Correspondence about
The Actual Freedom Trust Website

A Matter of Style

by the Directors of the Actual Freedom Trust

THE DIRECTORS: Thank you for your email of Monday, 28 April, 2008, which was recently tabled at the directors latest monthly meeting for due deliberation.

RESPONDENT: I fixed the actualfreedom site to have better and readable fonts – http://userstyles.org/styles/4664

THE DIRECTORS: The screenshot sample provided at that link displays a version of the ‘Affective Feelings (Emotions, Passions and Calentures)’ web page – which is currently located at actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm in The Actual Freedom Trust website Library – with a plain grey background colour replacing the shelves-of-books background image, the text set to Verdana typeface, instead of Times New Roman, on a plain white tabled foreground, with a slightly larger font and the words [quote] ‘Make the Actual Freedom website more readable. Background images are removed and font family is set to Verdana with slightly bigger fonts’ [endquote] appended above.

First and foremost, the directors never considered, for even a moment, that The Actual Freedom Trust website was in need of being fixed (made more readable/have better and readable fonts) else they would, of course, have done so already.

Second, neither the presence nor the absence of the background shelves-of-books image – a bookish image which enhances the library theme – has anything to do with the text being more or less readable as the text is situated on a tabled foreground.

Third, as the Times New Roman typeface – one of the most successful and ubiquitous typefaces in history – is widely used around the world (for book typography for example) then the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

Third, the subject of font size has been canvassed a couple of times before ... for one instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think the text [on The Actual Freedom Trust web site] is very small, and the size can’t be changed by readers. Please remove the size setting in html, so grandpa also can read it.
• [Richard]: ‘Would it not be far simpler to suggest to Grandpa he use reading glasses (such as I do), or even alter the DPI setting on his computer to a larger size, than having to get others to make changes so as to suit him?
It is so much easier changing oneself than trying to change other people’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 88, 27 Apr 05

Lastly, and more of a general nature (purely for future reference), the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

We appreciate your interest.

Yours sincerely,
The Directors
The Actual Freedom Trust

09May08

THE DIRECTORS: Thank you for your (unsolicited) emails of Friday, May 02, 2008, which were circulated to all the directors for due comment.

You initially wrote:

RESPONDENT: I fixed the actualfreedom site to have better and readable fonts – http://userstyles.org/styles/4664.

RESPONDENT: Okay.

THE DIRECTORS: As to say okay is usually to express agreement with, approval of, assent or acquiescence to, something being all correct or all right (or in a weakened sense being satisfactory, good, adequate, not bad, or so-so) it is therefore somewhat odd that, despite thus conveying how the directors are correct in having never considered, for even a moment, that The Actual Freedom Trust website was in need of being fixed (else they would, of course, have done so already), you then go on, further below, to disagree completely ... and in no uncertain terms (as in your ‘this is silly’ response for instance) as well.

THE DIRECTORS: Second, neither the presence nor the absence of the background shelves-of-books image – a bookish image which enhances the library theme – has anything to do with the text being more or less readable as the text is situated on a tabled foreground.

RESPONDENT: Right. Background image in current AF site is largely ignored by the reader.

THE DIRECTORS: First and foremost, all what we were pointing out was the fact that, because the text is situated on a tabled foreground, neither the presence nor the absence of a background image has anything to do with text being more or less readable.

Second, and because neither the presence nor the absence of a background image has anything to do with text situated on a tabled foreground being more or less readable, we neither said nor even suggested that the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website is largely ignored by the reader.

Third, we have no way of knowing whether or not the reader largely ignores the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Last, but by no means least, you do not have any way of knowing (whether or not the reader largely ignores the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website) either.

THE DIRECTORS: Third, as the Times New Roman typeface – one of the most successful and ubiquitous typefaces in history – is widely used around the world (for book typography for example) then the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: It is not just a personal opinion.

THE DIRECTORS: We never said that it was just [quote] ‘a’ [endquote] personal opinion, as in that singular way, but clearly referred to it as being a matter of personal opinion in general – as in that plural way – because the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, having no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged (by virtue of it varying as it does from person-to-person) is a matter of taste.

RESPONDENT: It is widely considered to be a more readable font than others (such as Times New Roman).

THE DIRECTORS: Whether it be widely or narrowly considered (that Verdana typeface is more readable) is beside the point as it is still but a matter of personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: Here is a report that validates my claim –
http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/font/FMPro?-db=order.fp3&-lay=results&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=002&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find.

• [quote] ‘... both these experiments are still *highly subjective*. That is, we ask subjects to tell us which type samples they judge to be easiest to read’. [emphasis added].

As subjective=personal, in the context which the words ‘a matter of personal opinion’ further above are being used, then the author is saying virtually the same thing as that ... only in even stronger terms. For example:

• [example only]: ‘(...) the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of highly subjective opinion’. [end example].

Even more to the point, however, the author immediately goes on to say that [quote] ‘speed and accuracy are two other ways we can test readability’ [endquote] and advises that there is an objective experiment, which shows how those same type faces stack up against each other in those terms, at the following URL:

http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/fontobj/FMPro?-db=timer.fp3&-lay=web&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=001&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find

Here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their objective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’):

• [quote] ‘Essentially, *it doesn’t seem to matter what type font you use for screen display* – people will read your educational Web site or CD-ROM just about as quickly and accurately in Times or Helvetica as they do in Verdana or Trebuchet’. [emphasis added].

Ergo, it is indeed the case that the suggestion about Verdana typeface being more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: You must also understand that the choice of fonts in a website is not a ‘either or’ situation.

THE DIRECTORS: We are cognisant of the fact that the choice of fonts in a website need not be an ‘either or’ situation.

RESPONDENT: That is, you can specify *both* fonts in CSS such that users who do not have Verdana installed (which is quite rare when most of the population is running MS Windows) will see Times New Roman. The font-family CSS property is used for this: ‘This property specifies a prioritised list of font family names and/or generic family names. To deal with the problem that a single font may not contain glyphs to display all the characters in a document, or that not all fonts are available on all systems, this property allows authors to specify a list of fonts, all of the same style and size, that are tried in sequence to see if they contain a glyph for a certain character. This list is called a font set’. – http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-family-prop.

THE DIRECTORS: Whilst your input is appreciated it is not in accord with what we clearly want ... to wit: that The Actual Freedom Trust website design and layout be viewed the way we want it to be viewed (else we would have, of course, already made it otherwise).

THE DIRECTORS: Third, the subject of font size has been canvassed a couple of times before ... for one instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think the text [on The Actual Freedom Trust web site] is very small, and the size can’t be changed by readers. Please remove the size setting in html, so grandpa also can read it.
• [Richard]: ‘Would it not be far simpler to suggest to Grandpa he use reading glasses (such as I do), or even alter the DPI setting on his computer to a larger size, than having to get others to make changes so as to suit him? Richard, List AF, Respondent 88, 27 Apr 05

RESPONDENT: Now this is silly. Most grandpas don’t even know what DPI is, let alone change it.

THE DIRECTORS: In order to successfully inform another person (in this case Richard is that person) that what they have to say is silly then it almost goes without saying that what they had to say does have to actually be silly (else it is what the informer has to say which is silly).

The following points are immediately obvious:

1. You have completely ignored Richard’s primary suggestion (about using reading glasses just as he does).
2. Your exclusive focus on Richard’s secondary suggestion (as if it were the only one) is a clear indication that Richard’s primary suggestion is not silly.
3. Your usage of the word most means you are stating it is a fact that more than half, at the very least, of the grandfathers using computers do not even know what DPI is (let alone how to change it).
4. You offer no supporting evidence that more than half, at the very least, of the grandfathers using computers do not even know what DPI is (let alone how to change it).
5. Even if (note ‘if’) it were true that most grandfathers do not know what DPI is you are overlooking the fact that operating systems have in-built accessibility options – such as a magnifier for instance – whereby it is not necessary to know what DPI is.
6. Even if (note ‘if’) it were true that most grandfathers do not know how to make use of the in-built accessibility options operating systems have (such as a magnifier for instance), whereby it is not necessary to know what DPI is, you are overlooking the fact that they can simply put on their reading glasses, just as Richard does, instead.

Ergo, what Richard has to say is not silly on both counts.

RESPONDENT: You may find the following report instructive: ‘The most widely known principle for supporting seniors’ computer use is to support larger font sizes than those younger users prefer. The principle may be well known, and it was indeed confirmed by our study, but still, it is frequently violated by sites that freeze text at a tiny font size’. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/seniors.html.

