page 2
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
To say that every single person exhibits some level of Talent, Giftedness and Genius, needs some sort of qualification. By using the definition that "Everyone is unique in their own way", the qualification can be understood and accepted as a general statement that many of us would agree with. But many others have been taught, or have learned on their own, to rely on some sort of scale in which to measure (and hence judge) the different levels of human activity; which means that Talent, Giftedness and Genius can also be referred to as behavior, though we might want to include the notion of a particular or specific behavior exhibited in a given context.
Depending on the context, we might use the scales of "small, medium, large" or "good, better, best" or "apprentice, journeyman, master", to distinguish differences in behavior when comparing different individuals or the level of skill in which a single person is judged over time in reference to an activity in which their energies are singularly focused. In other instances, we might rely on the usage of numbers such as 1, 2, 3 because we feel we can have more confidence in some sort of one-for-one associated numbering system since we think that "numbers do not lie" and word labels are thought to enable someone, who would have a mind to, in alternatively using the same words to describe different perspectives of the same event. While such a 'relativity' is readily acknowledged, the acknowledgment is not formally addressed with a remedy as a prevention to prevarications. In other words, some feel that the usage of word labels alone as a measuring tool is not good enough because words can be used to lie and conceal lies as well.
However, if anyone has had an opportunity to review tax forms or juggle a small budget, they might readily acknowledge that occasions of "fudging the numbers" occurs... be it on paper, in one's mind, or what we might tell another. Hence, it is not that words, numbers or other symbols lie, but that they can be used to represent alternative perceptions
With respect to the usage of letters, both private and public schools use letters that are sometimes accompanied by other symbols to signify the level of accomplishment a student achieves for a given subject. For example: there are three gradient values attributed to each letter such as A+ (A plus), A (without a symbol), A- (A minus)... which frequently involves the usage of additional letters such as B, C, D, E and F With the in-series third letter "C" sometimes used to signify average ability, the letters A and B become associated with above average ability and the letters D, E, as representing below average, while the letter F is used to signify Failure. Graphically displayed, the letters proceed from top to bottom while gradations occur from left to right, though one might arrange the gradations from right to left:
| A+ | A | A- |
| B+ | B | B- |
| C+ | C | C- |
| D+ | D | D- |
| E+ | E | E- |
| F+ | F | F- |
Humorously, it took me a long time to figure out this system. I thought that because no one was getting the "F" letter meant it was the most difficult to achieve. When I found out how easy it was, I patted myself on the back. It got me more privileges (which meant I didn't have to share a desk or books with anyone), I got to stay inside when the weather was bad (which meant I could continue my day dreaming without interruption), and I was placed at the front of the classroom nearest to the teacher (which meant I was the Teacher's pet.) But then, this whole 1st grade strategy collapsed when the truth of the value-laden numbering system descriptions were revealed to me. I eventually became the only nine year old in a sixth grade class reading college books. I honestly thought that the philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the views of simple-minded people. Aesop was similarly viewed.
But since I was always asking and starting questions which were "off topic", and getting no answers, I found myself sneaking off to the neighborhood library. It was my favorite place to play hooky at. The elementary school's library had books for little kids. The two other places were a museum of natural history on the campus of the Ohio State University and what I referred to as the dinosaur/rock museum. I did try to sneak into some of the college classes because the topics were "way more" interesting than those at my school, but I was always chased out or some stupid adult would say in some silly voice "are you lost little boy?"... Run along and play. Or they would call campus security from whom I would run before they showed up. Needless to say, they all caused me to have a deprived intellectual childhood. Nine year old intellectual giants are frequently misunderstood, HA! I have been traumatized ever since. And I never got to get an Ohio State University Jersey either. And now that I'm old enough to get one for myself, they raised the prices! It's like having to buy ordinary goods on a prisoner's wages. (Prisoner's are forced to work for slave wages.)
Even though there are an additional 21 letters in the Alphabet which could be used to identify a larger gradient of human behavioral accomplishment, for one reason or another, the type and quantity of letters as well as accompanying symbols, can be said to exhibit a form of selectivity. Society has selectively chosen a given set of letters and symbols to represent an individual's level of accomplishment, average ability, or failure, when the individual is judged according to their behavior in a given context for a given task. Because it is felt by some that a letter-grading form of system can create a variety of psychologically-imbued stigmas with some students, they have chosen to include a simplified grading formula involving a two-patterned pass/fail option that a student might prefer. (For some people, in some instances, for whatever reason, a Two-patterned schematic is sometimes selected over a more complex Three-patterned schematic.)
