Alphadictionary.com

Our Sponsors

Technical Translation
Website Translation Clip Art
 

SKEPTICISM/SCEPTICISM

Use this forum to discuss past Good Words.

SKEPTICISM/SCEPTICISM

Postby Dr. Goodword » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:00 pm

• skepticism •

Pronunciation: skep-tê-sis-êm

Part of Speech: Mass noun (no plural)

Meaning: 1. Doubt, disbelief, the inclination to suspect the truth of something. 2. A philosophy beginning with Pyrrho of Elis, who fought dogmatism by showing reasons for doubting it, but which today is the position that absolute knowledge is impossible but that science can succeed with relative certainty.

Notes: Although the stem of today's word, skeptic, may be a noun or adjective, most careful speakers reserve skeptical for adjectival duty. As for spelling, seldom is the speaker of English allowed the option of using the spelling of either language from which we borrow words. However, in addition the Greek spelling above, you may also use the Latin spelling, scepticism. US editors tend to prefer the [k], while British editors are more comfortable with the [c].

In Play: Skepticism is a necessary part of a healthy attitude so long as it does not sour into cynicism: "Granville, I take it you view my plan for increasing company profits while establishing permanent world peace with some skepticism." It is often behind the practice of betting, "If you would place a financial value on your skepticism that I can win the marathon—say $50—it would take on a much more interesting character."

Word History: Today's word is the abstract noun from skeptic/sceptic, borrowed from both Latin scepticus "skeptic" and from its source, Greek skeptikos "skeptic" from skeptesthai "to examine closely". This word comes from a fascinating root, PIE *spek-/*spok- "look, see", that we see in spectator, inspect, and, my personal favorite, spice. Yes, spice, the French version of Latin species, which originally meant "kind, type", but later came to mean "wares" and finally "spice". The other fascinating aspect of this root is that the [p] and [k] traded places in Greek (metathesis), where we find skopein "to see", visible in our words telescope, microscope, and the new (slang) verb to scope out. (Today we are grateful to M. Henri Day, a heavy trader in our Alpha Agora, for seeing the potential in today's Good Word.)
• The Good Dr. Goodword
User avatar
Dr. Goodword
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:28 am
Location: Lewisburg, PA

Postby astrokatastro » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:39 pm

A related word in Greece now is Euroscepticism.
ΝΙΨΟΝΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑΜΗΜΟΝΑΝΟΨΙΝ
astrokatastro
Junior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:37 am

Postby Apoclima » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:03 pm

Are you talking about Henri, astro?

Euroskepticism, hmm, interesting!

Apo
'Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination.' -Max Planck
User avatar
Apoclima
Senior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby astrokatastro » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:35 pm

Herny Who?
ΝΙΨΟΝΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑΜΗΜΟΝΑΝΟΨΙΝ
astrokatastro
Junior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:37 am

Postby M. Henri Day » Fri May 13, 2005 8:39 am

You're of course quite right about my Euroskeptic leanings, Apo - my original, carefully thought out response on the matter was inadvertently (?) (I'm beginning to wonder if the «log-in» request is not really some subtle censor designed to keep unacceptable opinions off the Agora - the defining characteristics of paranoia will be discussed later !) deleted, and I've never found the energy to attempt a rewrite. After reading the latest issue of Diplo, however, I was reminded of this thread, and therefore reproduce below Anne-Cécile Robert's article in its entirety....

Henri

L'EUROPE DANS LA TOURMENTE

La ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour
l'Europe (TCE), signé le 29 octobre 2004, a
commencé (1). Dix pays (2) sur vingt-cinq ont choisi
le référendum, les autres le vote parlementaire. Cependant,
c'est la consultation des Français le 29 mai 2005 qui
retient l'attention : une réponse négative déciderait
certainement du sort du traité dans la mesure où la France
est l'un des six pays fondateurs de la Communauté économique
européenne (CEE) et où elle joue un rôle important de la
scène internationale.

