|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Sacha" wrote in message ... On 2011-01-27 10:19:28 +0000, "Bill Grey" said: "Martin" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:22:15 -0000, "Bill Grey" wrote: Nick says people can use a calculator, but I have yet to see anybody doing this in a supermarket, for example. Our two kids did arithmetic using a calculator at school. I don't think they even own one nowadays. If you can't learn tables and can't learn the mathematical tricks, then any sane person would buy one. Regards, Nick Maclaren. It's no great encumberance to learn the times table at an early age - it can only help in future years. There maybe more than one way to skin a cat, but it doesn't hurt to have more than one string to your bow. Children at the age that times tables were taught could readily absorb the information, why deny them such a wonderful experience of learning a technique that could serve them well in their future lives. They can also absorb new languages at the same age. -- Martin Definitely ! Bill Yes, I've always thought it a big mistake that schools wait so long to introduce a foreign language into the curriculum. I started learning French when I was 4 and while no way am I fluent, I speak fairly well for a foreigner. I just don't remember actually learning verbs because we started so young and I was very lucky to have good French teachers at all the schools I went to. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon I spoke Welsh long before I was formerly tought Welsh. Funnily, it was then the trouble starrted. The difference between colloquial Welsh and grammatical or literary Welsh was a bit traumatic. The differences were slight, the pronunciation sometimes, and learning the correct word as opposed to a word distorted by collquialism in another ( eg in English innit as opposed to isn't it, or is it not) Bill |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
wrote in message ... Bill Grey wrote: There maybe more than one way to skin a cat, but it doesn't hurt to have more than one string to your bow. Skinning a cat with a bow seems a cruel and unnecessary approach The cat gut comes in handy though. Bill |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
In article , Sacha wrote:
On 2011-01-27 11:41:15 +0000, said: The boys' primary school have introduced French, the boys both got Spanish and Urdu (!) sessions when at nursery. Spanish is much useful if they get a choice at any point! Not sure how widely spoken Urdu is! Don't bet on it! Urdu and Hindustani are very closely related and are the native languages of a large chunk of India and most of Pakistan. I think that's LONG overdue - I would have introduced it 20-30 years ago in relevant places, and got the English and Urdu speakers (I mean children) to teach each other. Yes, I know that would have created a weird composite, but so what? English is already one. Regards, Nick Maclaren. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
planting herb is the most i love, it is easy and useful, we are now making use most of herb in the garden as a supplement for our health especially our grand ma as she need more care, our neighbour get helped with this type of mostly-herb-garden, what a wonderful life sharing with others.
Quote:
|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Sacha wrote:
The boys' primary school have introduced French, the boys both got Spanish and Urdu (!) sessions when at nursery. Spanish is much useful if they get a choice at any point! Not sure how widely spoken Urdu is! I think Urdu is probably the 2nd language of the area of London their nursery was in, hence the choice. It was only a short intro. Actually, I think they had French for a term, too, cos Daniel came home one day shouting "ooh la la!" |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Martin wrote:
But it would help if more than 20% of primary school teachers knew the answer to "what is one plus two time three". My answer would be "do you mean one plus two-times-three, or one-plus-two times three?" Do I win an apple? Are you the teacher? Well, I seem to agree with the majority. :-P Seriously, you can't claim only 20% 'got it right', as asking where the brackets are is a perfectly reasonable (and imho, much more sensible response than assuming there are none) question. Brackets are very hard to hear in spoken questions. (I assume it was a spoken question - if it was written it would be a slightly different matter) |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
wrote in
: Martin wrote: But it would help if more than 20% of primary school teachers knew the answer to "what is one plus two time three". My answer would be "do you mean one plus two-times-three, or one-plus-two times three?" Do I win an apple? Are you the teacher? Well, I seem to agree with the majority. :-P Seriously, you can't claim only 20% 'got it right', as asking where the brackets are is a perfectly reasonable (and imho, much more sensible response than assuming there are none) question. Brackets are very hard to hear in spoken questions. (I assume it was a spoken question - if it was written it would be a slightly different matter) Sorry, no cigar, nor apple. There is a single correct answer without brackets. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Bill Grey" wrote in
