Options

New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

Index
New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

tavie > 20-04-2024, 11:24 PM

(18-04-2024, 12:35 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"
There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory. A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.

This was a bit of a weird response to my question...it seems to me that the standard consensus would have been easily falsifiable if the testing had revealed a far later date, or too wide discrepancies between folios tested, while the forgery theory mutates and seems to keep loading on assumptions no matter how unfeasible in order to keep going. That's why I asked if it was truly falsifiable.

Saying "a clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility" is not at all obvious. It's far too vague, since as Karl pointed out, the Kircher correpondence has been rejected. What would be sufficiently "clear"? If the reference also mentioned the naked ladies and the signature? But wouldn't the counter-argument then be (as it is now) that Voynich must have somehow found out about it and based the manuscript off it? Would it need to have been sealed for centuries, or would there be an argument that Voynich could have forged a seal? This is why I don't think it's falsifiable because it doesn't seem possible to prove Voynich couldn't have, however unlikely it seems.

To answer your question, there are things that would falsify the current consensus for me. Further testing that showed the ages of different folios were too far apart (although that wouldn't prove it was Voynich whodunnit); testing that showed the ink was from 1910; finding evidence of the forgers' first drafts or sketches for the script; a confession as Rich mentioned; and a proved "translation" that was too modern. I also respect Lisa and Rene's expertise, so if they changed their minds and it wasn't April Fools Day and they were of sound mind, that would be fairly persuasive. An opinion from someone experienced in forgeries, though not familiar with the Voynich, would also start getting me reconsidering. But I don't see similar potential for falsifiability for the forgery hypothesis, at least not when half of it seems to rely on Voynich being a well informed and thoughtful forger, and the other half on him being an incompetent moron. One of those always seems able to wave away the counterarguments.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

tavie > 20-04-2024, 11:27 PM

(18-04-2024, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ironically, when I explain, at length and in great detail, my reasoning and the basis for it, it is then said I am "gish galloping", or as Rene said years ago, "arm waving". Which is it? Am I sweeping things under the rug; or explaining in too much detail, every detail?

I don't think the two (gish galloping and arm waving) are opposites. I think gish galloping is not at all about presenting detail, at least not in terms of depth. It's about quantity over quality: providing a lot of weak arguments without going into depth on each one, because when examined individually, there isn't much to them. It is a powerful tactic because readers' brains will often think "Well, if there's that many arguments, there must be something to it. It can't be a coincidence that there are so many points in its favour." And then that leads to hand-waving when an individual argument is fatally attacked. The whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. Years ago I read an article that was arguing that Celtic was (I think) an Afro-Asiatic language or closely related to it or something. It had so many arguments, in double figures, and it was almost quite convincing...until the inevitable rebuttal article which went for each individual argument and showed that some were based on false premises/methodology, and the rest depended on the first few.

(18-04-2024, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had to look up this "Gish Gallop", and first of all I have to say it is both incorrect to claim this about me, and also a pretty nasty thing to do so
I can't speak for what Karl meant but I don't think it's a deliberate tactic. Some "solvers" do it too, and I don't think they use it deliberately either. It's just how our brains work when we are emotionally attached to a belief (we are trying to convince ourselves as well as others) and there is a lot of emotion coming across in this thread.

(18-04-2024, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But here is the kicker, the "coup de grace": In that book is mentioned Jakub Hořčický, with a seemingly invented (the book has many errors, and seemingly fanciful inventions) brother Christian Hořčický. This Christian Hořčický is in the place of Jakub in history, in that he is the chief botanist and physician to Rudolf. And as you know, Jakub Hořčický was later named Jakub Horčický z Tepence, and whose name appears as though a signature on the front page of the Voynich. As I wrote in The Primer for the Voynich Forgery, I believe Wilfrid’s original intent was to make the Voynich look as though it was a work from the hand of the (probably invented) Christian Hořčický, a character who Bolton places as the owner of the (also imaginary?) “The City Pharmacy” in the Capitol of Bohemia. Perhaps Wilfrid’s intention was that it looked to have been owned or written by him, or written and/or owned by his son, Jakub Hořčický. The latter is real, and was actually the chief botanist and physician to Rudolf II.- and, as I said, "signed" the Voynich.

We must have a different definition of "coup de grace" because I can't see at all how this is the knock out blow, or even a blow. If the manuscript had the signature of the fictitious Christian Hořčický, that certainly would have been telling. But it didn't, so how on earth is this the "coup de grace"? If this is the strongest argument, what does that say about the others? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

(18-04-2024, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do think this is a very poor forgery, and do not think its acceptance is due to any great ability on his part... but more attributable to a low standard of acceptance by the audience. It is human nature for people to think that if they are fooled, they were fooled by the greatest.

