In
Message-ID:<d401557d-e039-4d71-8c55-3e6b40abb2aan@googlegroups.com>,
"eleeper@optonline.net" <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:

>Okay, I know that "The Birds" is alphabetized as "Birds, The" and "A Kiss Before Dying" is "Kiss Before Dying, A". I also believe that "El Conde Dracula" should be "Conde Dracula, El". Is "L'Avventura" "Avventura, L'" (with an apostrophe after the "L"?

Most cataloguers move only initial "The", "A", and "An". They leave
other language equivalents as is. So, in most English language
catalogs (or on the shelves) Les Miz will be in the Ls, not the Ms.

Some books and movies have alternate names that are much more well
known than the actual names. You can catalog them under both, but do
you put the physical copy of Marat/Sade under M or P? Most video
stores (IMHO correctly) put Spinal Tap in the Ts.

On 2023-11-10, Someone Else <someone.else@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> In
> Message-ID:<d401557d-e039-4d71-8c55-3e6b40abb2aan@googlegroups.com>,
> "eleeper@optonline.net" <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay, I know that "The Birds" is alphabetized as "Birds, The" and "A Kiss Before Dying" is "Kiss Before Dying, A". I also believe that "El Conde Dracula" should be "Conde Dracula, El". Is "L'Avventura" "Avventura, L'" (with an apostrophe after the "L"?
>
> Most cataloguers move only initial "The", "A", and "An". They leave
> other language equivalents as is. So, in most English language
> catalogs (or on the shelves) Les Miz will be in the Ls, not the Ms.
>
> Some books and movies have alternate names that are much more well
> known than the actual names. You can catalog them under both, but do
> you put the physical copy of Marat/Sade under M or P? Most video
> stores (IMHO correctly) put Spinal Tap in the Ts.

I was a member of the Library Association's Cataloguing and Indexing
research groups. They aren't the same thing. Cataloguing is for where you
shelve an item but you can have multipe index entries. The golden rule is
that what you are looking for should always be in the first place you look
for it. Collating sequences are language-dependent. I was amused to see some
people milling around in confusion at the registration desk for Confiction
in Scheveningen.

In the Netherlands the prefix "van" is not part of a surname so "van Name"
is filed under N not V. I used that as an example of things that programmers
know about names that just ain't so.

My stepdaugher files her DVDs by spine colour. I recommended that libraries
should shelve books by size to achieve optimum use of shelf-space.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> I was a member of the Library Association's Cataloguing and Indexing
> research groups. They aren't the same thing. Cataloguing is for
> where you shelve an item but you can have multipe index entries.
> The golden rule is that what you are looking for should always be
> in the first place you look for it.

That sounds like a nice rule, but it's only possible if you can read
the searcher's mind or vice versa. And I think most of us can't even
reliably read our own (past) mind. Otherwise we'd never misplace
anything. And we could shelve our own books in any order whatsoever
and simply remember exactly where we placed each one.

> I recommended that libraries should shelve books by size to achieve
> optimum use of shelf-space.

That's certainly the best plan for someone's personal library if they
have a perfect memory and limited space. Except that if they have
perfect memory they wouldn't need to store any books, as they'd have
their contents all memorized.

It's ironic how most of us have very limited space, even though we pay
more for space than for everything else put together, given just how
much space exists: More than 10^100 cubic meters in the known universe.

One of my fantasies is that I'll invent a Narnia closet. I'd leave
out the wild animals, time warps, and evil witches, and just have a
warehouse-sized empty space that fits in the corner of my bedroom.
If I could mass-produce them, I'd become wealthy. (But I wonder what
they'd do to the environment. All the air to fill them has to come
from somewhere. And if someone accidentally tunes theirs for a square
light year of space, all at sea level, that could reduce Earth's
sea-level air pressure to that of the Moon. (Does the Moon even have
a sea level?))

A more modest space saving can be accomplished by always using American
rather than British spelling: "Cataloging" rather than "cataloguing."
Color, humor, checks, favor, labor, program.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 2023-11-11, Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> I was a member of the Library Association's Cataloguing and Indexing
>> research groups. They aren't the same thing. Cataloguing is for
>> where you shelve an item but you can have multipe index entries.
>> The golden rule is that what you are looking for should always be
>> in the first place you look for it.
>
> That sounds like a nice rule, but it's only possible if you can read
> the searcher's mind or vice versa. And I think most of us can't even
> reliably read our own (past) mind. Otherwise we'd never misplace
> anything. And we could shelve our own books in any order whatsoever
> and simply remember exactly where we placed each one.

That's only a problem if you try to keep the index in one person's head. I
use a computer and where necessary the system asks what the particular
user's preferences are. All of the main databse systems are broken in the
same way. They store the designer's choice of collating sequence. As most
such systems are write-once, read-many it can be more efficient to ask the
many users rather than the single designer.

>
>> I recommended that libraries should shelve books by size to achieve
>> optimum use of shelf-space.
>
> That's certainly the best plan for someone's personal library if they
> have a perfect memory and limited space. Except that if they have
> perfect memory they wouldn't need to store any books, as they'd have
> their contents all memorized.

The same applies. If you have so few books that your memory is adequate then
it's questionable whether you need any sort of catalogue, or index.

>
> It's ironic how most of us have very limited space, even though we pay
> more for space than for everything else put together, given just how
> much space exists: More than 10^100 cubic meters in the known universe.
>
> One of my fantasies is that I'll invent a Narnia closet. I'd leave
> out the wild animals, time warps, and evil witches, and just have a
> warehouse-sized empty space that fits in the corner of my bedroom.
> If I could mass-produce them, I'd become wealthy. (But I wonder what
> they'd do to the environment. All the air to fill them has to come
> from somewhere. And if someone accidentally tunes theirs for a square
> light year of space, all at sea level, that could reduce Earth's
> sea-level air pressure to that of the Moon. (Does the Moon even have
> a sea level?))
>
> A more modest space saving can be accomplished by always using American
> rather than British spelling: "Cataloging" rather than "cataloguing."
> Color, humor, checks, favor, labor, program.

True but even better is to store a token that can be used to display words
in the users' choice of languages. Short tokens for the commonest words and
longer ones for those used infrequently. I think German might have the best
packing density because many complex terms are compounded from multiple
common words.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>> The golden rule is that what you are looking for should always be
>>> in the first place you look for it.

>> That sounds like a nice rule, but it's only possible if you can
>> read the searcher's mind or vice versa.

> That's only a problem if you try to keep the index in one person's
> head. I use a computer and where necessary the system asks what the
> particular user's preferences are.

I'm thinking that someone walks into a library or book store, and has
their own idea about where the book they're looking for is likely to
be found if it's present. It's quite likely that whoever decided
where in that building to place each book had a different idea.

For instance when I was looking for a book on bicycle riding and
maintenance, I looked in the transportation section. It wasn't there.
Not until years later did I learn they did have relevant books, but
they were in the sports section, even though they had nothing to do
with sports. (Yes, bike racing is a sport. So is car racing, but
most books about cars don't belong in the sports section.)

> All of the main database systems are broken in the same way. They
> store the designer's choice of collating sequence.

As in the above case, it's not just a question of what constitutes
alphabetic order, or whether John Von Neumann starts with V, with N,
or with J. Another example is whether books by a given fiction author
should be filed under their real name or their pen name. What if they
wrote under several pen names?

> As most such systems are write-once, read-many it can be more
> efficient to ask the many users rather than the single designer.

Ask them what, exactly? A knowledgeable librarian or book seller may
know where a book is filed. But they probably don't. Even a computer
database may be wrong. The local Barnes & Noble used to have an
in-store computer anyone could use to see where, if anywhere, a
desired book is shelved. They eventually got rid of it because it
was wrong more often than not.

>>> I recommended that libraries should shelve books by size to achieve
>>> optimum use of shelf-space.

>> That's certainly the best plan for someone's personal library if
>> they have a perfect memory and limited space.

One complication is that books vary in size in two dimensions, height
and depth. (They of course also vary in thickness, but the way
shelves work, that doesn't matter.)

>> Except that if they have perfect memory they wouldn't need to store
>> any books, as they'd have their contents all memorized.

> The same applies. If you have so few books that your memory is
> adequate then it's questionable whether you need any sort of
> catalogue, or index.

I was postulating someone with perfect memory. Not only do they know
exactly where all the books in a large library are, they know the
exact contents of every book if they once rapidly leafed through
it. They may not have *absorbed* the knowledge, but if they have
photographic memory they can read the book from their own visual
memory whenever they have the time, and never need have the actual
physical book in their home.

Certainly if someone has fewer than about 100 books, even if they have
a poor memory it's reasonably quick to just look at all of them on the
shelf to find the one they're looking for.

>> One of my fantasies is that I'll invent a Narnia closet. I'd leave
>> out the wild animals, time warps, and evil witches, ...

On second thought, time warps could be useful. Especially if it's
a Narnia-style one in which as soon as you leave the closet your
physical age returns to what it was before you entered, even if you
spent decades in there. Anyhow, you can't really separate space from
time. A hypothetical long hallway embedded in small space, e.g. if
I turn my bedroom door into a 100-meter long hallway suitable for
lining with bookcases, without moving the bedroom or the existing
hall outside it (making the baby Euclid cry), that could be used
to send signals back through time (making the baby Einstein cry).

>> A more modest space saving can be accomplished by always using
>> American rather than British spelling: "Cataloging" rather than
>> "cataloguing." Color, humor, checks, favor, labor, program.

> True but even better is to store a token that can be used to display
> words in the users' choice of languages.

You seem to be talking about computerized storage. I'm thinking of
real physical books. We're already pretty good at compact storage.
I could already pack more books than I could read in a century into
something I could fit in my shirt pocket, with enough space left
over for the whole of Wikipedia.

And we can get even better at it if we adopt Stross's idea of using
C12 and C13 atoms as 0 and 1 bits in a diamond. This time the shirt-
pocket device, if it stores high-def video, and you accidentally
left it recording when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, it would still be
mostly empty.

> Short tokens for the commonest words and longer ones for those used
> infrequently.

That's already built into English, and all other natural languages.
It's called Zipf's Law.

> I think German might have the best packing density because many
> complex terms are compounded from multiple common words.

Isn't that just by leaving out the spaces between some words? I think
that leaving out superfluous letters, as American English does, works
just as well. Donuts taste just as good as doughnuts.

There are people who nag me about my placing two spaces after each
sentence. But I think the improvement in readability exceeds the cost
in extra storage by several orders of magnitude.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 4:41:32 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > I think German might have the best packing density because many
> > complex terms are compounded from multiple common words.
> Isn't that just by leaving out the spaces between some words? I think
> that leaving out superfluous letters, as American English does, works
> just as well. Donuts taste just as good as doughnuts.

Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.

We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also printed in very small font. With no spaces.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.

> We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also
> printed in very small font. With no spaces.

In my experience, disemvoweling makes text unreadable, even with the
spaces left in. My experience is based only on English, but I'd
expect the same is true of Hebrew unless it has only one vowel sound.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 10:43:44 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.
>
> > We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also
> > printed in very small font. With no spaces.
> In my experience, disemvoweling makes text unreadable, even with the
> spaces left in. My experience is based only on English, but I'd
> expect the same is true of Hebrew unless it has only one vowel sound.

Yet oddly, millions of people over thousands of years have managed.

t snt tht dffclt t rd sntnc wth th vwls rmvd. th bg prblm r th rll shrt wrds.

(Actually, the big problem is typing it with auto-correct turned on!)

For our catalog we didn't need to read it, just be able to look things up in it--a fairly big difference.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

In article <373547b0-0270-4740-9fa6-49eebc691d99n@googlegroups.com>,
"eleeper@optonline.net" <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 4:41:32?PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > I think German might have the best packing density because many
> > > complex terms are compounded from multiple common words.
> > Isn't that just by leaving out the spaces between some words? I think
> > that leaving out superfluous letters, as American English does, works
> > just as well. Donuts taste just as good as doughnuts.
>
> Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.
>
> We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also printed in very
> small font. With no spaces.
>

All of which can lead to "MS Fnd in a Lbry"

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.
>
>> We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also
>> printed in very small font. With no spaces.
>
>In my experience, disemvoweling makes text unreadable, even with the
>spaces left in. My experience is based only on English, but I'd
>expect the same is true of Hebrew unless it has only one vowel sound.

CBLESE DRPS VWLS SELCTVLY STOP VRY POPLR W TLTYPE CRWD ENDIT
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2023-11-12, Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>> The golden rule is that what you are looking for should always be
>>>> in the first place you look for it.
>
>>> That sounds like a nice rule, but it's only possible if you can
>>> read the searcher's mind or vice versa.
>
>> That's only a problem if you try to keep the index in one person's
>> head. I use a computer and where necessary the system asks what the
>> particular user's preferences are.
>
> I'm thinking that someone walks into a library or book store, and has
> their own idea about where the book they're looking for is likely to
> be found if it's present. It's quite likely that whoever decided
> where in that building to place each book had a different idea.

That's why there is a distinction between cataloguing and indexing.
Cataloguing is inherently error-prone because it requires both the
cataloguer and the searcher to share an understanding of where the (single)
catalogue entry is. The standard reference work for this is Anglo-American
Cataloguing rules. It used to be an enormous tome and got too beig to be
printed before the PC age. Libraries had subscriptions to the microfiche
service.

Indexing on the other hand doesn't have that limitation. There is an index
entry where anyone thinks it might be useful.

>
> For instance when I was looking for a book on bicycle riding and
> maintenance, I looked in the transportation section. It wasn't there.
> Not until years later did I learn they did have relevant books, but
> they were in the sports section, even though they had nothing to do
> with sports. (Yes, bike racing is a sport. So is car racing, but
> most books about cars don't belong in the sports section.)

Yes, that's the classical failure-mode for cataloguing. If you had access to
an index you would have found "Bicycle riding, see Sports, Cycling." It
would also give you a Dewey and LoC code. Indexes were the hidden secret
weapon of librarians. In my local library when I was a kid the librarian
commented that nobody else ever looked at the card index.

>
>> All of the main database systems are broken in the same way. They
>> store the designer's choice of collating sequence.
>
> As in the above case, it's not just a question of what constitutes
> alphabetic order, or whether John Von Neumann starts with V, with N,
> or with J. Another example is whether books by a given fiction author
> should be filed under their real name or their pen name. What if they
> wrote under several pen names?

Not a problem. That's still a failure of cataloguing that is trivially
easily solved by indexing.

>
>> As most such systems are write-once, read-many it can be more
>> efficient to ask the many users rather than the single designer.
>
> Ask them what, exactly? A knowledgeable librarian or book seller may
> know where a book is filed. But they probably don't. Even a computer
> database may be wrong. The local Barnes & Noble used to have an
> in-store computer anyone could use to see where, if anywhere, a
> desired book is shelved. They eventually got rid of it because it
> was wrong more often than not.

That's what happens when you let customers take books off of the shelf. Many
of them put the books back in the wrong place. I do it myself. I worked in a
charity bookshop and once a week I would scan the general fiction and
historical fiction shelves and move the misfiled skiffy titles.

>
>>>> I recommended that libraries should shelve books by size to achieve
>>>> optimum use of shelf-space.
>
>>> That's certainly the best plan for someone's personal library if
>>> they have a perfect memory and limited space.
>
> One complication is that books vary in size in two dimensions, height
> and depth. (They of course also vary in thickness, but the way
> shelves work, that doesn't matter.)
>
>>> Except that if they have perfect memory they wouldn't need to store
>>> any books, as they'd have their contents all memorized.
>
>> The same applies. If you have so few books that your memory is
>> adequate then it's questionable whether you need any sort of
>> catalogue, or index.
>
> I was postulating someone with perfect memory. Not only do they know
> exactly where all the books in a large library are, they know the
> exact contents of every book if they once rapidly leafed through
> it. They may not have *absorbed* the knowledge, but if they have
> photographic memory they can read the book from their own visual
> memory whenever they have the time, and never need have the actual
> physical book in their home.
>
> Certainly if someone has fewer than about 100 books, even if they have
> a poor memory it's reasonably quick to just look at all of them on the
> shelf to find the one they're looking for.
>
>>> One of my fantasies is that I'll invent a Narnia closet. I'd leave
>>> out the wild animals, time warps, and evil witches, ...
>
> On second thought, time warps could be useful. Especially if it's
> a Narnia-style one in which as soon as you leave the closet your
> physical age returns to what it was before you entered, even if you
> spent decades in there. Anyhow, you can't really separate space from
> time. A hypothetical long hallway embedded in small space, e.g. if
> I turn my bedroom door into a 100-meter long hallway suitable for
> lining with bookcases, without moving the bedroom or the existing
> hall outside it (making the baby Euclid cry), that could be used
> to send signals back through time (making the baby Einstein cry).
>
>>> A more modest space saving can be accomplished by always using
>>> American rather than British spelling: "Cataloging" rather than
>>> "cataloguing." Color, humor, checks, favor, labor, program.
>
>> True but even better is to store a token that can be used to display
>> words in the users' choice of languages.
>
> You seem to be talking about computerized storage.

Not necessarily. Indexing predates computers. Card indexes can do anything
that the computerised systems can now do but with more effort and poorer
accuracy.

> I'm thinking of
> real physical books. We're already pretty good at compact storage.
> I could already pack more books than I could read in a century into
> something I could fit in my shirt pocket, with enough space left
> over for the whole of Wikipedia.
>
> And we can get even better at it if we adopt Stross's idea of using
> C12 and C13 atoms as 0 and 1 bits in a diamond. This time the shirt-
> pocket device, if it stores high-def video, and you accidentally
> left it recording when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, it would still be
> mostly empty.
>
>> Short tokens for the commonest words and longer ones for those used
>> infrequently.
>
> That's already built into English, and all other natural languages.
> It's called Zipf's Law.
>
>> I think German might have the best packing density because many
>> complex terms are compounded from multiple common words.
>
> Isn't that just by leaving out the spaces between some words? I think
> that leaving out superfluous letters, as American English does, works
> just as well. Donuts taste just as good as doughnuts.

No. It's creating new labels for concepts by re-using existing labels to
create something that is more than the sum of its parts.

>
> There are people who nag me about my placing two spaces after each
> sentence. But I think the improvement in readability exceeds the cost
> in extra storage by several orders of magnitude.

Possibly. But that's limited to text in fixed-width fonts which have
limited applications these days. In a variable width font, particularly
with kerning, the computer will do even better if it throws away the
redundant space. In the early days of word-processing I wrote a filter
program to remove the extra spaces.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-5, Paul Dormer wrote:
> In article <ar9rkilc69is6ss1a...@4ax.com>,
> someon...@example.com.invalid (Someone Else) wrote:
>
> >
> > Most cataloguers move only initial "The", "A", and "An". They leave
> > other language equivalents as is. So, in most English language
> > catalogs (or on the shelves) Les Miz will be in the Ls, not the Ms.
> I remember someone pointing this out many years ago on this group when I
> noticed a DVD shop had Der Golem shelved under D and La Dolce Vita under
> L.

Well, they're wrong. :-) Why anyone would want to file "Der Golem" several letters
away from "The Golem" is beyond me. Why anyone would look under "D" is also
beyond me. (And it's especially true for a film like "Der Golem" which has also
been released as "The Golem".)

I might understand it for lesser known languages (e.g. Hungarian or Quechua),
but not for Romance or Germanic languages.

Then again, video stores claimed to file all foreign films in "Foreign" but I never
found one who filed the "Godzilla" films in "Foreign".

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

On 11/14/23 12:12 PM, eleeper@optonline.net wrote:

> Well, they're wrong. :-) Why anyone would want to file "Der Golem" several letters
> away from "The Golem" is beyond me. Why anyone would look under "D" is also
> beyond me. (And it's especially true for a film like "Der Golem" which has also
> been released as "The Golem".)

It gets complicated to keep up with all the articles in just the
better-known languages. German articles, depending on the case of the
pronoun, could be der, die, das, dem, den, ein, eine, eines, einen,
einem, or einer.

Then you have to identify the language correctly, so you don't
alphabetize "Die! Die! My Darling" under M.

If you have to alphabetize "The La Brea Tar Pits," do you count both
"the" and "la" as articles, even though they're from different
languages, or is "La" part of the name? (Translated fully into English,
it means "the the tar tar pits.")

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 10:43:44 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Leave out the vowels; Hebrew does.
>
> > We had a catalog that did this back when space mattered. Also
> > printed in very small font. With no spaces.
> In my experience, disemvoweling makes text unreadable, even with the
> spaces left in. My experience is based only on English, but I'd
> expect the same is true of Hebrew unless it has only one vowel sound.
> --

And people will argue over how Yahooey is pronounced,
when they aren't demanding you never say it.

--
Kevin R

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 1:13:14 PM UTC-6, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2023-11-12, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking that someone walks into a library or book store, and has
> > their own idea about where the book they're looking for is likely to
> > be found if it's present. It's quite likely that whoever decided
> > where in that building to place each book had a different idea.
>
> That's why there is a distinction between cataloguing and indexing.
> Cataloguing is inherently error-prone because it requires both the
> cataloguer and the searcher to share an understanding of where the (single)
> catalogue entry is. The standard reference work for this is Anglo-American
> Cataloguing rules. It used to be an enormous tome and got too beig to be
> printed before the PC age. Libraries had subscriptions to the microfiche
> service.

The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules weren't as unwieldy as that; as of the 1990s, the book ran to about 700 pages, and probably less than half of it was about determining the main entry and additional entries for a work.

You may be thinking of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, which indicate what should be used as subjects when cataloging a work (and what should not, and what should be used instead). As indicated at https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCSH/freelcsh.html , the LCSH currently runs to about 8,000 pages in PDF format.

--
Joshua Kreitzer
gromit82@hotmail.com