THE DIRECTORS: We do indeed find the above instructive (albeit not in the way you obviously found it to be) because it exemplifies the very reason why The Actual Freedom Trust web site design and layout is fixed so it cannot be changed by readers ... namely: their blatant attempt to not only impose a fixed standard of aesthetic appreciation (as in ‘the principle’ phrasing) but to enforce it by making out that any deviation from their collective opinion is a violation (as in the ‘frequently violated’ phraseology) of their collectivised principle.

Put succinctly: they are attempting to kill creativity and impose conformity to their (collectivised) taste ... commonly known as social engineering.

RESPONDENT: Never mind senior citizens. For anybody in general, font size matters – ‘Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes; about one-third complained about low contrast between text and background’. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html.

THE DIRECTORS: As the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged it is, obviously, not a matter that can be subject to the whims of the ballot box.

THE DIRECTORS: • [Richard]: It is so much easier changing oneself than trying to change other people. Richard, List AF, Respondent 88, 27 Apr 05

RESPONDENT: Right. It is so much easier to change one website’s CSS than asking other people to wear glasses, change the font size manually (by View –> Font Size), hack around it (like I did), etc. :-)

THE DIRECTORS: Even though you say [quote] ‘Right’ [endquote] as if you are in agreement with what Richard has to say – that it is far simpler to use reading glasses (such as he does), or even alter the DPI setting to a larger size, than having to get others to make changes so as to suit oneself – you are not actually agreeing to any such thing at all (and thus have, obviously, missed the point).

Here, then, is a useful word:

• ‘sham: attempt to pass off (something) on a person, attempt to pass off something on (a person), by deceit’.(Oxford Dictionary).

And the point is this: there are literally billions of people on this planet and anyone who would obligingly accede to each and every one of their personal tastes/ predilections/ desires/ needs/ demands/ whatever would have a life-time task with still no success at the end ... which is possibly one of the reasons why operating systems have accessibility options (such as a magnifier for instance) built into them.

For what it is worth, all of the directors (one of which is a grandparent and each of whom has to wear reading glasses no matter which website they access) have no problem whatsoever reading what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

THE DIRECTORS: Lastly, and more of a general nature (purely for future reference), the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: Lack of no fixed standard does not imply absence of recommended practices.

THE DIRECTORS: It does indeed imply an absence of recommended practices ... if (note ‘if’) every single website designer, without exception, conformed to ‘recommended practices’ – conformed to other peoples’ collectivised taste – creativity would be killed stone-dead.

RESPONDENT: You might find this an interesting read – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040913.html.

THE DIRECTORS: It was indeed an interesting read ... for just a few examples:

• [quote] ‘The need for web design *standards*’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘Site designers build components of a *whole* [world-wide-web]...’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... users are viewing the entirety of the Web as a *single*, integrated resource’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... many sites don’t fit into *the big picture* ...’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... they [many sites] deviate from *expected norms*’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘Here’s my definition of three different *standardisation* levels’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... we should establish design *standards* ...’. [emphasis added].

Basically, the author is seeking to impose certain (collectivised) standards under the guise that the world-wide-web is an integrated whole with (collectively) fixed design and layout standards that individual websites must conform to.

Here is a not-so-subtle clue: any social engineering –> creeping conformity (socialisation); a stealthy socialisation –> creeping collectivisation (socialism); an insidious socialism –> creeping autocratism (communism).

THE DIRECTORS: We appreciate your interest.

RESPONDENT: I’d be very willing to provide any technical help related to AF website.

THE DIRECTORS: If, as a result of this brief email exchange, you can now discern the difference between aesthetic and technical help it will have all been well worthwhile.

The following should be of interest:

• [Richard]: ‘... it is a well-known adage that taste cannot be legislated against (although there are those who try)’. Richard, List AF, Respondent 90, 23 Jul 05

In fact, as the very subject of aesthetic appreciation (in regards to matters of taste, no objective standards, attempts at imposition, and so on) is well-canvassed in the email exchanges the above quote comes from, there will be no more emails on the topic from us.

We appreciate your interest.

Yours sincerely,
The Directors
The Actual Freedom Trust

19May08

THE DIRECTORS: In regards to your (unsolicited) email of Saturday, 10 May 2008, which was circulated to all the directors for due comment, please note that, because the subject of aesthetic appreciation is well-canvassed on The Actual Freedom Trust website (as advised in our previous email), no further correspondence on this or any other ancillary topic is necessary.

You initially wrote:

RESPONDENT: I fixed the actualfreedom site to have better and readable fonts – [snip link].

THE DIRECTORS: (...) First and foremost, the directors never considered, for even a moment, that The Actual Freedom Trust website was in need of being fixed (made more readable/have better and readable fonts) else they would, of course, have done so already. [... snip ...]

RESPONDENT: It is not just a personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: Here is a report that validates my claim – [snip link].

THE DIRECTORS: By way of demonstration, then, here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their subjective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’): [quote] ‘... both these experiments are still *highly subjective*. That is, we ask subjects to tell us which type samples they judge to be easiest to read’. [emphasis added]. As subjective=personal, in the context which the words ‘a matter of personal opinion’ further above are being used, then the author is saying virtually the same thing as that ... only in even stronger terms. For example: [example only]: ‘(...) the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of highly subjective opinion’. [end example]. Even more to the point, however, the author immediately goes on to say that [quote] ‘speed and accuracy are two other ways we can test readability’ [endquote] and advises that there is an objective experiment, which shows how those same type faces stack up against each other in those terms, at the following URL: [snip link]. Here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their objective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’): [quote] ‘Essentially, *it doesn’t seem to matter what type font you use for screen display* – people will read your educational Web site or CD-ROM just about as quickly and accurately in Times or Helvetica as they do in Verdana or Trebuchet’. [emphasis added]. Ergo, it is indeed the case that the suggestion about Verdana typeface being more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: I found the research part that says of ‘speed and accuracy’ of reading being virtually unaffected by choice of font face quite intriguing!

THE DIRECTORS: What is really intriguing – given that the published results of those objective experiments unambiguously demonstrated (aka proved) that it made no difference *whatsoever* which font it was – is how both the author of that web page and yourself have weakened that unequivocal result into it somehow now meaning, respectively, that ‘... it doesn’t*seem* to matter what type font you use’ and that it is a matter of it ‘... being *virtually* unaffected by choice of font face’. [emphasises added].

Preconceived opinions evidently die hard ... indeed, you go on to demonstrate further below that nothing has changed (inasmuch you are still convinced that your taste in web design and layout should take precedence over that of the directors).

For what it is worth (and mainly to draw attention to the fact you are not critiquing a bunch of amateurs): one of the directors is a university-qualified architect; another is college-qualified in the fine arts; another is trade-qualified as a graphic artist; and another has nearly a decade’s experience in web design and layout.

RESPONDENT: It is indeed a personal taste (‘I *like* this font better than that font’).

THE DIRECTORS: Exactly ... which demonstrates why we have consistently said the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: I still think the font size in the current AF website is small enough for a comfortable read.

THE DIRECTORS: Presuming by that you mean too small for a comfortable read ... it makes no difference what you think as the fact remains that the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: And by ‘comfortable read’ I mean, not having to focus your vision too much because of the small font.

THE DIRECTORS: As reported in our previous email – [quote] ‘all of the directors have *no problem whatsoever* reading what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site’ [emphasis added] – we do not have to focus our vision at all (let alone too much) ... and it makes no difference what you mean, anyway, as the fact remains that the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: For example, try reading a Wikipedia article. Now try reading an AF page. Wikipedia article, to me, certainly is more comfortable to read than the AF site.

THE DIRECTORS: It makes no difference what is certain to you ... the fact remains that the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: And I fairly believe that it is the case with many others.

THE DIRECTORS: It makes no difference what you believe (be it fairly or otherwise) ... the fact remains that the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: It was a sound decision by the Wikipedia’s designers to choose the current font-size and let the readers’ eyes remain relatively comfortable.

THE DIRECTORS: As aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout (being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person) has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged, it is rather presumptuous to present their choice in a way which not only makes it out to be unequivocal that it is [quote] ‘a sound decision’ [endquote] on their part but that it is, ipso facto, also unequivocal that the directors’ decision is an unsound one ... along with the additional insinuendo that the directors do not care about the readers’ reading comfort.

RESPONDENT: May I ask for what *reasons* did you choose the current font-size in the AF site as opposed to a relative larger one (like Wikipedia)?

THE DIRECTORS: Given the blatantly loaded manner in which you have prefaced your query (which is quite consistent with both your initial statement and the overall thrust of your emails to date), and the corresponding likelihood of an unqualified answer further feeding such prejudices, suffice is it to say that we chose the current design and layout of The Actual Freedom Trust website for both practical and aesthetic reasons.

Put succinctly: just as form follows function so too do aesthetics follow form.

RESPONDENT: A couple of general questions - 1. Why did you change the subject line (by prefixing it with ‘Re-’) ...

THE DIRECTORS: We did not change the subject line (by prefixing it with ‘Re-’) ... you did (by prefixing ‘Re-’ with ‘Re:’) in your initial reply, in your initial reply’s addendum, and in your latest reply. Here are the headers (from the emails below the signature line) in their chronological sequence:

1. Original Message: From: The Directors of The Actual Freedom Trust; To: [Respondent] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 1:43 AM; Subject: Re-Website Design And Layout [... snip ...].
2. Original Message: From: [Respondent] To: The Directors of The Actual Freedom Trust; Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:09 AM; Subject: Re: Re-Website Design And Layout [... snip ...].
3. Original Message (Addendum): From: [Respondent] To: The Directors of The Actual Freedom Trust; Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:12 AM; Subject: Re: Re-Website Design And Layout [... snip ...].
4. Original Message: From: The Directors of The Actual Freedom Trust; To: [Respondent] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:22 PM; Subject: Re-Website Design And Layout [... snip ...].
5. Original Message: From: [Respondent] Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2008 11:45 AM; To: The Directors of The Actual Freedom Trust; Subject: Re: Re-Website Design And Layout [... snip ...].

Incidentally, and mainly to forestall any follow-up query, the reason for a hyphen (rather than a colon) is quite prosaic: the software in which these emails are composed does not allow a colon (amongst several other characters) in its ‘Save As’ function.

RESPONDENT:... thus breaking the email thread?

THE DIRECTORS: We did not thus break the email thread ... you did (by adding an extra ‘Re’) three times in as many emails.

RESPONDENT:2. Why did you choose your current posting style (‘You initially wrote’; ‘We replied’;) ...

THE DIRECTORS: The reason for using what is variously known as ‘inline’/‘interleaved’/‘point-by-point’ replying is perhaps best exemplified by what you have apparently overlooked at the link you provided (further below):

• [quote] ‘[The great advantage of the inline reply method] ... is in giving a specific response to each paragraph, sentence or even phrase of the text of the message being replied to. This creates a natural, chronological ordering to each segment of the discussion stored within a message and helps make clear that the responder has read/understood all of the post being responded to. Since paraphrasing is not necessary, the ambiguities, omissions, misunderstandings or outright intentional distortions inherent in paraphrasing are avoided and comments are made point-for-point against the exact quote of the original message. Having response text aimed directly at what is being addressed makes for a more structured, disciplined and unambiguous reply. In addition the inline reply method enables and promotes much more forthright discourse by making it very clear where one’s respondent has evaded, avoided, ignored or simply missed responding to some point that was made. (...) the inline reply method requires one to respond in some manner to all points that were addressed in a message of reply to one’s original message, or else one is not being courteous and forthright. This is similar to an in-person conversation where when you ask a question to someone’s face, you rightly expect a response, even if it is only to say ‘I don’t want to answer the question’. [endquote].

As an added bonus it eliminates those accumulating indent prefixes (which often make comprehension of who wrote what in reply to whom, and when, quite difficult and, at times, well-nigh impossible).

RESPONDENT:... as opposed to one of the most commonly followed styles – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Styles?

THE DIRECTORS: As the prior correspondence was also included in its original form (as per the ‘top-posting’ method), immediately below the signature line, then the choice for point-by-point replying as well was not, as you make out, opposed to top-posting but as an adjunct to it.

In closing we will reiterate the point that, because the subject of aesthetic appreciation is well-canvassed on The Actual Freedom Trust website (as advised in our previous email), no further correspondence on this or any other any ancillary topic is necessary.

Yours sincerely,
The Directors
The Actual Freedom Trust

CONTINUED IN: A MATTER OF PROPRIETY

RETURN TO THE CORRESPONDENCE RE AFT WEBSITE INDEX

ACTUAL FREEDOM HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions

Correspondence about The Actual Freedom Trust Website

A Matter of Style

Correspondence about
The Actual Freedom Trust Website