Put aside quality in terms of ability, and let's talk about effort. There must have been an awful lot of effort and care put into what has been mentioned about the binding and arrangement of the folios, and creating the text (why have so many different scribes writing in different systems?). Why then does Voynich pull a "Baldrick" as Karl said and then leave in those drawings that would invalidate his claims? I may have misunderstood but it sounds like you are saying that the missing folios and the rearrangement of the folios is evidence of forgery because Voynich decided to rebrand it as a Roger Bacon manuscript and removed folios that were inconsistent with this rebranding...but he left a lot in that is inconsistent with the Roger Bacon branding because he was lazy/incompetent and that's also evidence of forgery?

And despite getting others to help him with the writing, he couldn't get anyone who was even half decent at drawing?

I'm sorry also if I've got this wrong, but I don't think you've addressed the point others made about the seeming contradictions. You say the Kircher correspondence is talking about a different book than the Voynich because it doesn't mention the naked ladies, zodiac, signature...but that Voynich was informed about the description of the book with "unknown characters", "plants unknown to the Germans", "stars", "chemical symbolism", is proof of forgery because Voynich must have heard of the description and based the manuscript on them?

Am I being unfair, and you only mean the first one? When you talk about his relationship with Strickland, it sounds like you are also arguing this did likely influence the manuscript. But if that's the case, then was Voynich assuming the Kircher correspondence would never be dug up and compared to the book, and so no one would notice the obvious discrepancy? Or was he assuming that it was perfectly reasonable for some aspects to be left out from the earlier description (the zodiac - perhaps too normal to have made the list of weird elements; the naked ladies - weird enough to make the list but perhaps not something gentlemen would draw attention to at the time; the signature - was it really the most relevant thing to mention?). In which case, surely either he was right and the omissions are plausible...or he was an absolute moron and wasted effort making his forgery easy to spot?

The other possibility being that it didn't influence the manuscript at all...
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

ReneZ > 21-04-2024, 01:14 AM

The Jesuits had two hidden collections in a Villa in Castel Gandolfo, both originating from their confiscated llibrary, and both were considered by the state to rightfully belong to the state.

One collection was of historical Jesuit materials, including the Kircher correspondence. This consisted of well over 2000 volumes of which the Kircher correspondence are 12 or 14. This consisted of about 2000 letters.

The other was a collection of older books and manuscripts: classics, bibles, 12th - 15th century.

The latter they decided to sell to the Vatican because they needed money. The librarian of the Vatican could be trusted because he was himself a Jesuit. This had to be done in complete secrecy.
The Vatican could not offer a lot of money, and the Jesuit Strickland, who was involved, knew Voynich and knew that they could get a *lot* more money from him. But the risk was great so they let him only a few of the books.
Even the Vatican librarian (Ehrle) had to get into the Villa on a pretext, which shows how secret and well guarded this was.
The Jesuits' own historical books were not for sale.

Strickland and Voynich were striking a deal that would provide both sides with a lot of money.

There are log books of the people visiting this Villa. Strickland is mentioned in April 1912. Ehrle in June 1912.
Voynich isn't in there. (I was hoping he would be). Plenty of other names, exclusively Jesuits, with the exception of a historian writing a book about Bellarmino (a historical Jesuit).

So, no record that Voynich visited the place.
Even if he did, he was there for books that were for sale, and it is unlikely that he would have seen the other 2000-4000 items.
Even if he did (we are already down two levels of unlikelihood), why would he be targeting the Kircher correspondence.
Even if he did (3 levels) would he have time to pinpoint the three or four letters that he would need, in order to fake the Marci letter? It would take weeks to just browse the 2000 letters, let alone read them.
One letter he would need is the Barschius letter.
The second one is the earlier Kinner letter, that has one sentence mentioning that Marci sent Kircher a book for translation.
The third one is a late letter from Marci, in the same handwriting as 'our' Marci letter.

These three items are the only independent records of the Voynich MS linking it to Prague and Marci, beside the 1665 Marci letter.
They were included in a large collection of letters, that were part of a considerable collection of manuscripts, that were hidden and guarded for fear of confiscation.

This describes the likelihood that the Marci letter is a fake by Voynich.

Of course, I did not include the option that there is some complicity from the side of the Jesuits.
Not sure who wants to go there....

All of the above is documented. Nothing is based on speculation.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

asteckley > 21-04-2024, 01:14 AM

(20-04-2024, 11:24 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Saying "a clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility" is not at all obvious. It's far too vague, since as Karl pointed out, the Kircher correpondence has been rejected. What would be sufficiently "clear"? If the reference also mentioned the naked ladies and the signature? But wouldn't the counter-argument then be (as it is now) that Voynich must have somehow found out about it and based the manuscript off it? Would it need to have been sealed for centuries, or would there be an argument that Voynich could have forged a seal? This is why I don't think it's falsifiable because it doesn't seem possible to prove Voynich couldn't have, however unlikely it seems.

Well, let's walk through the problem...
All of the Kircher letters have been associated with the Voynich manuscript by way of their references to features.
The more specific the referred features are, the clearer it is that the referred item is indeed one and the same with the manuscript
that we have come to call the Voynich manuscript. The less specific the features are, the greater the chance that the letter
may be referring to some other manuscript.

If none of the letters included anything more specific than say
"the book filled with some sort of mysterious steganography" (as one of them does), then
I would hope you could agree that that would not be very clear and that it might well be referring to many other possible manuscripts
besides the VMS. On the other hand if a letter had said
"the book with over 200 folios, some of which could be extended out to much larger size than the rest,
and filled with many pictures of herbs and plants unseen in these parts, and other drawings of an
astrological nature, and many others of unclothed ladies, and having an abundance of strange script that denies all my
attempts to uncover meaning...", then the chances that it is referring to our VMS would be significantly greater, wouldn't it?
I think most reasonable people would probably consider that latter case to be a "clear reference" due to not only how well it matches the VMS, but also
how well it narrows the possibilities down to the VMS.

Now between those extremes is a whole spectrum of specificities of possible references.
Of course, there is some subjectivity as to where on the spectrum a reference becomes a "clear reference".

When I looked through those letters (based on the versions found at "http://philipneal.net/"), the
description that was farthest along the spectrum of clarity was
"From the pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images,
stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism".
To me that is a far more specific description than any of the other letters. (Maybe I missed one?)

And that description could be the VMS ... but it was far from clear that it had to be. It's hardly a stretch to imagine that
many pictures of herbs and various images of stars and chemical symbols could describe some other manuscript of interest to the writer.
And I also questioned what "chemical symbolism" could refer to in the VMS, but figured that was simply my lack of knowledge of medieval writing and what they considered "chemical symbols". But with or without that.. it was still a pretty dubious reference. (I later happened across one of Rich's blogs where he noted the same issue regarding chemical symbols, so perhaps it was not just my ignorance on the topic.)
In any case though, of all the passages that could connect the letters to the VMS by a direct description, this one seemed
easily the strongest. But as evidence goes, it really isn't that strong!
And it is certainly plausible that it is referring to some other manuscript. Even a couple of other references
like the general size of the manuscript, or anything that narrows down the possibility of it being some other book at least a little bit,
would reduce the plausibility of misidentification considerably.

So in short, a "clear reference" would be one where most people would agree that it is very likely
referring to the VMS. and only the VMS because the probability of a different candidate floating around at that time that also
matches the description is sufficiently improbable.

That, by the way, is also why "Voynich must have somehow found out about it and
based the manuscript off it" would NOT be a counter-argument. The clarity of a reference is not determined by whether Voynich
could have reproduced it -- it is determined by the unlikelihood that a description in a letter could apply to a different document than the VMS.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

voynichbombe > 21-04-2024, 09:57 AM

Back to the experts: What about Alain Touwaide?
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

Koen G > 21-04-2024, 10:24 AM

(21-04-2024, 09:57 AM)voynichbombe Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Back to the experts: What about Alain Touwaide?

Back when I was doing interviews, Alain Touwaide always showed interest, but stopped responding when it actually came to arranging a date. Something similar happened during lockdown, when he teased new Voynich work on Facebook, but as far as I can tell this has not led to any publication.

My impression (purely speculative) is that Touwaide retains interest in the VM, but may not feel comfortable talking too much about it.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

tavie > 21-04-2024, 12:21 PM

(21-04-2024, 01:14 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That, by the way, is also why "Voynich must have somehow found out about it and
based the manuscript off it" would NOT be a counter-argument. The clarity of a reference is not determined by whether Voynich
could have reproduced it -- it is determined by the unlikelihood that a description in a letter could apply to a different document than the VMS.