: "Tom" wrote in message .253... Martin wrote in : In real life being able to instantly recall a product is better than knowing how to derive it from scratch. And much better than either is knowing how and when to use/apply it, and to use the right tool to get the correct answer. Try solving a quadratic equation using the "formla" method, oh damn! - you've forgotten the formula (shame) Now use the "completing the square" logical method.- no formulae involved. Nice to kow how it really is done. But that is less trivial for x^2 + x + 1 |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
wrote in
: Tom wrote: I like* things like '75% fat free' ... meaning 25% fat? Eyww. To digress, in California you can get egg-free omlettes and fat-free sour cream. I have a container of the latter, but couldn't figure out how to preserve and transport the former. fat free sour cream I could possibly comprehend, but ... /egg/ free omlettes?? My ghast is flabbered. So was mine, to the extent that I almost ordered some just to see what they were like. But I didn't, since the eggs benedict were so nice :) |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Bill |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Tom wrote:
fat free sour cream I could possibly comprehend, but ... /egg/ free omlettes?? My ghast is flabbered. So was mine, to the extent that I almost ordered some just to see what they were like. But I didn't, since the eggs benedict were so nice :) To be fair, I've had vegan 'scrambled egg' before, which I hated - not beause of the texture, but because they piled tumeric into it. Noidea why, it's not as if you tumericise your scrambled egg normally! (do you?) |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Sacha wrote:
I take your point but in the past, languages were taught because they were useful in diplomacy or commerce. French is the language of diplomacy and Spanish is spoken in large tracts of the trading world. I don't know if that's the case with Urdu or Hindustani so I don't know if those languages will be useful in a modern child's business life. Given how a lot of UK work is now farmed out to India to get it done on the cheap (see call centres + IT work for the obvious examples), I can see there being a call for Indian languages. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Martin wrote:
But it would help if more than 20% of primary school teachers knew the answer to "what is one plus two time three". My answer would be "do you mean one plus two-times-three, or one-plus-two times three?" Do I win an apple? Are you the teacher? Well, I seem to agree with the majority. :-P Seriously, you can't claim only 20% 'got it right', as asking where the brackets are is a perfectly reasonable (and imho, much more sensible response than assuming there are none) question. Brackets are very hard to hear in spoken questions. (I assume it was a spoken question - if it was written it would be a slightly different matter) I agree with you. It wasn't me who made the claim. Whoever it was has been snipped. Apologies, it was my over-zealous snipping, but I did think it was you. Apparently (from another branch of the thread), it was Tom. Congratulations, I've merged you with another poster. :-) |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Tom wrote:
But it would help if more than 20% of primary school teachers knew the answer to "what is one plus two time three". My answer would be "do you mean one plus two-times-three, or one-plus-two times three?" Do I win an apple? Are you the teacher? Well, I seem to agree with the majority. :-P Seriously, you can't claim only 20% 'got it right', as asking where the brackets are is a perfectly reasonable (and imho, much more sensible response than assuming there are none) question. Brackets are very hard to hear in spoken questions. (I assume it was a spoken question - if it was written it would be a slightly different matter) Sorry, no cigar, nor apple. There is a single correct answer without brackets. Yes, there is a single correct answer without brackets. But if you speak the question you can't tell if there are brackets that you can't see. It is perfectly valid to ask. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:17:44 +0100, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:35:44 GMT, Tom wrote: wrote in : In article , Martin wrote: Tell us about your tricks, Nick? I am sick of supermarket tricks :-) I did. zx8 = 8x7 = 7x(4+4) = 7x7 = 10*7-3*7 and more. Also using factorisation, so 44x75 = 11*(4*25)*3. Make a habit of that sort of thing, and you will soon develop your own collection. Also, using iteration (usually binary chop or interpolation) to do division, square and cube roots etc. Make a habit of such tricks and you will soon develop your own suite. But mental arithmetic is no longer taught. Watching my daughter grow up over the past 20 years was interesting in this regard. Yes, the rote learning of multiplication has been "deemphasised", but she was also taught that there are several ways to get the right answer to arithmetic problems. This has the advantage that examples such as yours weren't ignored and were taught (at least in the limited sense of examples of how to solve an specific question). In that sense, I greatly *approve* of the "new" teaching methods. On the other hand, lack of knowing the "algorithmic" techniques for long multiplication and division mean that she wouldn't have a clue how to start coding multiple-precision arithmetic routines :) I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths Calculus was first year A level maths and not GCE maths in the 1950s. It must have depended on the board, then. Oxbridge joint board set "Elementary" and "Additional" maths as separate subjects: calculus was in "Add Maths". Of course schools may have varied in the way they programmed things. -- Mike. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
In article ,
Martin wrote: On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:44:05 +0000, Mike Lyle wrote: It must have depended on the board, then. Oxbridge joint board set "Elementary" and "Additional" maths as separate subjects: calculus was in "Add Maths". Of course schools may have varied in the way they programmed things. I did Oxford GCE maths in 1956. I have no recollection of it being called Elementary Maths, nor is "elementary" mentioned on the actual certificate. It wasn't called that, even in the 1960s, but that's what it was. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:55:57 +0100, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:49:40 +0000 (GMT), wrote: In article , Martin wrote: On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:44:05 +0000, Mike Lyle wrote: It must have depended on the board, then. Oxbridge joint board set "Elementary" and "Additional" maths as separate subjects: calculus was in "Add Maths". Of course schools may have varied in the way they programmed things. I did Oxford GCE maths in 1956. I have no recollection of it being called Elementary Maths, nor is "elementary" mentioned on the actual certificate. It wasn't called that, even in the 1960s, but that's what it was. as opposed to Advanced Level. I think purposes are being crossed. I mentioned "Oxbridge", meaning the Oxford and Cambridge Universities' joint schools examination board: this wasn't the same as the "Oxford Local" exams board. "Oxford and Cambridge" definitely set "elementary" and "additional" maths at Ordinary Level in 1958, and "elementary" in that context wasn't as opposed to "Advanced Level". I don't know what other boards did (one of the absurdities of the system was, in my opinion, the existence of a number of distinct examining bodies). -- Mike. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Sacha wrote:
Given how a lot of UK work is now farmed out to India to get it done on the cheap (see call centres + IT work for the obvious examples), I can see there being a call for Indian languages. But aren't they supposed to be speaking English to the English customers that call them? There might be a small number of jobs for English people who would need to speak local languages for training purposes but not to an overwhelming degree, it seems to me. Just because they're supposed to speak English, doesn't mean things aren't easier if you have another common language between you. |
Quote:
|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Bill Grey" wrote in
: "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Maybe, maybe not. In 1974 it was on some, but certainly not all, syllabuses (syllabi? :) When doing A-level double maths, we did many questions from past papers back to the early '50s. We felt the questions from those papers were more difficult than those from the more recent exams. All of which is another reason why I'm loathe to presume that there is necessarily a wholesale dumbing down of content. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
wrote in
: Tom wrote: fat free sour cream I could possibly comprehend, but ... /egg/ free omlettes?? My ghast is flabbered. So was mine, to the extent that I almost ordered some just to see what they were like. But I didn't, since the eggs benedict were so nice :) To be fair, I've had vegan 'scrambled egg' before, which I hated - not beause of the texture, but because they piled tumeric into it. Noidea why, it's not as if you tumericise your scrambled egg normally! (do you?) Probably the same reason that Quorn is processed to have the texture (but not flavour) of soft chicken breast. Personally I prefer "honest" ingredients, not "faux" ingredients. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Martin wrote in
: Calculus was first year A level maths and not GCE maths in the 1950s. I've just checked my certificate, a tatty piece of fanfold paper. I took University of London O-level maths syllabus d in 1972. The teachers chose that syllabus (presumably not a nor b nor c) since it contained calculus. The calculus was limited to integration and differentiation of polynomials excluding 1/x |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Tom wrote in
6.253: "Bill Grey" wrote in : "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Maybe, maybe not. In 1974 it was on some, but certainly not all, syllabuses (syllabi? :) When doing A-level double maths, we did many questions from past papers back to the early '50s. We felt the questions from those papers were more difficult than those from the more recent exams. All of which is another reason why I'm loathe to presume that there is necessarily a wholesale dumbing down of content. Oops, I meant 1972, but I doubt that it had changed by 1974. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Tom" wrote in message 6.253... "Bill Grey" wrote in : "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Maybe, maybe not. In 1974 it was on some, but certainly not all, syllabuses (syllabi? :) When doing A-level double maths, we did many questions from past papers back to the early '50s. We felt the questions from those papers were more difficult than those from the more recent exams. All of which is another reason why I'm loathe to presume that there is necessarily a wholesale dumbing down of content. I feel that training everywhere has been dumbed down. I did my Radio and Radar Training in the Royal Navy in 1958 and it was very deep. I was given a conducted tour of the Royal Navy's Radio and Radar Training facilities at the Maritime Warfare School at H.M.S.Collingwood earlier on last year and things are certainly easier, BUT, it has to be because the technical content now is to a certain degree, 'identify the PCB which is faulty and chuck it'. I was with one of the Officers who is one of the Radar Lecturers the other night at a function and I raised this chuck it syndrome and he explained that with the manufacture of the boards being so complex, they cannot be repaired. Fortunately, the training is deep enough to at least identify what and where. Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive .................................... |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"'Mike'" wrote in
: "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... "Bill Grey" wrote in : "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Maybe, maybe not. In 1974 it was on some, but certainly not all, syllabuses (syllabi? :) When doing A-level double maths, we did many questions from past papers back to the early '50s. We felt the questions from those papers were more difficult than those from the more recent exams. All of which is another reason why I'm loathe to presume that there is necessarily a wholesale dumbing down of content. I feel that training everywhere has been dumbed down. I did my Radio and Radar Training in the Royal Navy in 1958 and it was very deep. I was given a conducted tour of the Royal Navy's Radio and Radar Training facilities at the Maritime Warfare School at H.M.S.Collingwood earlier on last year and things are certainly easier, BUT, it has to be because the technical content now is to a certain degree, 'identify the PCB which is faulty and chuck it'. I was with one of the Officers who is one of the Radar Lecturers the other night at a function and I raised this chuck it syndrome and he explained that with the manufacture of the boards being so complex, they cannot be repaired. Fortunately, the training is deep enough to at least identify what and where. Find-n-replace-the-PCB seems like a very sensible procedure Are you Mike Crowe? |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Tom" wrote in message 6.253... "'Mike'" wrote in : "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... "Bill Grey" wrote in : "Tom" wrote in message 6.253... wrote in : I've commented elsewhere about primary teachers not knowing what 1+2*3 is, and on the disappearance of calculus from GCSE/O-level maths The Calculus was never part of "O" level maths in 1952 unfortunately. Maybe, maybe not. In 1974 it was on some, but certainly not all, syllabuses (syllabi? :) When doing A-level double maths, we did many questions from past papers back to the early '50s. We felt the questions from those papers were more difficult than those from the more recent exams. All of which is another reason why I'm loathe to presume that there is necessarily a wholesale dumbing down of content. I feel that training everywhere has been dumbed down. I did my Radio and Radar Training in the Royal Navy in 1958 and it was very deep. I was given a conducted tour of the Royal Navy's Radio and Radar Training facilities at the Maritime Warfare School at H.M.S.Collingwood earlier on last year and things are certainly easier, BUT, it has to be because the technical content now is to a certain degree, 'identify the PCB which is faulty and chuck it'. I was with one of the Officers who is one of the Radar Lecturers the other night at a function and I raised this chuck it syndrome and he explained that with the manufacture of the boards being so complex, they cannot be repaired. Fortunately, the training is deep enough to at least identify what and where. Find-n-replace-the-PCB seems like a very sensible procedure Are you Mike Crowe? :-)) I do have that honour :-)) Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive .................................... |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
In article 3,
Tom wrote: wrote in : To be fair, I've had vegan 'scrambled egg' before, which I hated - not beause of the texture, but because they piled tumeric into it. Noidea why, it's not as if you tumericise your scrambled egg normally! (do you?) Probably the same reason that Quorn is processed to have the texture (but not flavour) of soft chicken breast. I regard that sort of supermarket chicken as loathesome in itself. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Sacha wrote:
You may call me Beatrice! ;-) IRTA 'You may call me Beetroot!' -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Martin wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011 23:56:43 GMT, wrote: Baz wrote: I remember 'completing the square on a generic quadratic from first principles' suddenly clicking whilst I was in the dentist chair having a tooth removed ... No doubt it is completed now? I wonder if you would like to share your findings with us. I'd rather not have another tooth pulled out so I can re-remember it! How do you do long multiplication and division, with or without having a wisdom tooth pulled? I am just trying to understand. :-) You do long multiplication - eg - 7 X 64 = 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 + 448 or if you prefer: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 + 448 HTH -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
kay wrote:[i]
Bill Grey;911046 Wrote: "kay" wrote in message ... I'd happily settle for less ability to multiply numbers together in ones head in exchange for greater understanding of what the numbers actually say, and therefore a greater ability to separate scientific argument from opinion and quackery. But one has to start somewhere! But I think learning times tables by rote up to 12 x 12 is the wrong place to start! And as someone who did so, I think it's the right place to start. -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
kay wrote:
What do you mean by "it worked"? Do you mean "everybody could multiply relatively small numbers together in their heads" or do you mean"everybody had a good understanding of percentages, differentials, risk and the other concepts that are necessary in order to make decisions in everyday life"? What has that to do with learning your 'times' tables? -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Martin wrote:
The difference between our generation and the young ones, is that we can do mental arithmetic. Tables are part of the basic tools needed to do this. Nick says people can use a calculator, but I have yet to see anybody doing this in a supermarket, for example. Our two kids did arithmetic using a calculator at school. I don't think they even own one nowadays. I have a calculator - somewhere. Last time I went to use it (to find a square root) I found that the batteries had died, so I had to resort to the pencil and paper method. -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
|
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:02:09 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote: wrote: There's more than one way to kill a cat. Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat Ah. That looks like "O" Level Eng Lang 1955... "Explain the meaning of /three/ of the following expressions in your own words." All very sound stuff, until you realise that in some subjects the language in the questions was more difficult than the language needed to write the answers. There's a very interesting little book going the rounds: /The O Level Book: Genuine Exam questions From Yesteryear/. Go''a be wurf free quid a' Amazom for anywum readim freds like this one, innit? -- Mike. |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message ... Martin wrote: The difference between our generation and the young ones, is that we can do mental arithmetic. Tables are part of the basic tools needed to do this. Nick says people can use a calculator, but I have yet to see anybody doing this in a supermarket, for example. Our two kids did arithmetic using a calculator at school. I don't think they even own one nowadays. I have a calculator - somewhere. Last time I went to use it (to find a square root) I found that the batteries had died, so I had to resort to the pencil and paper method. -- Rusty and you had the knowledge to do so :-)) When my children were at school, I wouldn't buy them a calculator. The school eventually contacted me and pointed out that my children knew the principles, and could they now have calculators as this was slowing down their learning. They all went on to do very well :-)) Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive .................................... |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message ... wrote: There's more than one way to kill a cat. Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat -- Rusty :-)) And they taste like Rabbit when cooked :-)) Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive .................................... |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Sacha wrote:
On 2011-01-30 15:45:56 +0000, Rusty Hinge said: Sacha wrote: You may call me Beatrice! ;-) IRTA 'You may call me Beetroot!' Wouldn't dream of it - I'm sure your complexion belies your name. ;-) Doe snow, so to run one word into another. My rusty facefungus has faded to a lightly peppery Father Christmas hue, ho-ho-ho! -- Rusty |
Hi im new :-) and fairly new to gardening :-S
Mike Lyle wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:02:09 +0000, Rusty Hinge wrote: wrote: There's more than one way to kill a cat. Ahem! There's more than one way to *skin* a cat Ah. That looks like "O" Level Eng Lang 1955... "Explain the meaning of /three/ of the following expressions in your own words." All very sound stuff, until you realise that in some subjects the language in the questions was more difficult than the language needed to write the answers. There's a very interesting little book going the rounds: /The O Level Book: Genuine Exam questions From Yesteryear/. Go''a be wurf free quid a' Amazom for anywum readim freds like this one, innit? Or n e 1 hoo rites like vis No wot i meen yea. -- Rusty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter