Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Thu Nov 14, 2024 12:12 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta
possibly a dumb question with an obvious answer...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 5 of 10 [137 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Nightmare Tony wrote:
And then the questin is begged on the beauty and glory of nature. Is it art? To me it is. The beauty of forests and meadows. A city dweller type would not consider it as such, I guess...
It's beautiful, but it's not art. Why? No virtuosity, originality, or risk. Nature isn't (and can't be) the best (or worst) of itself; it just is what it is. Once again, I am not disputing the beauty of nature, nor nature's ability to touch someone in the same way as art. I'm just saying that nature can't be art.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:42 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
hmrpita wrote:
Nightmare Tony wrote:
And then the questin is begged on the beauty and glory of nature. Is it art? To me it is. The beauty of forests and meadows. A city dweller type would not consider it as such, I guess...
My dear Nightmare Tony,
How can anything man-made compete with the beauty of nature? I am a certified citified city chick, but I would never compare the beautitful city I live in with anything in the natural world (nor would I compare thee to a summer's day Wink).
Now rould I since, since the beautiful city could be art, and the beatiful nature could not be.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:43 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
water10 wrote:
Quote:
For example, when someone throws up near you, you probably have some emotional reaction. I wouldn't call the final product art, would you?
That's why I said it should have merit to be called art. Like I said, I like to keep some things simple.
Okay, so as simply as you can, tell us how we can describe and recognize that inherent merit. I agree it's there, but I want to know what form it takes.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:46 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Clayfoot wrote:
CoffeeJedi wrote:
i think i'll borrow a phrase from the honorable Justice Potter Stewart:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "

granted, he was referring to pornagraphy at the time, but i think the statement is valid here too Very Happy
Oh, that's interesting. How is it valid? Because you say so? How delightful!


Now you're just being cranky, Clayfoot. Razz
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:52 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
ROBOGriff wrote:
If a group of people threw up on stage or on cue, then someone would consider it art. If somone barfed on canvas and swirled it around, then someone would call it art. Technically they both are correct (even though I wouldn't call it that).
Intriguing. Now, exactly why or how would this hypothetical someone be "technically correct"? If you don't see it as art, what could this someone tell you that would reveal to you the art that this hypothetical someone sees?
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:52 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Clayfoot wrote:
ROBOGriff wrote:
If a group of people threw up on stage or on cue, then someone would consider it art. If somone barfed on canvas and swirled it around, then someone would call it art. Technically they both are correct (even though I wouldn't call it that).
Intriguing. Now, exactly why or how would this hypothetical someone be "technically correct"? If you don't see it as art, what could this someone tell you that would reveal to you the art that this hypothetical someone sees?


<chuckle> Trying to get your post count up?
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:53 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Anton P. Nym
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 550
Location: London, Canada

 		Laughing And I was just going to go with a Halo-related, "Double post! Triple post! Post-tacular! Post-trocity! Postimanjaro! Posting Spree!"

-- Steve'll post a more intelligible response when his brain isn't at work, and thus is by definition the consitency of overcooked oatmeal.
_________________
Dr.Prof. Anton P. Nym
Chief Bungiologist
Institute for Advanced ILB Research
Fireflies Wiki contributor. Sorta.
Livejournal

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:57 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Dorkmaster wrote:
If it is intended as art, then it is. Do you like it? That's your opinion, and is it skillful? That's debatable, of course. But that doesn't make it any less of an art. Just one less valuable, or maybe more appropriately less likeable or desirable... But art is intentional.
Let me see... you said that
- art must be intentionally created (no nature, no "artful" tripping)
- art need not be skillful work, but it's "better" art if it is skilled.

Is that right?

I think Phaedra made the point that art does not have to be intentional, and I allowed that to be true. If I may equate skillfulness to virtuosity, then I made the point earlier that relative skill in a piece is one measure of its artistic quality.

If you agree so far, would you also agree with the rest of the tripart test? That art can be recognized by its relative originality and risk, as well?
Dorkmaster wrote:
I don't like arguing (I LOVE DEBATING, however) so I don't mean to put down anyone's ideas or anything, but I just don't see how you can disagree to the idea that anything intended as art IS art! I have yet to see one good example of intended art that cannot be considered art. Nor have I seen art that was not intended as art be considered art.
Vague generalities won't get you out of this one, and as a debater, you should know it. While intention may be more likely to produce art, it is not a sufficient condition. Using Phaedra's apple painting as an example, we might see that, despite any intention to create a masterpiece, the originality, vituosity, and/or risk that Phaedra put into the piece could nevertheless qualify it as artwork. As for the converse, apparently we need look no further than the Halo novels.
Dorkmaster wrote:
One may say "Well, there's this well crafted theory that I consider art" Well, that may be true, but is it really art? I would submit that it isn't, because the creator of that piece doesn't consider it art (unless he/she does, and in which case, then it IS art...)
That's just silly. Whether the creator of work thinks of it as art has nothing to do with its intrinsic value as a piece. Whether the creator think it's "art" or not, if the piece has some originality, virtuosity, and/or risk; then, the piece has some intrinsic value as art. If it mostly lacks these qualities, then it's not art, no matter what the creator thinks.
Dorkmaster wrote:
See how simple this is?
Yes, I'm afraid I do
Dorkmaster wrote:
But seriously, "What is 'art'?" is not the real question at stake here... 'What qualifies something as a valuable or justifiable piece of art' is the real thing I think we're getting at.
A) We've already established that point
B) It's the same thing
Dorkmaster wrote:
I could honestly spit on a napkin and claim it to be art. Who could stop me? I've created an art piece.
No, you haven't
Dorkmaster wrote:
But then for it to be valued, and considered by others as worthy, or in the same league with Michaelangelo, Picasso, Gehry, Sondheim, Spielberg, or Rembrandt... well, that's opinion.
No, it isn't.
Dorkmaster wrote:
That's where "good" and "bad" art come into play. "Skilled or unskilled" is probably more apt, however, since that can be more easily judged.
Allow me to refer back to the tripart test, which seems to be the best we can do, so far.
Dorkmaster wrote:
To say that a piece has to create emotion for it to be art is ludicrous, because what stirs emotion in one can be completely ignored by another and be considered completely effective. So does that make it "half" art? No.
I don't think it's ludicrous, but it would be more helpful to know what it is about a piece that stirs emotion.
Dorkmaster wrote:
Does that mean that the ORIGINAL intention must be art? No, I don't agree with that statement either. There are many instances where something completely technical in nature, mundane, or even unintentional in its creation entirely has obtained art-status, and I reason that it is because the creator of that piece, if available, accepted that position, and has made that shift to intentionality towards the artistic. However, in instances where the creator is no longer available, or unknown... I feel that art can then be decided by its critics and consumers. In this type of case only, does the line grey and become more debatable.
Yes, hence this debate. Really, this business of whether the creator accepts the mantle of "artist" is nonsense. We don't need the creator's permission or knowledge to judge the relative value of a work. What we do need is some way to qualify that judgement.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:30 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Phaedra wrote:
Now you're just being cranky, Clayfoot. Razz

Phaedra wrote:
<chuckle> Trying to get your post count up?
Yeah! What do I have to do around here to get 'Entrenched'? *grumble*
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:32 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Clayfoot wrote:
Yeah! What do I have to do around here to get 'Entrenched'? *grumble*


Heh! What do I have to do to get out of "Entrenched"?
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:37 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		Ok... looking over my post below, it seems I have a habit of getting into interesting debates, and posting enormous messages most people will never read through Smile. So, I'm not going to get into this again and follow Phaedra's intelligent lead and watch from the sidelines... after this post Wink these messages always seem to be related to issues dealing with the known vs the unknown. *sigh*... and my stomach is pounding for sustinence... and I'm going to see House of Flying Daggers tonight... so I'm done Smile
--

Clayfoot wrote:
Well, that certainly is an easy test to pass on the individual level. "If it's attractive to me, then it's a work of art, even there was no work involved." Of course, that doesn't help us settle on a common framework for what is art or not. If everything is potentially art to someone, then nothing is art.

Au contraire - if everything is potentially art to someone, then there is no common ground to provide a definition for art. That doesn't mean nothing is art; that contradicts the statement that anything can be art to anyone. So it simply means that there is no 'this is art' definition with which to compare anything in the world in order to reach a definite conclusion. A stone may be art to someone and may not be to someone else. A Picasso may be art to someone and not to someone else.

I still put forward that art is strictly in the value of the thing or act in question. If you don't find value in it, that doesn't mean it is definitively not art, because someone else may. As I said earlier, because art is entirely based on personal opinion, there can be no "this is not art" definitive statement, only "I do not consider this art".

For me, personally, anything that I know to be considered by at least one person out there to be considered art, I consider art, no matter how awful, disgusting or beautiful it may be. I can never point at something and say that is not art if someone beside me sees value in it as art.
Quote:
Andy Warhol is a tough subject. So much of his work seems to be daring us to call his work art or not. It would be easy to give in and call everything he ever touched artwork, but we should be able to sort the treasure from the trash better than that, don't you think?

I definitely consider his work art, no matter how much of the media he didn't create himself. If he took a can and placed it on a table and said 'look at this', and it caused people to think, to contemplate anything, I consider it art. It's the thought he put into it, not matter how much, or the lack of thought - the fact he did it, had the thought to say "I'm going to do this", which was for a point, and it made people consider things like the use of space, the lack of detail, the plainness, the ordinary... there is so much to think about in anything that is a matter of expression. But again, this comes back to expression, which is only one aspect of art.
Quote:
That leaves open to call the original Post-It Notes and Velcro art, since they were certainly creative works when they were invented. Are you saying that these creative works are also art? If so, are we back to saying that everything and nothing is art?

Just to clarify on the latter - only you said that 'nothing is art' because anything can be art... Smile
Quote:
So, you would say that a work has to be appealing to oneself to be art? If you don't like it, it can't be art? I fear that your system won't be very portable, nor will it help us classify what could be considered art. There is no way under your system to say why something is art beyond "I like it."

I'll add to that... this is why I say that for something to be art, it has to hold some kind of value with at least one person out there. But it's not physically possible to know that no other living person would hold any value whatsoever in the 'art' in question. Which is why it's not possible to say something is not art.

If you think about it, the fact that we can discuss something that may or may not be considered art, may make someone hold artistic value in the controversial 'art'. The very fact we're talking about the halo novels is making people interested to read them... in this case, the novelist wrote as an expression, and it's being wanted by readers, no matter how few there may be. Can we therefore say the novels are not art (or artistic) in any way?
Quote:
And yet, we have collections of works which we seem to agree are art collections. These works must have something in common to distinguish them from beautiful (or ugly) things that are not art. What might those qualities be, would you say?

The common points that those within the group consider important in order to consider something art. As I mentioned in a previous post - just as you or I may consider something art, a group of people, or an organization may consider something to be art, based on a common set of expectations. But someone may not consider a museum very artful, and hold no value on anything within its doors. It's not art to that person. But it is to the museum. Just as a person who holds value in a specific piece may be turned away when going to a museum who deems the piece 'not art', or not good enough. So who's to say what's art and not?
Ye can't Smile
Quote:
I'm thinking of Emily Dickinson now. She wrote for her own entertainment without any apparent intention to show her work to anyone else ever. Yet, it seems pretty easy to find the value in her work, without consulting the originally intended audience. Why is that? What specific emotions in what audience are the function of Dickinson's work?

The fact we know about her work is enough to know that it's art. The fact it's out there, and people want it, and already consider it art, shows that it has artistic value. The only way a personal expression can never be considered art (by my defintion) is if it never reaches another human eye, or at least not until every person is shown to hold no value in the piece.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe "Art" can be universally defined. It's entirely a matter of personal tastes.

Art can be universally defined. It is not purely a matter of personal taste. See? We can just go on and on like this, without ever adding anything to the discussion.

Ah, but in your wordplay, you conveniently remove "I don't believe"... Smile I don't believe "Art" can be universally defined, it is entirely a amtter of personal taste. You believe "Art" can be universally defined, and that it's not a matter of personal taste. So, help us understand how you define what art is; actually, since it is a universal definition, tell us what it is, not what you believe it to be. Smile
Quote:
So, why technically do you consider these acts to be art? What makes them so? And, how do these acts differ from other despicable acts that you do not consider to be art?

I consider them art because they make people think. If the killer's purpose to his acts was to evoke emotional response, and people are disgusted by it, he's accomplished his purpose, therefore I'd say it would be considered art, even though I hate it. Maybe it's coming into a circular definition, I dunno cuz it's so confusing Smile. If an expression accomplishes it's purpose, I'd consider it art. If only one person in the world holds any value in what's in question, I'd consider it art. Other people may have other definitions of what they consider art. On the other hand, I can't offer a definition of what cannot be considered art. Can you?
Quote:
To be sure, the face spitting was an expression of emotion. Now, why (or not) is this art? What do these acts and the consequential results have to do with personal expression and with art? Come now; you must have something better for us than, "Because, I say so."

Nay, I say a spit in the face is rude and obnoxious. I would only consider it art to me if the receiver was willing, or deserving, and the purpose of the spitter was not solely an instinctual hateful act with no expressive purpose except to hate the person and not intending to display to anyone else. Say, just the two of them and no one around, and he spits in the their face. It's not an expression with an audience, it's simply a hate filled act that on hearing about it I'd find rude and obnoxious. But, that's what the act is to me. Someone else might have a different definition to which they'd compare it, and consider it art in some way. If that's the case, I would digress and consider the act art. Because someone else thought and focused on it, thinking about more than just the surface, and held value in it as an artful expression.
Quote:
We might look to some museum collections or popular notions to help us along, but we don't depend on these popular opinions to make definitions of what art is.

exactly Smile if museums can't decide on what art is, what makes us think we'll decide here? Smile I'm offering that art cannot be applied under a "yes or no" definition. There is no "this is" or "this isn't" art. If you believe it to be art, it's art. That's it. There's no, 'if you don't believe it to be art, it's not art'.