I don't see the point here. My point was that even if a new reference was dug up that somehow we all agree is about the manuscript, falsifiability would not be secured because the challenge would be that Voynich had seen or been told of this reference. This is a real possibility because unless I've misunderstood the thread, Rich has argued that both that the correspondence is not specific enough and that Voynich could have found out about it and been inspired by it. So the forgery theory still does not seem falsifiable unless we can agree criteria in advance for determining that Voynich could not have seen or been told of the more precise reference.

It may be a failure of my imagination but I'm struggling to see from this thread how we could agree that. If Rene's case for the unlikihood of Voynich seeing the correspondence is not strong enough, what would be sufficient?
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

Mark Knowles > 21-04-2024, 12:43 PM

If the ink or other materials can be dated (such as if organic components can be carbon dated) to the early 15th century then Rich can argue that Voynich used old ink in his manuscript.

In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery.

There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich.

So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.

On the basis of the evidence the liklihood that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is very small and Rich's arguments otherwise are very weak. So whilst the possibility will always remain that it is a modern forgery it is hardly worth considering seriously.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

proto57 > 21-04-2024, 01:41 PM

(21-04-2024, 12:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the ink or other materials can be dated (such as if organic components can be carbon dated) to the early 15th century then Rich can argue that Voynich used old ink in his manuscript.

In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery.

There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich.

So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.

Well let me give my actual view on this, while pointing a few things out: The general feedback about "what Rich would say" reflects to me an opinion about why my current rejections of proposed evidence and opinions on it are, and that they are seen as weak. That's fine of course... all of this is opinion. But the thing is, the idea that I have taken good evidence, and then rejected that good evidence, is being carried over this hypothetical new evidence. I mean, it is saying, "He already won't accept our proofs, so he never will". That is incorrect.

I do have standards, and limits, as we all do. They may be different than those of others... well, they are different... but I would say I'm not as much an extremist on demands for perfection as is being assumed here. There are a great many situations by which new evidence would convince me that the Voynich is genuine, and old. First I'll address the ones above:

- I would NOT think that ink which carbon dated to the 15th century could reasonably be considered faked. As people have noted, and I agree, a forger in 1910 would not have predicted the upcoming advent of the radiocarbon dating process, and so they would not have gone through the trouble of, say, finding 500 year old galls to make it, or like that. This is also why I think, contrary to others, that the dating of the calfskin is actually a sign of forgery, because that dating does not match the expert opinions as to the content on it. He would not have known, nor cared, the actual calander age of the calfskin. So what is good for the goose... yes, if the ink carbon dated to the early 1400's, that would be proof the Voynich was early 1400's.

- "In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery." Well I don't believe the drawing "are shown" to be early 15th century, first of all. To say they are, one must be selective of people and opinions which say they are, and ignore the others, which don't (one point of this thread I wanted to reiterate, as it is timely). But that being said, there is plain text content which would prove the manuscript genuine: If the information in the content is something that could not have been known to a 20th century forger, perhaps something revealed at a later date than 1912. There are many secrets of history only revealed in recent times, which a forger of 1910 could not have known... use your imagination, I could think of hundreds if I tried. That would be proof.

Strong evidence would be if the plain text, even if of something a 1910 forger MIGHT have known, would be if there were no errors in phrasing, or description, or the like. No "pox leber" type anachronisms, I mean. In the Vinland Map there were various cases of improper phrasing and such, like the form of Leif Ericson's name, and others, which at least cast suspicion on the map's authenticity. Most forgeries have these problems, it is extremely difficult for even an expert forger to avoid them. I call it "The Star Trek Effect", because if you think of that show, they were doing their best to mimic a time far in the future. But they have bell bottoms, hair styles and other "tells" it was made in the late 1960's. So: If the resultant plain text has no "tells", if it was pristine, that, to me, would stop me in my tracks, in the sense I would no longer consider that the Voynich was a forgery, but "probably" genuine. Especially since I think Voynich was to at least a large part responisible, and I think he was in no way capible of avoiding such mistakes... because I don't think he DID avoid such mistakes. Point being, that is my standard for him, and so pristine content, no tells, yes that would be powerful evidence of genuine.

- "There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich." Of course not. First of all, the 1665/66 Marci letter was in his hands, not planted somewhere. And I think it was made by him to fill a gap of ownership that he desired, and done so "after the fact" of the Big Crime. No, I do not think he was off forging other evidence of the Voynich's provenance, or he probably would have pointed to it before he died in 1930, or it would have been found by now. There are infinite situations in which such evidence would turn up, which would prove the Voynich genuine. There are still untapped archives and collections, which Voynich would have had no chance of having seen nor known about, because they were not opened or discovered until after 1910, or still are not. I think a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was found hidden in a pilaster of a staircase, where it clearly had been for centuries. And some Roman soldier's letters were found buried (and still readable) by Hadrian's wall. Cases like this are numerous... and while we can't know until we see it, of course such a source or item would prove the Voynich genuine.

And I've rejected supposed "proof of forgery", too, as I described. I was baited with a supposed letter by Wilfrid, which was to be produced for me if I went back to Italy to see it in person... they didn't want me to take pictures of it, and would not send me a copy. But it didn't pass the "smell test" to me, and I passed. I also rejected forged "proof of genuine", such as that fake Kircher book that excited people for awhile. Each item must be judged on its merits and failures, no matter if it supports my ideas or not.

So as I've said before, I see this very differently than many of you, in that it is not that my standards of proof of authenticity are so high, and impossible to meet, it is just that they are a bit higher than what is currently used to buttress genuine. Just because I don't accept what has been offered as "poof" does not mean nothing would meet the standard of "proof" to me. Not that other's standards are "wrong", but I would say that mine are not "wrong" either, we all just have different standards. And there are of course cases of standards of proof and disproof that transcend anyone's opinions, and which are unassailable, too... such as suggested here, carbon dating of the ink. Not everything rises to that level of standard, but I know that standard exists, and would acknowledge and accept that.

Anyway, I always think of that great comment by a US Supreme Court judge, when asked how one would know the difference between "art" and "pornography". He said of pornography (paraphrasing), "You will know it when you see it". Trouble is, one person's art is another's... you get the idea. This is all subjective, but I do have standards, too. I'm not close to the "genuine proof skeptic" you seem to think I am.

Rich.
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

asteckley > 21-04-2024, 02:28 PM

(21-04-2024, 12:21 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My point was that even if a new reference was dug up that somehow we all agree is about the manuscript, falsifiability would not be secured because the challenge would be that Voynich had seen or been told of this reference. This is a real possibility because unless I've misunderstood the thread, Rich has argued that both that the correspondence is not specific enough and that Voynich could have found out about it and been inspired by it. So the forgery theory still does not seem falsifiable unless we can agree criteria in advance for determining that Voynich could not have seen or been told of the more precise reference.

It may be a failure of my imagination but I'm struggling to see from this thread how we could agree that. If Rene's case for the unlikihood of Voynich seeing the correspondence is not strong enough, what would be sufficient?

The point is that unless there is a clear reference then any case (Rene's or otherwise) about whether Voynich had seen it is irrelevant.
We can argue all day long about whether Voynich was at the Chicago Worlds Fair but unless the Fair actually has something to do with the
Voynich manuscript, it too would be irrelevant.

That entire discussion about whether Voynich saw it or used it or faked it is a straw-man with respect to the theory
of the VMS being a modern forgery. It only ever came into play (by Rich or whoever) in response to the claim that the letters
are evidence of the manuscript existing prior to the time of the letters -- because that evidence depends on a passage representing a clear reference.

If one found a letter that contains a clear reference (and of course that does mean the source of the reference itself must be unquestionably dated) then it would falsify the modern forgery theory. If all that exists are dubious references that could plausibly be referring to something else, then even if they are from the right time period, they don't even provide strong evidence for
the authentic manuscript theory let alone falsifying a modern forgery theory.

Not sure how to make that point much clearer, I'm afraid.

I do see that your concern (and that of a few others) is around arguing the authenticity of the letter itself.
But that is putting cart before the horse.
To falsify the theory with a clear reference, one must:
1) find a reference to the manuscript from an earlier time
2) show that the reference to the manuscript is strong enough to not be coincidental
3) show that the source of the reference is itself authentic

I have probably not been clear enough in spelling all three steps out explicitly.

Number 1 has been accomplished, but 2 has not. I have focused on trying to explain what 2 requires, because I have taken as
obvious that 3 is entirely irrelevant unless and until 2 is completed. I now see that you don't see that as obvious. Mea culpa. But on the other
hand, much of the discussion is unproductively lamenting that one will never be able to accomplish 3 simply because one person (Rich)
will make it too challenging. I agree that this is an effective way to denigrate Rich in order to more easily dismiss anything else he says.
But it is not a way to evaluate whether the manuscript is authentic or just a modern forgery.
Number 3 is functioning as a straw-man for not dealing with number 2.
Next Oldest Next Newest

New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

Index

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"