But many people do not use the words "Talent, Gifted, Genius" to describe everyone. For them, these words represent acts or activities that entail some socially desirable "above average"-occurring behavior of an individual in a given context in which most (or all) others have not or do not exhibit. And while we recognize that the "above average" behavior is not normal, it is not negatively defined as an "abnormality"... as in the case of "extreme introversion" or "extreme extroversion"; where the word "extreme" is used to describe a level of behavior quite different according to a standard arisen at by judging the commonly occurring behavior of a given group of people. Such words as destructive, criminal, mentally disturbed, or "extremely shy" might then be additionally used to signify a socially undesirable (or less desirable) "above average"- occurring behavior; while others, from their perspective, prefer to describe and thus define the behavior as being a "below average" social desirability.
In any respect, the words "Talent, Gifted, Genius" refer to above average behavior as is commonly exhibited and recognized by the average person. By using a letter-grading system as outlined previously, the word "Genius" might be associated with "A plus", the word "Gifted" associated with "A", and the word "Talent" associated with "A minus". However, because of the negative connotations sometimes associated with the "minus" reference, a numerical value might be substituted such as A3, A2,A1... even though the designation A1 (A-One) is sometimes used to describe an ultimate form of excellence that is perceived to having been achieved, exhibited or experienced in some contexts. For example, someone might say they have received A-one service while staying at a particular Hotel that has received a five-star (excellence) rating by those who have been selected by a selective committee to judge the quality of a Hotel based on a criteria of expectation.
Generally, most of us do not use the words Talent, Gifted or Genius to describe a tradesman or a professional such as a dentist, mechanic, electrician, construction worker, grocery clerk, typist, computer technician, etc... Whereas we might say they do a good, great, or fantastic job, we seldom if ever use the words Talented, Gifted or Genius to describe them. Even though someone in their occupation may consider them to exhibit talent, giftedness or even genius, they too may not openly use these words to describe them in most instances of conversation. Hence, what I am getting at is that though someone may have talent, be gifted or a genius, they are not typically recognized as such on a highly visible social level such as an Einstein, Edison or Leonardo Da Vinci.
While some talented, gifted or genius "level" individuals do not care about being socially recognized on a grand or even small scale, others do. For the latter, it may make them mad for someone like a musician to be recognized as having talent and yet they see themselves as having multiple skills that can be used for practical, everyday applications to truly help others in their day to day lives, which the musician does not. For example, let us say that a particular woman generally described as a "mother" is able to fix a stuck toilet, change oil in the family vehicle, balance a checkbook, sew a variety of garments, while also prepare a menu-length quantity of different meals; and yet her so-called musically talented son can't figure out that the television doesn't work because it isn't plugged in. The "talented" label lauded on him by a musical instructor at his school might well be used as a reason and excuse for him not to expend his energies in developing skills which could be called practical talents; but aren't... because the current education system has a set of highly selective "above average" definitions structured into educational practices which are, in many instances, deliberately interfering with the development of needed and necessary practical talents.
Some observers rightly conclude that designating some people as being talented, gifted or genius, provides them with not only a socially acceptable deterrent towards a further development of those behaviors recognized as such, but as a defensive mechanism towards accomplishing anything but a skill for laziness. It is a type of thinking model we also witness when a person excuses themselves from doing anything on their days off from work, based on the "reason" that they, do, work (as opposed to some nameless... or named person who doesn't). And yet, others learn to overcome the deterrent imposed on them (by themselves or others) by not being designated with the same "above average" labels as others whom they feel they are just as deserving for recognition, special treatment, and various gratuities sometimes referred to as "perks".