L'éventuel échec du traité ne doit pas effrayer.
L'apocalypse dont les partisans du texte menacent l'Europe
ne se produira pas plus que lors de la non-ratification de
la Communauté européenne de défense (CED) en 1954 ou de la
démission de la Commission en 1999. Le choix des Français,
comme des autres Européens, doit porter sur le fond du
traité constitutionnel et l'orientation qu'il imprime à la
construction européenne. L'échec du TCE obligerait enfin les
Vingt-Cinq à discuter du contenu du projet européen, plutôt
que de brandir menaces et anathèmes dès que des critiques
sont formulées. Car, de blanc seing en blanc seing, l'Union
s'enlise.

En effet, l'Union européenne est une organisation adulte
mais très immature : elle est incapable de discuter en
profondeur de son avenir (quel projet commun pour une
organisation de plus en plus en plus composite ?) et préfère
se perdre dans les méandres du meccano institutionnel
(combien de voix pour chaque pays au Conseil des ministres)
ou dans les fuites en avant (élargissement massif à 10
nouveaux pays en mai 2004 alors que les institutions n'ont
pas été réformées en profondeur).

Qu'on ne s'étonne pas alors que des citoyens des pays
membres « décrochent » ! D'où les référendums négatifs au
Danemark sur le traité de Maastricht (1992) ou en Irlande
sur le traité de Nice (2001). Ces votes sonnent comme un
avertissement et un appel jamais entendus. « Il faut
rapprocher la construction européenne de ses habitants »,
s'inquiétait le Sommet européen de Laeken en décembre 2001.
Mais, pour cela, ne faudrait-il pas que l'Union s'attache à
élaborer une vision, sinon commune du moins socialisable,
des grands enjeux de la planète ? Ne faudrait-il pas qu'elle
définisse un projet de civilisation clairement identifiable
qui la distinguerait de la gangue informe de la
mondialisation libérale et guerrière ? Un projet qui, en
outre, justifierait tous les sacrifices de souveraineté
auxquels les Européens ont consenti, bon gré mal gré, depuis
cinquante ans ? Or, sans cesse, ces débats sont repoussés et
le TCE, quasi impossible à réviser car il faudra l'unanimité
des Vingt-Cinq, tend à verrouiller l'évolution de la
construction européenne et toute discussion sur elle.

Présenté par ses rédacteurs comme la réponse à tous les maux
(opacité, division, absence de démocratie...), le traité
constitutionnel pose davantage de problèmes qu'il n'en
résout. De manière très significative, lors de son
élaboration, le débat a porté sur la pondération des voix au
Conseil des ministres (lancée par l'Espagne et la Pologne
dont il diminuait le poids institutionnel) alors que la
caractéristique majeure du texte est ailleurs et bien plus
préoccupante : la constitutionnalisation du libéralisme
économique dans sa partie III.

A rebours des traditions constitutionnelles européennes, la
loi fondamentale proposée mélange allègrement le fond et la
forme : chaque « avancée » ou réforme institutionnelle
correspond à un nouveau verrou économique. Le fédéralisme
technico-monétariste se voit fossilisé, tandis que les
politiques sociales et budgétaires demeuraient phagocytées !
Les principes fondamentaux de la construction européenne,
énoncés dans le préambule du texte, font de la concurrence,
du libre-échange et des règles monétaristes, les valeurs
cardinales en vertu desquelles seront organisées et évaluées
toutes les politiques et toutes les décisions. Cette
évolution majeure n'a pas fait l'objet de discussion
véritable, comme si, au fond, elle était considérée comme
acquise, inévitable. C'est ce débat que la montée du « non »
qui semble s'amorcer commence à ouvrir et que sa victoire
obligerait à tenir enfin.

En effet, la désaffection de la grande majorité des citoyens
pour l'Union européenne traduit d'abord son incapacité à
répondre à ce qui taraude et écartèle toutes les sociétés
occidentales : le chômage, la paix, la sécurité sociale. Au
lieu de s'atteler à répondre à ces questions, l'Europe se
coule docilement dans le moule de la mondialisation libérale
et peine à affirmer une différence politique face à un
empire américain devenu dominateur, comme l'a montré
l'invasion de l'Irak menée en violation du droit
international et des règles classiques du droit de la guerre
.

Un terrible manque d'imagination semble paralyser les
dirigeants européens. Sur le fond des politiques, ils
suivent le mouvement dominant, économiciste, privatiseur,
tout en prononçant ici ou là de larmoyants discours sur le
« modèle social européen », d'autant plus invoqué qu'il
n'est jamais défendu. En ce qui concerne les institutions,
ils bricolent au petit bonheur (une dose de majorité
qualifiée par ci, un peu de co-décision pour le Parlement
par là, une responsabilisation de la Commission mais pas du
Conseil...) sans chercher à inventer un modèle propre à
l'Union européenne comme avaient commencé à le faire les
Pères fondateurs (Jean Monnet notamment).

Cependant des frémissements sont perceptibles depuis la
crise irakienne du printemps 2003. « Mieux vaut une Europe
divisée qu'une Europe dominée », estime ainsi le politologue
Pascal Boniface. Au moins, les divergences ont-elles fait
apparaître une Europe différente derrière les diplomaties
allemande, française et belge tandis que la maladie du
suivisme et l'illusion de la « relation spéciale »
affectaient une nouvelle fois le Royaume-Uni. Par exemple,
la Commission européenne hésite de moins en moins à attaquer
les Etats Unis devant l'Organe de règlement des différends
de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Même si, dans
le même temps, sa soumission au libre commerce le moins
imaginatif prive l'Union d'une véritable protection de sa
culture et de ses productions agricoles . Enfin, le refus
des gouvernements d'appliquer de manière mécanique le pacte
de stabilité budgétaire et de croissance à la France et à
l'Allemagne (novembre 2003) manifeste une tentative de
reprise en main du politique face à une orthodoxie
économique qui étouffe la lutte contre le chômage et la
pauvreté et ligote les puissances publiques européennes. Les
deux pays violaient des règles qu'ils avaient eux-mêmes
instaurées il y a bientôt dix ans, mais ces règles
n'étaient-elles pas des règles du passé, érigées lors de la
période la plus intégriste du libéralisme mondialisé ?
C'est-à-dire avant l'échec de Doha, de Cancun, avant les
contre-sommets altermondialistes ? Mais le relatif
assouplissement du pacte de stabilité, décidé par le Conseil
de européen de Bruxelles, le 22 mars 2005, ne joue qu'à la
marge et ne remet pas en cause la logique étouffante du
pacte que le TCE confirme.

Le traité constitutionnel n'empêche-t-il pas de concrétiser
des évolutions positives en enfermant l'Union européenne
dans ses travers fondateurs : la domination des questions
économiques (dans leur version libérale et monétariste) sur
les questions sociales, le manque de démocratie et l'absence
de projet politique mobilisateur ?

La construction européenne a besoin d'un souffle nouveau.
Bien installée dans le paysage continental, elle doit
retrouver une légitimité populaire et inventer un projet
politique qui lui soit propre.

ANNE-CÉCILE ROBERT.
_______________________________________________________

(1) Voir le calendrier des ratifications.

(2) Danemark, France, Irlande, Luxembourg, Pays Bas,
Pologne, Portugal, République Tchèque, Royaume-Uni et
Espagne.

>>> http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/europe/
曾记否,到中流击水,浪遏飞舟?
M. Henri Day
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE

Postby M. Henri Day » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:02 am

If I may be permitted to broaden the discussion here from skepticism with regard to the (now-defunct ?) draught EU constitution to skepticism in general, I should like to cite below two book reviews taken from an English-language source. I'm very much hoping, in the not-too-distant future, to get my hot little hands on Professor Penrose's work....

Henri

PS : A little note on the mental state of some of the writers of the manuscripts described by Michael Schermer below : if memory doesn't fail, it was one such person who shot and killed Professor Einstein's secretary at Princeton many years ago, when she informed him that the great physicist was out and couldn't receive him....

The week’s eSkeptic offers two reviews of The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose (Knopf Random House, 2005, ISBN 0679454438).

The first review, How Vast Is Our Ignorance, is by James N. Gardner, author of BIOCOSM. BIOCOSM (www.biocosm.org) was selected as one of the ten best science books of 2003 by the editors of Amazon.com.

The second review, The Key to the Universe, is by Michael Shermer, originally published in the New York Sun, March 2005.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Vast is Our Ignorance?

a review by James N. Gardner

THE MOST DIFFICULT THING for lay people to understand about science, Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann once told me after a lecture in Portland, Oregon, is how very little scientists truly comprehend about the basic nature of nature, how vast is our ignorance of the fundamental reality of the cosmos. Gell-Mann’s statement reminded me of the comment of that supreme master of quantum physics, Nobelist Richard Feynman, who once famously remarked: “I think it can be safely said that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics and author of the Principia — arguably the single most sublime achievement of the human intellect—made exactly the same point some 300 years earlier when he said:

I don’t know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Why is it that our greatest geniuses — Gell-Mann, Feynman, Newton—can humbly concede how pitifully limited is the reach of deep human insight and comprehension while lesser spirits noisily proclaim the certainty of their conclusions and forcefully dismiss dissent, doubt, or skepticism?

The short answer, I think, is that humans crave certainty, even false certainty, in preference to the sense of vertigo induced by a clear-eyed acknowledgment that we are, at least most of the time, stumbling in the dark down an unmarked path through the baffling wilderness of an unknown — perhaps unknowable — reality. Facing up to the limits of our knowledge and the enormity of our ignorance is an acquired skill, to put it mildly. But it is a skill well worth cultivating. For if we don’t realize where the shoreline of reasonably well established scientific theory ends and the vast sea of undiscovered truth begins, how can we possibly hope to measure our progress toward a deeper and more encompassing scientific enlightenment?

That is the leitmotif of Oxford physicist Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. The great virtue of this massive tome — an imposing brick of a book that bristles with equations and clocks in at a daunting 1,099 pages — is not so much the encyclopedic review it provides of the history and current status of theoretical physics but rather its forthright acknowledgment that, for all its magnificent achievements, modern science remains a flickering candle surrounded by inky mystery. With refreshing candor, Penrose forcefully underscores the extent of our ignorance about the origin — and indeed the very nature — of the physical laws that govern the operation of our magnificent universe. What the enterprise of science has compiled to date, in Penrose’s view, is a decidedly incomplete guide to the laws of nature:

I hope that it is clear, from the discussion given in the preceding sections that our road to understanding the nature of the real world is still a long way from its goal. Perhaps this goal will never be reached, or perhaps there will eventually emerge some ultimate theory, in terms of which what we call “reality” can in principle be understood. If so, the nature of that theory must differ enormously from what we have seen in physical theories so far.

The great iconoclasts and contrarians of science — British cosmologist Fred Hoyle, Princeton physicists John Wheeler and Freeman Dyson, Thomas Gold, Francis Crick, Albert Einstein, and Roger Penrose — play a critically important role in maintaining the intellectual integrity of the scientific enterprise. As Gold put it perfectly a few years ago:

New ideas in science are not right just because they are new. Nor are old ideas wrong just because they are old. A critical attitude is clearly required of every seeker of truth. But one must be equally critical of both the old ideas as of the new. Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically and conflicting new evidence is brushed aside or not even reported because it does not fit, that particular science is in deep trouble.

Penrose, a quintessential scientific contrarian, is consumed by the fear that uncritical adherence to ideas deemed mainstream by the scientific establishment might blind us to theoretical possibilities that, while radically novel, may offer a deeper understanding of our queer cosmos. He strives heroically in The Road to Reality to forestall that intellectual calamity, reminding us in the process of just how enormous is the distance that we have yet to travel down the road that may someday lead to a full understanding of reality:

There are deeply mysterious issues about which we have very little comprehension. It is quite likely that the 21st century will reveal even more wonderful insights than those we have been blessed with in the 20th. But for this to happen, we shall need powerful new ideas, which will take us in directions significantly different from those currently being pursued. Perhaps what we mainly need is some subtle change in perspective — something that we all have missed…

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Key to the Universe

a review by Michael Shermer

A COUPLE OF YEARS INTO the editing and publishing of Skeptic magazine, I began to regularly receive manuscripts that I filed as “theories of everything.” I later discovered that all science-magazine editors receive such manuscripts, as do prominent scientists at leading institutions. These papers are mostly attempts at constructing all-encompassing explanatory theories, almost exclusively in the physical sciences, typically claiming that Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking are wrong, and that the author’s 10-page, single-spaced typed essay, sans references, contains the secrets of the cosmos.

A manuscript titled “Infinite Dynamics,” for example, presented “the opposing force of structure as the singular force of reality” that “establishes the preeminence of philosophy;” goes “beyond Einstein;” and represents “an historic, classical, artistic, scientific, philosophical paradigm shift”! A theory called “Photonics” promised “Einstein’s unified-field theory now complete, all forces finally unified,” and (as a bonus) “fundamental cause of gravity found.”

Another fellow claimed:

I have discovered the previously unknown invisible particle that fully explains light and all forms of energy. I call it the froton particle. Einstein didn’t know about the froton particle — but you will. I can’t email a drum roll, and don’t want to pontificate. Inappropriately or not, if only out of respect for Einstein and physicists as far back as Aristotle — I’ve chosen the words to introduce the unified field theory. “Behold the froton particle… the key to the universe.”

To most of these would-be revolutionaries, I respond with a short note explaining that in science if you want to challenge an existing paradigm, it is best to begin with a thorough study of what has already been done, then proceed to dismantle it in those places of greatest weakness or lack of evidential support (and to do so in peer-reviewed journals). This is typically met with a “harrumph!” and an accompanying explanation that the new theory in question is so revolutionary scientists will never accept it.

As a testimony to the falseness of this latter statement, and as a recommendation for close study, I shall forthwith recommend to such wanna-be radicals Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality. Mr. Penrose’s book is the very antithesis of such flapdoodle. It really is, as its subtitle proclaims, “a complete guide to the laws of the universe,” at least as we now understand them.

Mr. Penrose — a professor of mathematics at Oxford University, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the winner of numerous prestigious awards in physics and mathematics — is one of the most qualified scientists to pen such a tome. At just under 1,100 pages, this is his magnum opus, the culmination of an already stellar career and a comprehensive summary of the current state of physics and cosmology. It should be read by anyone entering the field and referenced by everyone working in these and related sciences.

But first a warning. In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking remarked that his publisher told him that, for every equation he included, book sales would drop by half. Mr. Penrose’s book, though it has the imprint of a popular publishing house, is full of mathematical equations and technical diagrams. Yet professional scientists cannot accuse Mr. Penrose of dumbing-down the science, and the author’s prose is so lucid the reader can grasp his point even when the mathematics fly overhead.

Science may be conservative — with so many goofball theories floating around, it has to be — but The Road to Reality shows just how radical scientists can be in accepting, or at least seriously testing, hundreds of remarkably revolutionary ideas that have been proposed since the time of Plato and Aristotle about how the world works.

Beginning with such deep mysteries as whether mathematical truths are discovered or invented, Mr. Penrose reviews the relationship between mathematics and the physical world; the geometry of logarithms, powers, and roots; real-number and complex-number calculus; topology, surfaces, and symmetry; finiteness and infinity; the geometry of space and time; Maxwell’s and Einstein’s fields; the Big Bang and speculative theories of the origins of the universe; the relationship between gravity and quantum theory; “spooky action-at-a-distance” experiments (about which more in just a moment); and some final speculations about the state of physics today and what might be in store for us in the 21st century. In short, this is the most comprehensive work of physics since Richard P. Feynman’s 1963 classic three-volume set, The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Mr. Penrose never shies from philosophizing about the implications of a theory. For example, after describing quantum mechanics as “one of the supreme achievements of the 20th century” that “explains a great many phenomena that had been profoundly puzzling in the 19th [such as the stability of atoms, the nature of chemical bonds, and solid/liquid/gas phase transitions, just for starters]” and stating that it has “provided us with a revolution in our picture of the real physical world that is far greater even than that of the curved spacetime of Einstein’s general relativity,” Mr. Penrose then asks provocatively: “Or has it? It is a common view among many of today’s physicists that quantum mechanics provides us with no picture of ‘reality’ at all!”

What Mr. Penrose is getting at here is a very deep question in the philosophy of science about the nature of reality. As Stephen Hawking once famously said: “I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.” This is the positivist position, and it is one way of dealing with the spookiness of some quantum-mechanical findings.

Consider the phenomenon called by Einstein “spooky action at a distance.” Under certain experimental conditions the actions of a sub-atomic particle here can instantly effect the actions of another subatomic particle there, even if here and there are separated by immense distances — miles, light years, whatever. This seems to imply that information is being transported faster than the speed of light — the universal speed limit, according to Einstein. Physicists and philosophers have strained their brains trying to make sense of how this could be possible (and in New Age circles, such quantum-mechanical findings are proclaimed as explanations for telepathy, telekinesis, and other paranormal pabulum). One way to avoid an aneurism is to accept the experimental findings and not worry what it implies about the nature of reality.

But Mr. Penrose’s book is about the road to Reality, and so we can expect him to be concerned about such ontological facts. He deals with the problem in an entire chapter, in which he carefully and objectively reviews six quantum theories (Copenhagen, many worlds, environmental decoherence, consistent histories, pilot-wave, and new theory of objective R). Then, “with apologies to many of my friends,” he devotes another chapter to explaining “that there are powerful positive reasons, over and above the negative ones put forward in the preceding chapter, to believe that the laws of present-day quantum mechanics are in need of a fundamental (though presumably subtle) change.”

And here I offer a second warning. Mr. Penrose is one of the half-dozen top theoretical physicists in the world, and as such this is not a physics textbook sans authorial commentary or bias. Mr. Penrose puts his unique stamp on the great debates in his own field (and rightly so), and he criticizes those he feels deserve it. To his credit, he always makes it clear where he is departing from his colleagues, how, and why.

In the case of quantum mechanics, for instance, Mr. Penrose feels that even though changes in the theory will “come from within accepted physical principles and from observed facts about the universe,” he finds it “remarkable how few of today’s quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject.”

Likewise he explains that, at present, we have two fundamental theories of physics, general relativity and quantum field theory, which are apparently incompatible. Unifying them would result in a real Theory of Everything. “The usual perspective, with regard to the proposed marriage between these theories, is that one of them, namely general relativity, must submit itself to the will of the other,” Mr. Penrose explains. In other words, general relativity “must bend itself appropriately to fit into the standard quantum mould.” Mr. Penrose then devotes a chapter to explaining why he thinks it will be the other way around.

And so it goes throughout this sweeping visage of epistemology and physics, to the end of this ultramarathon, when Mr. Penrose concludes: “It is quite likely that the 21st century will reveal even more wonderful insights than those that we have been blessed with in the 20th. But for this to happen, we shall need powerful new ideas, which will take us in directions significantly different from those currently being pursued. Perhaps what we mainly need is some subtle change in perspective — something that we all have missed.”

There is hope for all those would-be Newtons, Einsteins, and Hawkings out there. But first they must master the 2,500 years of science that came before, so well illuminated here by Roger Penrose.
曾记否,到中流击水,浪遏飞舟?
M. Henri Day
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE

Postby astrokatastro » Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:17 pm

σκεπτικός ή είσαι σκεπτικός; sometimes Greek say that for someone who is out of time and place. In other world.Thats dangerous
ΝΙΨΟΝΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑΜΗΜΟΝΑΝΟΨΙΝ
astrokatastro
Junior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:37 am


Return to Good Word Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests