of thermodynamic's second law is that entropy is a monotonic
decreasing function.
I presume you meant to say a monotonic increasing function ?
Sung
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:
Dear Prof. Mani:
Thank you for your informed response.
One
is a monotonic
decreasing function.
I presume you meant to say a monotonic increasing function ?
Sung
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
wrote:
Dear Prof. Mani:
Thank you for your informed response.
One of the basic questions that remains open
presume that you are aware of A. Ehresmann's work on the relation
between category theory and entropy.
Cheers
Jerry
On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:58 AM, A. Mani wrote:
Prof Jerry, list
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:
My question to you
, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
wrote:
Steven:
I was slightly stunned by your response.
When you write:
I am thinking only of Babara as the starting point.
I wondered if this broad assertion refers to your views on biophysics as well
(either inferring FOL or not)?
Cheers
the conclusion
in some premisses-implying form like it rained last night and my lawn is
wet, and that happens as a matter of course, with night rain never failing
to leave my lawn wet.
Best, Ben
On 4/6/2015 12:39 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
List, Ben, Clark, Danko:
On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:04
Dear Professor Mani:
Your post is an excellent example of how the meaning of a unique scientific
term, coined for an exact reason to be consistent with a particular theory,
changes it meaning by adding adjectives that demand a separate meaning.
neighbourhood systems,
extensions to fuzzy
List, Sung
On Apr 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
(18) The concept of entropy has had a long and interesting history,
beginning with its implicit introduction by Carnot to its explicit
formalization as a state function by Clausius to its statistical treatment by
Boltzmann and
Sung:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
If you have seen any bio textbook where in the Shannon equation is used and
information is defined, I would love to have the reference.
During the late 1970's and during the 1980's, numerous books and articles
asserted relations between
List:
This website:
http://www.eoht.info/page/Atomic+theory
gives a short survey of atomism, from classic Greek philosophy to modern times,
including its relation to sub-atomic physics. The stages of development of
philosophical thought about the nature of matter are presented
thought was a corollary to his atomism. I think that Peirce's evolutionary
views and his views on continuity are more in line with Boscovich, as you
suggest Jerry. I didn't know that Peirce followed Boscovich, but it makes
sense.
John
-Original Message-
From: Jerry LR Chandler
?
Cheers
Jerry
John
-Original Message-
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: March 20, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Peirce List
Cc: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Jon Awbrey
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
List, Jon, Soren
...@att.net]
Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32
Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Re: Søren Brier
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
Søren, List,
Smolin's 'Time Reborn
Dear Steven, List:
Thank you for posting these files prepared by CSP's brother and father.
These files very definitely add support to your assertions concerning the
familial logic entailments that are often reflected in CSP texts.
It is most unfortunate that logicians and philosophers fail to
and continuity and
creativity are all very much Peircean, though.
John
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: February 28, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Peirce List
Cc: John Collier; Jim Willgoose
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Contradictories, contraries, etc
John, List
disagree here. We were just working to
somewhat different ends (different pragmatics).
Best,
John
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: February 28, 2015 12:49 AM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum (PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)
Cc: Jon Awbrey; John Collier; Benjamin
Jim, List:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
My comments are given below.
Jerry, list
Suppose that;
+H : O : -H -- +H v O v -H
would you say,
1) ':' is uninterpreted
2) ':' is uninterpretable
3) association fails so that there should be pairing '()' around the
List, Ben:
On Feb 24, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Anyway:
Wxy ≡ xy are wife and husband together (two people uniquely paired in
ordered relation)
Did you really mean this?
Or, is a married couple the same couple if they are not an ordered pair in the
sense of set theory?
That
List, Jon
Your post wrt Number Theory is very revealing concerning the origins of your
beliefs with respect to matter / material world / reality in contrast to the
world of perceptions, thoughts about the world out-there. Can it be
re-evaluated from an alternative perspective of the notion
List, Ben:
citing HP:
HP: This strange rule illustrates Poincaré's criticism of logic as an
impoverishment of natural language that can neither count nor tell time.
With respect to the contrast between mathematics and logic, a sharper argument
is possible.
A priori, mathematicians tend to
to other individual
symbols.
Thus, the symbols for a appear to me to be part of two different notational
systems.
Was that your intent, Jim?
Cheers
Jerry
On Feb 14, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Jim, List:
Your diagram captures the essence of what I was seeking to communicate
Jim, List:
Your diagram captures the essence of what I was seeking to communicate.
If one addresses the notion of an individual, then a singular individual, then
a singular symbol, is interpreted as a logical correspondence relationship with
a single line that signifies the exact numerical
and Don each love only Ann,
but Ann loves only Don, then the dual relative
ℓ = lover of = B:A + C:A + D:A + A:D.
I think the problem is that member has two meanings.
It can mean member of a set or member of a tuple.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/12/2015 11:55 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
List, Jon
List, Jon:
If read from a technical perspective, this passage (CP 3.220) can be
interpreted as nearly self-contradictory or utterly ambiguous. It appears that
CSP is unable to distinguish between nouns as Proper Nouns and nouns as
generals. But this can be a perplex gloss.
Contrast:
Every
List:
From a recent paper by F Csatari, Some Remarks on the Physicalist Account of
Mathematics.
an approach to mathematics following the philosophy-first principle (as
opposed to the philosophy-last-if-at-all principle).
It seems to me that when reading CSP, some of us use the former and
Jon, John, List:
Just a note that I think should be considered very deeply in the historical
context of the potential for consistency within CSP's writings. And a couple
of questions.
See; W1: 256, Lecture VIII: Forms of Induction and Hypothesis (1865)
Quote:
The first distinction we found
John, List:
For example in a function, like f=ma, m,a is an ordered pair, one from one
domain and another from another domain such that their product is in another
domain which is the range of the function.
Huh?
Yes, as stated, I agree with your sentence.
And that a function can be
List, Ben:
Let's look at the history of your posts on this topic:
Jan. 17: I think that Gary F. is looking for the diametrical contrary of
'indubitability' in Peirce's sense.
Jan. 17: I guess I should have said 'diametrical opposite' instead of
'diametrical contrary' which is an atypical
List, Ben:
On Jan 17, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jerry,
But your 'S is P' 'S is not P' are contradictories, not contraries; they
can't both be true and can't both be false.
'The dogs are four' and 'the dogs are five' are contraries: they can't both
be true but can both
List, Ben:
On Jan 17, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
My sense of it is that Peirce does not push the idea that mathematicals are
real.
Thanks, Ben. This is a critical thought, at least to me. It is of substantial
importance for interpreting the relations between CSP's notion of a
List, Jon:
On Jan 17, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
But I can assure you that mathematicians as a rule, including Peirce, regard
mathematical objects as “having properties”, which makes them “real”
according to the technical Scholastic definition of “real” that Peirce always
uses
List, Ben, Jon:
On Jan 17, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
I think that Gary F. is looking for the diametrical contrary of
'indubitability' in Peirce's sense. Such would be insuspectability. That
something is indubitable in Peirce's sense means that one can't doubt it,
even if
List, Sung:
Your 122114-1 is my statement ABOUT propositional logic. Propositional logic
is about terms. Terms expressed in language lie at the base of propositional
logic. The grammars of sentences are used to relate terms. Ordinary grammar is
expressed in terms of the symbol systems called
Lists, Howard:
(This post contains numerous technical arguments that are probably inaccessible
to many philosophers of the sort described by Gary F. as too abstruse for a
simple backwoods scholar.)
In answer to your question, I think you are missing the whole point of this
endless exchange of
. The observation that meaning
is individualized is true for all individuals as a consequence of their
antecedent sensory experiences. It is also true of language usage among
disciplines. It is particularly important for those who love knowledge.
Cheers
Jerry
From: Jerry LR Chandler
On Nov 16, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Hi,
I just learned that the simplest category in the category theory is the
commutative triangle. The next simple one would be the commutative square
Sung:
After posting examples (perhaps hundreds?) of your beliefs about category
theory,
List, Michael, Kirsti, John:
On Nov 12, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Michael DeLaurentis wrote:
I don’t find any such distinction, implicit or explicit, in Peirce’s late
writings.
Motivated by your assertions, I re-read 4.172 and later paragraphs, searching
for distinctions between CSP logic and
Ben:
From John Polkinghorne's Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction OUP,
2002, citing Richard Feynman:
I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics
If one views QM from the perspective of representamen, then one sees easily
that a deep conundrum exists in the
List, Michael:
On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael DeLaurentis wrote:
Jerry -- It’s not that Peirce didn’t accept Cantorian set theory* [he did] –
he didn’t think any aleph approached a true continuum [as he conceived it],
just as any integer raised to the power of the integers [aleph
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote, quoting CSP:
A true CONTINUUM (q. v.) is something whose possibilities of determination no
multitude of individuals can exhaust.
A minor comment with respect to this definition of a continuum.
The concept of can exhaust is a
LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:59 AM
To: Benjamin Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote
List, Clark:
On Nov 2, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
wrote:
1. the nature of the chemical bond was highly controversial and no clear
general propositions were available.
The iconic representation
chemical radical has a different meaning in the language of
chemistry today; it is rather used in the very general sense as in these
paragraphs, but commonly used as a neutral particle with one unpaired electron.
Cheers
Jerry
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: 2
of proto-thought in higher animals
(specifically monkeys).
I do not think these two concepts, quasi and proto, are identical.
Best
F
Den 23/10/2014 kl. 19.09 skrev Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com:
Tyler, List:
I am a quite uncertain about the meaning of the term proto
List, Sung:
First, please note that it was the general historical state of the chemical
sciences that was incomplete (relative to 30-40 years later after quantum
mechanics was introduced) as an explanation for physical-chemical identities.
I did not wish to imply that CSP lacked understanding
— he wasn’t trying to theorize about chemistry.
gary f.
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: 2-Nov-14 4:04 PM
To: Peirce List
Cc: Gary Fuhrman
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four
List:
On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:05
List, Sung:
On Nov 2, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
(2) All processes require dissipating free energy (or energy more briefly).
There are two kinds of organizations – (a) random organization (e.g.,
Gaussian distributed word-length frequencies in German or English
dictionaries;
List:
(NB: This post contains many technical terms which are used within the rhetoric
of chemistry but not acceptable to many philosophers.)
On Nov 1, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
At root, what Peirce seems to see is that the underlying organization of the
periodic chart
List, Sung:
Thank you for repeating your personal philosophy. It is a source of curiosity
to me.
Unfortunately, your response simply adds many logical terms and propositions
that are not directly related to the writings of CSP.
Why do you feel at liberty to corrupt the original meanings of
Tyler, List:
I am a quite uncertain about the meaning of the term proto-proposition
Could you hew-out a rough definition of your meaning?
It would be helpful, but not necessary, to place the notion of
proto-proposition in relation to the terms of the triadic triad.
It would also be helpful
List, Tom, JeffD, and GaryF:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Tom Gollier wrote:
I have to say, I just don't get this idea of real facts from reading
Peirce. On the one hand, we have the denotation of the subject, something we
all seem to agree on. On the other hand, Peirce describes the
Ben, List:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jerry, list,
Peirce's idea includes the idea that nature tells us things, and that's
something that Frederik is getting at in discussing natural propositions. For
example, an air sock dances, and that tells us that the air is
List:
(N.B.: This post includes abstract technical rhetoric which may be
incomprehensible to non-technical readers.)
Sung's suggestion (copied below) is far to simple (in my opinion).
The triadic triad requires triple and higher order articulations of the
metaphysical forms of inquiry into
List, Frederik, Jon:
Pure Index?
Pure Icon?
Mysterious to me outside of the legisign commitment.
Within the domain of chemistry, Lavoisier's Principle asserts a legisign
concerning the concept of purity that CSP was certainly aware of. It is the
starting point for the natural propositions of
List, Frederik, Jeff:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
(citing CSP),
icons commit themselves to nothing at all
This is a clear and crisp example of the influence of historical usage on the
meaning of words, grammar, signs, symbols, terms, expressions, logic and so
List, Stephen:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
in essence engage in a form of hermeneutics.
Consider the triadic triad:
It contains nine terms.
Five of these nine terms were of CSP coinage. CSP and CSP alone understands
why the majority of these nines terms were
List:
(N.B. 1: This message contains technical arguments that may be incomprehensible
to non-technical readers.)
(N.B. 2: This message also contains Peircian coinages that may be
incomprehensible to non-Peircian readers.)
The scientific origins of the meaning of the unique CSP-created logic
List, Cathy, JeffD
Just a simple fact and a simple comment.
The simple fact is that I have been on the faculty of an Institute for the
Study of Consciousness for more than 15 years after spending eight years
researching the design of drugs for epilepsy.
The simple comment is it is my personal
, hypothetically, as it were.
John
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: September 28, 2014 6:05 AM
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms
I wonder why.
Cheers
Jerry
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms and valuable as objectives that
continuity heads toward and fallibility clouds.
@stephencrose
On
List, Jon:
Kant and chemical semiotics are polar opposites. Kant did not accept the
possibility of quantification of chemistry.
from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/
In the Preface to the Metaphysical Foundations Kant claims that chemistry, at
least as he understood it in
List:
On Sep 21, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
With that understanding, let's focus again on this central piece of the
picture:
S
/
O--R|
\
I
I would avoid calling that a 4-node network. My training in graph theory
gives the word network too many
Frederik, List:
On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
1) simple metabolism, self-sustaining chemaical cycles - whose
self-sustainment implies they are prone to adapt to searching for the
compounds they need to continue the cycle,
Huh?
I am unaware of any such cycles.
List, Sung:
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
In other words, I claim that
“A TRIADIC SET of three DYADIC RELATIONS is not the same (6795-3)
as a TRIADIC RELATION among three relata, because the latter
is by definition a mathematical category while the former
need not
List, Frederik,
On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Deely, John N. wrote:
Just as semiotics is the generic name for the study of semiosis, and
anthroposemiotics the specific name for the study ofanthroposemiosis allowing
of many substudies, and zoösemiotics is the name for the study of
Frederik:
While I heartily agree with you that one of the principle objectives of
Peircian logic is to chain together a sequence of natural propositions, but I
am puzzled by this paragraph.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
The main idea of the first
Frederik:
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
Let me redescribe my claim. Physics, taken in itself, does not study
cognition and communication processes - biology does.
Perhaps you are seeking to express a more metaphysical argument about the
List, Gary:
On Aug 28, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Gary Moore peirce-l@list.iupui.edu wrote:
2] How deeply did Peirce get into the grammatical speculative of the
pseudo-Scotus' Thomas of Erfort work?
Gary C. Moore
I studied the writings of Thomas of Erfort intensely for a few weeks about the
turn
On Jul 5, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
The logic behind my syllogism is as follows:
Major premise: A = B
Minor premise: A = C
Conclusion:C = B
where A = Burign's fundamental triad, B = the unification of mathematics;
and C = the Peircean triad.
List:
This is an
am not talking about philosophy of science. I am talking
about thermodynamics as it is employed in science.
Best wishes,
Evgenii
On 28.06.2014 20:11 Jerry LR Chandler said the following:
Evgenii, List:
On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:01 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 27.06.2014 19:26
ideas or even Aristotelian
forms I do not know. And I do not know any relevant Peirce text.
Søren
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sendt: 28. juni 2014 21:44
Til: Søren Brier
Cc: Evgenii Rudnyi; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Emne: Re
Evgenii, List:
On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:01 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 27.06.2014 19:26 Jerry LR Chandler said the following:
The concept of entropy as a scientific concept is a rigorous
mathematic concept. It is an abstract concept, strictly limited to
the flow of HEAT (not matter
Soren, List:
Does the concept of heat embody the concept of form? If so, how?
Entropy, as a component of the logic of thermodynamics, lacks form.
What gives entropy form?
Cheers
jerry
On Jun 28, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
Dear Evgenii and list
That fact is - as
Steven, List:
On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
If Triadic Philosophy has any claim to originality it might be in the third
term in its root triad which is Aesthetics.
A critical comment, if I may...
At a deep level, the origins and the dictionary meanings of words are
and the contents.
Matt
On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
wrote:
Matt:
It is a question of the relation between your usage of the term us and how
I understood your sentence.
My comment was based
in reference to
human existence.
The concepts of emergence and evolution are grounded on the concept of
historical changes of life forms.
Cheers
Jerry
@stephencrose
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:
Matt:
Scientific facts are in opposition
Matt:
Scientific facts are in opposition to your conclusion.
Cheers
jerry
On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Stephen, It appeared to me that you had hijacked the term pragmaticism, and
I still think you might have. Peirce was an idealist, and the idea that 'we
are reality,'
List, Stephen:
I fully concur with your characterization of the context of what is being
attempted with the categorization of a particular post as being Peircian or
not; or of things Peircian or not..
From my view, the richness of the mind / writings of CSP are so vast and
far-flung and so
will be presented to the System Scientists there. Should be fun!)
I would note in passing that the Biosemioticians seem to be struggling with the
conceptualization of categories. Any comment from your perspectives of
Cyber-semiotics?
Cheers
Jerry
Fra: Jerry LR Chandler
From: Jerry LR Chandler [jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:59 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] category theory in math
Jeff, List:
Category theory is a generalization of several mathematical structures:
sets, groups
List, Jeff:
On Apr 30, 2014, at 12:23 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
John Baez: The point is, that a category is really a generalization of a
group. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/categories.html)
I fully agree with Jon Baez (who I have heard lecture on several occasions.)
And, I further
about mathematical category theory, but I would
certainly advocate applying Peirce's categoriology to the structure of the
syntagm. Apropos of the latter, in what sense do you mean that my
understanding of the syntagm is artificial?
M.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry LR Chandler
List, Michael
A brief comment, the purpose of which is to sharpen the differences between
scientific structuralism and your usage of the term with respect to linguistic
continuity.
On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Michael Shapiro wrote:
“so space presents points, lines, surfaces, and solids,
List:
Frankly, I do not find CSP's words and works to be either as a structure or as
a process.
How about a obscurist or a fuzzy-ist?
On the other hand, I find Michael's extraordinary clear view of philosophy:
Peirce is the one great philosopher who escapes my definition
of a philosopher
predecessor in particular: Herder.
Best
Søren
Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sendt: 15. april 2014 04:30
Til: Benjamin Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of Science
Ben, List
On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
He mentions Schleiermacher a few times in passing.
Would you be so kind as to post the references to Schleiermacher?
He played a critical role in the trio of students (with Schelling and a poet
whose name I forget,) who moved
Ben, List
Thanks for citations. I will study them in some detail and from several
perspectives. Very important to me.
On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Or did Schleiermacher start out in theology?
Yes, the three theology students studied at Tubingen together in the early
Jeff, List:
(Sung-note message to you below)
Your comment is timely as we begin to enter the next session.
The question of HOW MANY MEANINGS? may be assigned to a sign is critical from
the perspective of trans-disciplinarity. Recall Vinicius's listing of the
several meanings of the term
501 - 587 of 587 matches
Mail list logo