Qualification for an "above average" label can sometimes be acquired by a person simply doing what another or others could do, but don't try to accomplish... with what might be referred to in some social circles as "sticktoitiveness", and in other venues might more readily be referred to as persistence brought on and sustained by a "go for it" mentality or impulse. In some cases, after a period of intense application followed by a concerted form of reflection, a close-up view of the initially selected goal may help the individual realize that their true Talent, Giftedness or Genius lays not in what they have been focused on; but in a similar or even totally unrelated area for which they find their efforts are nonetheless transferable when they make the move. While some people seem to be "a natural" at a given task such as in playing chess or completing a Rubik's cube, their "natural ability" described as a talent, gift or genius... may not be transferable to other activities they have tried or others have set before them to try... though they may be able to accomplish a similar level of proficiency at that which is not seen or is unavailable for them to try within the boundaries imposed on them in a given environmental/social setting.
For example:
A person's "talent" for cooking might be a set of behaviors which are transferable to a laboratory setting, but the context of their life does not readily bring the availability of a laboratory nearby in which their behaviors might adapt, over time, to the typical "cooking" instruments.
Another's "keen eye" for visualizing the past, present and future movements of billiard balls might well be a set of behaviors which are transferable to a study of quantum mechanics.
Another's ability to "make ends meet" through creative shopping skills might be useful in an accounting or office management setting.
However, these same individuals might well be met with types of deliberately (traditional) set-in-place obstacles at developing skills for the different environments that they are not accustomed to; but another who is already in the setting has become skilled at deterring the efforts of those they interpret to be a threat to "their" domain and the social profile it provides them. Collectively, the deterrents might be called forms of intimidation, of which different forms are exhibited throughout the animal kingdom. For example, a person is not even permitted to enter a laboratory unless they have a certain grade-point average or show some particular level of mathematical "aptitude" because these are thought to be prime indicators of who can or can not do well in a given area of activity. Very often others who are trying to develop proficiency in a similar setting will attempt to forestall the efforts of another from achieving that which they think belongs to them. Like a child who hordes a toy not because they actually have a deep interest for or ability in using ("playing" with) the toy, but simply because another has showed an interest in it. Hence, the encouragement of an individual in any educational setting should also include the recognition of and skills development in overcoming perceived obstacles unrelated to their abilities, but are a necessary adjunct tool in order for their talent, gift or genius to aspire. As such, it should also be noted that, very often, there are individuals who can do well and will accomplish much by way of an on-the-job training program.
Clearly, differences of opinion about what is or is not meant as Talent, Giftedness, and Genius requires that we establish some means of making the definitions easier to determine so as to more appropriately focus our public resources towards assisting both fledgling as well as more matured variations thereof. Programs directed solely for the young in developing their skills are commendable, but this then sets the precedent that Talent, Giftedness, and Genius are "critical period" dependent; as in the case for language development and specifically noted by researchers interested in those attempting to teach language and other "normal" social behavior to feral children. One must make note that while we cite "critical periods" for developmental issues in order to take advantage of an assumed "plasticity" which can be molded (either positively or negatively), but that we do not likewise take as large a stand in advocating the advantage of ideas related to "imprinting" behavior, in which more mature skills could be made better use of as a role model instead of an educator being like the child who wants ownership of a toy simply because someone else gives the impression of being interested in it.
Needless as it may be to mention, educators are people who are not immune from exhibiting the symptoms and expressions of jealously. We might want to decide on the issue by way of legislation directed by a vote of the people, but this might well be seen as a threat to those wanting to control not only who gets funded and for what reason, but how much they can get. We might also want to ask whether resources should be applied freely, or do we want some detailed accountability and reimbursement to ensue at sometime in the future? Should we have an expectation of receiving something in return for our investment, or are we simply engaged in a great social experiment, "to see what happens"?
With respect to considering what we might expect in return, we must ask how much of the "above average" attention we give to "above average"-identified students (or others) is to be significantly lessened by a diminished-over-time Hawthorne effect? In other words, how many of those students who have been not only identified as being "above average" (whether specifically labeled "talented, gifted, genius" or not) and received "above average" support, have continued to develop their "giftedness" when there is not longer any "above average" support or identification? Is high achievement sometimes only the result of an individual's desire for attention, such as in the case of first born children that are said to become involved with social venues that provide them with high social profiles (specialized notability) such as doctors and lawyers?
