovered the differential calculus. Newton was first, though Leibnitz
published first.

Quote:

Look at something more recent like this:

Double-helix double cross?
Biographer looks into charges that Nobel winners stole woman's DNA
work

Rosalind Franklin
The Dark Lady of DNA

She didn't discover the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick did, she
gathered some data which helped them, and Watson stole a *glance* at
them, not the data itself. She would be honored by Nobel Prize anyway,
but she was unfortunate enough to die before it could happen, and they
don't award Nobel posthumously. Bad luck and maybe not the best
possible system of awards (nobody ever said it about Nobel in the first
place), but you can't say she was robbed or anything.

I wrote the above before reading what you quote below. Let's see if it
changed my mind.

[...]

Bunch of nonsense. It could be refuted sentence by sentence showing
proofs for every refute, but it isn't worth it. Nonsense of some
caliber is dismissed and ignored, not actively refuted.

Anyway, there was no secrecy about who gathered crystalographic data
which helped Watson and Crick find the structure. There was no secrecy
about how they got hold of them (Watson seen them and then reconstructed
them due to his photographic memory). She would be awarded with Noble
Prize along with others if she didn't die before that time. Watson
personally gave her full credit on *numerous* occasions, including his
book The Double Helix, as a notorious example. Crick did the same.

And finally, she didn't discover the structure of DNA. Transferring
crystalographic data into a structure is not an easy task, and although
she did her best, including refraining from publication to give herself
more time, she failed. Go and see how those data look and try yourself.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

DZ
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

trigonometry1972@gmail.com

Quote:

Humm... I am sorry this thread isn't on the MHA forum

misc.health.alternative? I can only guess what's happening
there. Seriously, I'm afraid to even take a peek.

cormac
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Quote:

A vast number of stars, an infinite and eternal universe.

It hardly qualifies as a discovery. And Bruno wasn't a scientist. He
was a mystic, who accidentally liked heliocentricism, but many others of
the same type liked various mystical doctrines. Nobody put them on
pedestals and rarely on stakes, so we don't remember them.

You can make a parallel between Bruno and various Flat Earth quacks.
It's possible to be right for all the wrong reasons, it just doesn't
happen very often.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

So, you believe that Bruno was just a mystic. Like Newton?

Cormac.

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-26 cormac napisa³(a):

Quote:

Unlike Newton, who wasn't just a mystic.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

cormac
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Quote:

So, you believe that Bruno was just a mystic. Like Newton?

Unlike Newton, who wasn't just a mystic.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Bruno's concept of the Universe as eternal and infinite
was the most significant scientific advance of his time.

Cormac.

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-27 cormac napisa³(a):

Quote:

So, you believe that Bruno was just a mystic. Like Newton?

Unlike Newton, who wasn't just a mystic.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Bruno's concept of the Universe as eternal and infinite
was the most significant scientific advance of his time.

C'mon man. He lived contemporary with Galileo.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

cormac
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

On Feb 27, 12:25 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Dnia 2008-02-27 cormac napisa³(a):

So, you believe that Bruno was just a mystic. Like Newton?

Unlike Newton, who wasn't just a mystic.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Bruno's concept of the Universe as eternal and infinite
was the most significant scientific advance of his time.

C'mon man. He lived contemporary with Galileo.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Both looked at the night sky through a telescope. Galileo viewed the
solar system. Bruno saw the local section of the universe and
concluded that it was eternal and infinite.

As our telescopes improve we see more and more and no evidence of a
boundary. The Big Bang was probably a local event balanced by some
other event elsewhere.

Bruno's theories remain unchallenged.

Cormac.

Andrzej Rosa
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Giordano Brunos

Dnia 2008-02-27 cormac napisa³(a):

Quote:

On Feb 27, 12:25 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

C'mon man. He lived contemporary with Galileo.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Both looked at the night sky through a telescope. Galileo viewed the
solar system. Bruno saw the local section of the universe and
concluded that it was eternal and infinite.

As our telescopes improve we see more and more and no evidence of a
boundary. The Big Bang was probably a local event balanced by some
other event elsewhere.

Bruno's theories remain unchallenged.

Especially because they aren't theories.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Display posts from previous:

	Computer Forum Forum Index -> diet	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum