Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 01/07/2026 18:01, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 1:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 30/06/2026 17:37, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2026 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2026 17:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/2026 8:23 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/29/2026 9:17 AM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/29/2026 7:08 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/29/2026 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2026 10:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:53 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:29 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 5:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 1:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 1:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 12:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:11 AM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2026 15:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets rid of Disjunction introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prevent the principle of explosion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple logical matrix and sequent 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculus for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main and distinctive feature of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PAI (and of the many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems of analytic implication 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belonging to its ilk) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rejection of the classically 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid principle of Addition,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes also referred to as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disjunction Introduction. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, the principle leading 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a formula ϕ to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ψ is an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula. Parry blamed on this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle the derivability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the paradoxes of strict 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implication — given that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> famously featured in Lewis’ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivation of an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula ψ from a contradiction of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He also gets rid of an efficient way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convince people who don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand much of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I recently showed in another post. I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all this out on my own. I didn't even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone else ever did this. I just knew 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to find out what is deduced from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises that you cannot pop in another 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from out of nowhere and get a correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By popping in another sentence from out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of nowhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as it shows above) the principle of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explosion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual meaning of proof is a sequence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of statement where eachstatement either 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a premis or follows from one or more 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except with Disjunction introduction, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is its problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that in the following 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a key issue in that it creates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychotic break from reality known as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of Explosion, otherwise it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make no difference at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stay on topic or I will block you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain in detail how the below which you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonestly trimmed is off- topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is how Disjunction introduction 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enables the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of Explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rejected, as you not liking the result doesn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through a series of truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, when a contradiction is given as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, any statement can be proven as true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The principle of explosion is a demonstration 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of *why* a formal system whose axioms lead to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a contradiction is useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason someone would want to get rid 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the principle of explosion is to be able to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a system that has a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My reason to get rid of the principle of explosion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to get rid of anything and everything that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infallibly correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you get rid of the principle of explosion, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the law of non- contradiction goes away as it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looses its basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep failing to pay close enough attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only get rid of the POE by getting rid of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disjunction introduction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you can't do because it's a truth-preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P    // Premise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) P          // Conjunction elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) ¬P        // Conjunction elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q      // Disjunction introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Q          // Disjunctive syllogism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle_of_explosion#Proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you insert English meanings into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositional variables it is as obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a pie in the fact the DI IS NOT TRUTH PRESERVING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that in the following natural 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - <X>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where <X> is any natural language statement, there 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists a statement X such that the condition "At 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least one of the following statements is true" is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Name it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not Disjunction introduction combined with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disjunctive syllogism, it is bare Disjunction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me spell it out more explicitly then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that the following natural language statement is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the following natural language statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - <X>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where <X> is any natural language statement, does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there exist a statement X such that the condition "At 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least one of the following statements is true" is false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where X is "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the statement "Earth is the third planet from the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun" true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have a type mismatch error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The statement you gave isn't a truth-bearing statement, so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can't be used in logic.  I didn't think I had to make 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that explicit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, let's go with it anyway because it still 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illustrates the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'll ask again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the statement "Earth is the third planet from the sun" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On second though, let's back up as that might confuse you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that <X> is any *truth bearing* natural language 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, does there exist a statement X such that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition "At least one of the following statements is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true" is false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Head games will be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you did so well on the other things
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I will not block you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain in detail how this is a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to either answer the above question or explain how it 
>>>>>>>>>>> is a head game in your next reply or within one hour of you 
>>>>>>>>>>> next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official, 
>>>>>>>>>>> on- the- record admission that Disjunction introduction is in 
>>>>>>>>>>> fact truth preserving and valid, and therefore so is the 
>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of Explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post 
>>>>>>>>>> in this newsgroup:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2026 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Q also can't bake a birthday cake, this does not make
>>>>>>>>>>  > Q in any way "incomplete" relative to what it was
>>>>>>>>>>  > defined to do.
>>>>>>>>>>  > ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And more that one hour has passed with no attempt to answer 
>>>>>>>>>> the above question or explain why it is a head game.  
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, as per the above criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has *Officially* Admitted:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That Disjunction introduction is in fact truth preserving and 
>>>>>>>>>> valid, and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
>>>>>>>>> gets rid of Disjunction introduction
>>>>>>>>> to prevent the principle of explosion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
>>>>>>>>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
>>>>>>>>> systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
>>>>>>>>> sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
>>>>>>>>> disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>> formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
>>>>>>>>> of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
>>>>>>>>> famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>> formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So someone came up with a different system that has different 
>>>>>>>> rules. That has no bearing on existing systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bearing that it has on existing systems is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None, as you can't remove a truth-preserving operation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it corrects their psychotic break from reality that
>>>>>>> allows one to prove that Donald Trump is the one and
>>>>>>> only Lord and Savior on the basis of a totally irrelevant
>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It follows from a series of truth-preserving operations starting 
>>>>>> with the precondition that a contradiction has been proven, as you 
>>>>>> have admitted above on the record.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Only people having actual psychosis would conclude
>>>>> that "The Moon is made from green cheese" AND
>>>>> "The Moon is NOT made from green cheese" SEMANTICALLY
>>>>> PROVES that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord
>>>>> and Savior Jesus Christ.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that somewhere the Moon is made from green cheese and
>>>> the Moon is not made from green cheese and Donald Trump is not the one
>>>> and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Counter-factual
>>
>> For logic the distinction between factual and counter-factual is not
>> as imortant as the distinction between consistent and contradictory.
> 
> Counter-factual may indicate a psychotic break from reality.

No, it does not. It is much more common than anything psychotic.
Besudes, any mention of anything psychotic is off-topic in these
groups.

-- 
Mikko