Aside from the digressions one might venture to entertain in an "arm chair" (or porch swing) moment of engaging in a pyscho-analytical form of musefulness, we must return to the question of what we want or can expect to receive in return from those in whom we invest with resources earmarked for a Talent, Gifted, Genius program. For example, will those showing some level of "giftedness" in some artistic-oriented field such as dance, acting, painting, photography, music, or sculpting who have been provided with "above average" educational/training opportunities (that may or may not be followed by "above average" employment opportunities); simply be required to provide the public with an exhibition of their "above average" work "accomplishments"? What then for a mathematician, chess player, or someone with once-noted leadership skills? Indeed, the questioned might be framed in another way such as: How many of those in present day "leadership" positions were in a gifted program because they had this particular or some other behavior recognized as a talent, gift, or genius?
All school programs, all school curriculum is based on some form of preferential selectivity. And when we find that large numbers of students can not or are slow to learn a given subject such as reading, writing or arithmetic, we sometimes alter the course materials and requirements for establishing whether or not an individual has accomplished the course. Very often this is described as "dumbing down". In other words, we alter the requirements for passing a particular subject, particularly if a passing grade is needed in order for a student to participate in some athletic event that they excel in at this moment in their life. But it must be noted that most Highschool and even College athletic "stars" do not go on to become stars in the profession after they have finished school. Hence, the value of expending "above average" resources on these individuals instead of on others can be questioned, even though the typical would-be answer is equated with revenue producing ticket sales at organized competitions with others who engage in providing similar school programs.
One must ask if our overall society would not be better if we primarily funded non- or lesser-athletic activities such as music, art, mathematics, science, photography, or even cooking and sewing? Instead of labeling aircraft modeling as a hobby, let us describe it and all other hobbies as expressions of individual talent, giftedness, and/or genius. Why is it that we perpetuate "above average" funding for those who are individually labeled as having a "promise, potential or practicality" for football, baseball, basketball, wrestling, and gymnastics programs, while similar "aptitudes", if at all recognized, are not provided "above average" resources for their "promise, potential or practicality" in mechanical trades, drafting, plumbing trades, electrical trades, various other construction trades, demolition, etc.? We might even want to wonder: Instead of having an Olympics primarily focused on physical activity, why not an Olympics primarily focused on events where intellectual activity is most prominent?
In a democratic society you would think such questions could be addressed and answered by way of a dominant vote. However, such referendums are not allowed. Those who would like to bring such questions to a public vote are presented with one or more obstacles in terms of collecting a "certain number" of signatures before they can even get the items on a ballot. Then again, those with large financial resources may effect a campaign of negativity against their efforts, because they prefer that their opinion and those who share their opinion will decide the issue on behalf of everyone else, even though they were never chosen to be a representative thereof.
For a society which prides itself on "Equality", it is a ludicrous self-description when its own very government actively discriminates against the population at large. And Congress knows it, but it doesn't want to relinquish its control because its members think they know better than the average person. The fact that they occupy a position in Congress is an indication to themselves that they are above average and that this means, to them, that their opinion should be supported by above average deference and approval, regardless of what decision they make.
With respect to deciding what is and what is not to be funded as a program directed towards the enhancement of talent, giftedness and genius, not even those who are actively involved with the testing and teaching of such individuals take the time to raise a vote amongst themselves. They prefer to expend their energies on manipulating the perspective of those who are directly in charge of funding "their" program. It is "their" program they are most concerned with. Like any instructor whether called coach, director, educator or otherwise, they want "their" program, or "their" classroom, or "their" facility, etc., to be preeminently recognized; as if in such a claim of ownership they themselves are exalted to an above average indication of superiority, whether or not it is described as talent, giftedness or genius.
There is so much pettiness in human endeavors, it's a wonder any progress is made at all. It's no wonder that civilizations of humanity rise and fall. We are primates who refuse to reach beyond the grasp of the highest branch we have, astonishingly, ascend to. There are so many people attempting to secure even a small taste of the financial fruit even if it entails denying someone else with a simple knowledge thereof. The egos of some are so voraciously hungry that their primary intent is to benefit themselves, in one way or another, with some position on the same talent, giftedness and genius branch. But the branch is suffering from an over-crowding whereby all vertical movement has come to a standstill. While lateral movement along the branch occurs, it too is relatively stagnant. All of them are failing to heed the wisdom in the old "rockabye baby" nursery rhyme.
Our understanding and usage of ideas involving Talent, Giftedness and Genius have lulled us, as a nation, and as a species, into a narcotic-like depth of stuporous dreaming. We are not sober but are capable of great sobriety. We are, at present, distracted by various forms of misconception that are frequently intertwined with personalized addictions contoured by over-wrought emotionalism and egotism that is nurtured by prejudice and spoon fed by greed. This is the way history has brought us up... To think in terms of gods, goddesses, god/goddess and human hybrids, and other fanciful notions. Humanity has been a prolonged experience of mental illness in many guises. It is all around us. Each of us participates in it because we have been thrust into it. Each of us in our own way have our talent, giftedness and genius molded in forms of survival adaptation for individual as well as the overall context of our larger social environment. It will be difficult, to say the least, to attempt to bring human society into a state of collective sobriety... away from its shared mental illnesses.
Our life-spans are limited. Our public resources, with respect to funding, are limited. A review of history shows us that civilizations are limited, even though some idea or portion thereof may be altered and adopted by one or more civilizations which follow. Nonetheless, a fact about the existence of limitations is quite evident. On a larger perspective, the resources of the Earth are limited. Indeed, the life-span of the Earth, this solar system and our galaxy are limited. Some might want to even include our Universe in this list. Limitations quite frequently induce discriminatory practices as a survival mechanism.
Those who develop gifted programs are not exempt from incorporating what some might want to refer to as elitist ideas based on prejudiciously designed motives. However, this is not meant to discredit otherwise genuinely sincere efforts at wanting to assist in the supportive development of behaviors they have determined to be deserving of above average considerations. However, their determinations are not necessarily based on decisions which arose from an observational talent, giftedness, nor genius. Quite often, their choices are based on an educated guesstimation. And yes, they are sometimes wrong in their choices. And yes, many individuals are overlooked. And yes, our present testing methods are inadequate.
Every country has a resource limitation. Likewise every province, state, city, town and education system within. Resource limitations force choices to be made on how available funds are to be dispersed. With respect to various ideas associated with the words talent, giftedness and genius; a decision must be made as to how these words are to be defined within the context of social need, desire and resource limitations. Many tough choices have to be made similar to those of a parent with a limited budget. Choices ultimately present us with circumstances of sacrifice that must be made. We don't like it because some choices gnaw at our inner-most being of wanting to do the best we can for all. We down right hate the idea of having to make a choice which may cause the exclusion of that which could possibly blossom into a unique expression if only they could be given nurturing.
Our choices, based on the limits of available resources, will be a practice in discrimination. We will be selective and engaging in a form of segregationism. Whether or not we, in word, claim ourselves to be "anti-discrimination" minded, by saying that our choices make a provision for including all races, both genders, all cultures, all religions, all sexual orientations, all ethnicities, etc., the selection process will nonetheless be one in which someone, based on this or that criteria, are not being chosen.
Another way of determining which form of discrimination is being advocated, we must look at what forms of exclusion are being utilized, instead of what "tests" are being used for including someone. For example, if we are not aware that someone is being given an I.Q. test to determine their merit for being included in a "gifted" program, identifying why one or more others is not being selected inevitably reveals the usage of the test, or some other test which is less visible. Some "tests" may likely be identified as little more than someone's preference. This is not wrong if the funding entails them with the provision of doing so. Instead of trying to develop "giftedness" guidelines based on an unrealistic attitude about discrimination, the existing reality about discrimination should be realized so that practices of equal discrimination can be enforced instead of being used as an unspoken multi- faceted tool of disparagement.
In America, the usage of an Electoral College process is used in selecting a President instead of a popular vote such as in a referendum. This is a discrimination against the people which is forced on them by those in favor of having a separate and unequal vote in a discriminatory legislative practice. Likewise, the people don't get to collectively vote on issues that directly, or indirectly involve all of them co-existing in the same society. The practice of discrimination in this regard is called Representative Government, even though (discriminantly) selected Representatives typically vote on issues based on their own conscience, and not as a representation of what the people have decided on by way of a popular vote by way of a Referendum. While other examples could be given which describe a political reality of active discrimination, I will add but one last example by saying that the members of the "Supreme" court are singularly chosen by the President, even though members of Congress may question them as to their "unbiased" qualifications and reject them if they are discriminatory, in the opinion of these "Representatives".
Because funding for public Education is limited, and more so for specialized programs thereof, laws based on the notion of "anti-discrimination" require all "segments" (races, ethnicities, genders, etc.,) be represented, as if the word "representation" is a representation of anti-discrimination. This is of course ludicrous, but it sounds good to those who are not likely to be chosen for any talent, giftedness or genius program; unless standards of mediocrity incorporate a hierarchical ranking system which provides "above average" descriptions of mediocrity. But in making sure that there is a "multi-cultural" representation is not always feasible since there may not be one or more individuals from a particular social background, race, etc., that are available for inclusion into a given program. For example, it would not be an act of discrimination if in an Asian community there were no Caucasian, Native American or Negroid students in any classroom, whether or not it was focused on educating "above average" students.
Every educator should know what the profile of their discriminatory practices. Every "Talent, Giftedness, Genius" encouragement/enrichment program should be able to discuss the profile of their discriminatory policies. They should not be defensive nor embarrassed about discussions involving discrimination. What they should be embarrassed about is their inability to defend the need for using a particular discrimination because it signifies an unwarranted usage of personal prejudice. Public funding can and is being used discriminatorily but it should not be used prejudiciously. Discrimination based on something such as limited resources can be defended, but not discrimination based primarily on prejudice.
There are talented, gifted and even genius level individuals all around us. Many of whom will never be socially labeled as such. And there are many individuals around us making more money than we are, and others who are occupying positions for which they have no talent, no gift, no genius. Many people in different walks of life will never be socially recognized as being "above average" even though they are. Most people will not be individually recognized in a history book, magazine, or news article, and many who are, are felt by some to be undeserving. Yep, life can appear to be particularly unfair... except it isn't "life" in terms of a single individual whom we might want to point a finger at, its the present social standards we are abiding by in this day and age. Like the script in a movie, play or story that should be re-written, many of our lives seem to be in some level of parity with.
For some, the story of Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer can illustrate the situation with respect to the lack of recognition received for a talent, giftedness, or genius which they possess. In fact, just like Rudolph, their non-normal (above average) behavior (or expression, idea, etc.,) may well be recognized as odd (or weird, anti-social, any-custom-ary, etc.,), which may or may not lead to receiving criticism, condemnation or out-right assault, in one form or another that they may respond in-kind with as a defensive gesture in an environmental circumstance which offers them little else with which to protect themselves with. In other words, some might not resort to an isolationist form of humility and self-imposed failing with a penitential level of quiet reservation where they permit themselves to be engaged to a sub-servient role of doing what they are told even when it goes against their "better" (above average) Judgment. While a few "Rudolphs" do get recognized because some type of "Foggy Eve" event arises in order for their "Brightness" to shine and be truly recognized as a socially valuable Talent, Gift, or Genius and not just an oddity that prevents them from being able to "play reindeer games"; many others, for whatever reason(s), do not experience such a life changing event. And although the story of Rudolph can be applied analogously, as a metaphor, it should not be used as a representative model for everyone since the Talent, Giftedness and Genius of others might be better suited for explanation when expressed within the title, table of contents, footnotes, glossary, or script of other stories such as fairytales, re-told historical episodes, or other genres of fiction. Some might even prefer to identify their personal situation with one or more cartoons, comics, or even a Basooka chewing gum wrapper "story".
But why look for specific behavior that we can generally describe in a singular way as "uniqueness"? Why aren't we satisfied with accepting and living by a, for example, religious proposition such that we are all God's children? Why isn't this enough? Why do people go out of their way to try and express some behavior that they want to be interpreted as being better (or in some manipulative instances, worse) than one or more others? Is our distinctions of Talent, Giftedness and Genius little more than the mentality of children who create imaginary boundaries within which they challenge one another to a 'race contest' to make a declaration of winner and loser juxtaposed with distinctions such as right/wrong, righteous/infidel, beginning/end, greater/lesser, the light/the dark, etc.? Are these dichotomies (and many others) little more than representative expressions of adaptations to the cyclical events occurring in nature, particularly those involving the day and night; from which sprang various "races" not only expressed in cultures, but elaborations thereof called religion? Hence, the "winner and loser", have/have not, gain/loss, etc., contrasts are mere reflections of day and night events; with which was developed personifications called God/good and Satan/evil? And as an elaboration of individualized distinction, is the tripartite organization, such as is found in the Christian Trinity and various other philosophical themes such as the Three-ring conception of giftedness; but an extension of the Sun's (daytime-revealed) dawn, noon and dusk events?
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com