It comes down to a question really of - can we ever know if something cannot be considered art.
Quote:
I'm intrigued by this assignment of "perceived value" by an individual. What is the nature of this perceived value? How does it help identify art? How could this person convey this sense of value to another person? Would that conveyance then qualify as a sytem of defining and of identifying art?

The nature of this perceived value is what makes us human. The ability to feel, to choose, to make our own decisions based on our emotions. It helps identify art, because each person has a right to decide to for himself whether he holds value in something. They convey the sense of value of another however they wish - purchasing, responding with art, discussing, speaking, writing, however they wish. And that's precisely the system I'm talking about. If someone holds value in something as art, then it has become art to that person. No one can then say it is not art, because it is, to that person, even if it isn't to anyone else.
Quote:
What kind of value? I'm pretty sure air has value, and that lots of us would agree on that, but I would not call it art.

You wouldn't. But there are many who would look at the intricasies of the make-up of air, molecules, and poetic, chaotic motion of particles, and much more... some people may look at that and see artistic value in nature itself. Air may just be a thing to most people, but to some, it's a thing of beauty. Can you then say that air is not art by that definition? It isn't to you...
Quote:
Are you saying that we can identify what's art by seeing if someone (anyone) will buy it? I guess, that's one way to get objective criteria...

Nope, purchasing is one form of holding value. There are many many more forms of value that are not monetary.
Quote:
Oh, that's interesting. Now, how do you find value? Could you describe it, please?

Ask someone who has no money yet holds artistic value in the way someone draws graffiti on a secluded corner of an alley wall.
Quote:
What fools we've been!

Sarcasm noted Wink
[quote]Some of your examples are admiring the art of the process, not the finished product. On top of that, you're still saying that anything could be art, which means that nothing could be. I hold to the notion that there is art, and that not only can I recognize it, I can describe what makes it art. I say there is art, and consequentially that there are works that are not art[/qipte]
In your opinion. Are you saying that your opinion of what is art is the be all and end all of art? If you don't consider it art by your definition, does that make it not art? If not, then you've proven my point. Art is a personal definition. And once again, just because anything can be art doesn't mean nothing is art.
Quote:
Once again, I am not disputing the beauty of nature, nor nature's ability to touch someone in the same way as art. I'm just saying that nature can't be art.

Sounds a little contradictory... if it touches someone as art, it must be art. I might not consider it art. You might not. But they do. So I can't say it's not. It is to them, and it isn't to you.
Quote:
Quote:
I could honestly spit on a napkin and claim it to be art. Who could stop me? I've created an art piece.

No, you haven't

So you say what is art and not?
Quote:
Quote:
But then for it to be valued, and considered by others as worthy, or in the same league with Michaelangelo, Picasso, Gehry, Sondheim, Spielberg, or Rembrandt... well, that's opinion.

No, it isn't.

So it's fact? By what definition? Then how much value does it have? By what scale? Who made the scale? How do they know it's fact? Who made that fact? Wait, that can't be right...
Quote:
We don't need the creator's permission or knowledge to judge the relative value of a work. What we do need is some way to qualify that judgement.

You're trying to then state one person's opinion as fact, when the issue is entirely based on individual opinion. You can qualify someone's opinion about something. If something is art to someone, it might not be to someone else.

So the question we need to ask is - is something that may or not be considered art (which includes everything and anything), really art? (on a factual, "this is" basis, not based on an opinion)

If you can answer that, I'll <fill in wild and crazy act here>.

methinks Clayfoot is playing devil's advocate and trying to find ways to disagree with people Smile I wouldn't yet call it trolling Wink But as I said up top, I'm not gonna get into another huge post thread hehehe... I've stated my opinion, that's all that's needed... very interesting topic though. Smile so continue the debate...

I find this entire thread, and Clayfoot, QUITE artful! Laughing
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:34 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
thebruce wrote:
Ok...


Yeah, never mind all that. Razz

At what post did you become an Unfictologist?
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:37 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
SpaceBass
The BADministrator


Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 2701
Location: pellucidar
Phaedra wrote:
At what post did you become an Unfictologist?


That would be 1250.
_________________
Alternate Reality Gaming
http://www.unfiction.com/

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:09 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		hehe touche Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:43 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
SpaceBass wrote:
Phaedra wrote:
At what post did you become an Unfictologist?


That would be 1250.


Oh, okay. Thank you!

Apropos of nothing, does anyone around here LiveJournal? I have a feeling I haven't found all the beekeepers.
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:47 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 5 of 10 [137 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group