Garbage, all of it.

[Acting Like Godot]

I'm a great believer in the value of positive thinking, I just don't think it will move objects across tables.

Rather common, actually.

YouTube - Nina Kulagina Telekinesis Feats (This is one of the two women which led to the US and the Soviet militaries frenziedly pumping money into psychic research during the Cold War).

YouTube - Qi,move things without touch!believe it? (Excerpt from the Chinese news media - what's shown here is actually pretty common in China).

(Btw, there are some commercial tour packages to China, where you get to be the object! That is, the qigong master will manipulate you and make YOU move, without touching you).

to debunk all the nonsense I hear about psychic readings and channeling spooks and stuff,

Rather common too. Here's a special twist, how about you channel a spook and then stick a metal skewer through your cheeks? No blood will come out. I've seen hundreds of people do this annually, it's a festival called Thaipusam. The tourists love this too!



Thaipusam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science, bless it, doesn't even demand that if someone says they can do such a thing they must be able to do it every time (and you might argue that if someone has a genuine gift, what's to stop them getting it right every time?), but uses one of the least demanding measures - you have to get it right enough of the time to be considered statistically or experimentally significant, i.e. a reasonable amount more than chance would predict if you were absolutely totally un-psychic and just guessed. Surely that's reasonable enough?

Sure thing, John! One of these gifted individuals was Adam Linzmayer, you can read about him here.

Joseph Banks Rhine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you can believe in messages in events (passive) which we can try to interpret without necessarily believing we can levitate

Oh, come on, levitation is as old as Jesus. Here are a few more-modern examples:

"Yogi Pullavar, also known as Subbayah Pullavar, was an Indian man who on 6th of June 1936 was reported to have levitated into the air for four minutes in front of a crowd of 150 witnesses.

Yogi's feat was publicly observed and photographed in an exhibition that occurred in South India. The feat was executed around noon on a sunny, cloudless day and in an area where visibility was not obscured. The Illustrated London News printed the story and photos which were taken from various angles by P. Y. Plunkett who was a witness present that day and scrutinized the entire event."

Link.



Also try googling this name - Daniel Dunglas Home. He levitated a few hundred times in front of all sorts of people in all sorts of places.

(Funnily enough, Daniel was a skeptic like you. Whenever anyone claimed to have a psychic ability that Daniel himself did not have, Daniel would say, "Oh, that's just not possible. I can't do it, so it can't be true.")

you can always appeal to multiple universes

If you are unscientific, you may refuse to acknowledge such an idea. However, the Many World Interpretation by Hugh Everett remains one of the major theories concerning the collapse of the wavefunction.

Bear this clearly in mind, Mr Freestone. If you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of multiple universes, you are simply being unscientific and illogical.

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is no such thing as magick.

You're exhibiting circularity here, John. Your personal definition of magick is "things which are not possible". Then you say, "Oh, magick is not possible."

If we think it's going to stop the volcano errupting, we are superstitious idiots who deserve to be petrified in superheated pummice.

You could be right. And if you say that the Great Flood for which Noah built his Ark was simply not possible, well, you could be right too. After all, how could a single flood affect the whole world?

Then again .... who knows?

Catastrophic ancient flood cooled the Earth | COSMOS magazine <---- This just in from our scientists, four months ago.

[Acting Like Godot]

Psst, more Thaipusam pictures for you guys! I was told that a group of scientists are now studying this phenomenon, for possible future mind-body applications in anaesthesia, wound healing and antibiotics (these folks shown below feel no pain, do not bleed, and after the ceremony, have no scars and require no medical treatment to prevent infection).

(Oh the real trick here is that the spirit in them closes all the wounds, before exiting their bodies, at the end of the ceremony. Not sure whether the spirit will want to do that for the sake of clinical trials in a university lab)





Notice the vertical skewers (they go straight through the tongue).





Those little green balls are limes. A metal hook is pierced through each lime, and then hooked onto the man's chest and tummy. If you've got 30 limes, you'll need 30 hooks.

Don't try this at home, folks! Do the simpler and more practical stuff first. Like, if you have a headache, just manifest it away. If you've got some lifelong, chronic skin condition that doctors say is incurable, just intend it out of existence (I did - and I'm not the only guy on the forum who did this - the other guy was Bradshaw, we had discussed over PM). Etc etc.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

I was responding to you saying by IM Randi should have given away a lot of money by now.

You misunderstood. I wasn't saying that at all. I wouldn't expect Randi to give away a lot of money, for the same reason Randi doesn't expect to, because magick doesn't exist. I already understand that if IM were true, it would predict that Randi would get what he is expecting, i.e. not giving his money away, but for a different reason. You think the latter is the explanation, Randi and I the former.

As far as crop circles, ufos, and all the other stuff you're lumping together, this is the IM board. My personal interest is in things like Law of Attraction, and consciousness.

Oh, pardon me. I must have imagined all the posts describing magical happenings, the boards on the forum dealing with being psychic, and the fact that the forum is strongly associated with the Pavlinas, one at least of whom does psychic readings. I must have imagined a connection between Subjective Reality, parapsychology and ETs. No-one mentioned them.

As far as dancing on volcanoes and things like that, you don't seem to get what we are about here. It's about living our own lives. Most of us believe that when we are happy, relaxed, and focus on the things we want in life, things tend to happen. For every study or book you can come up with, each of us has had plenty of experiences that have happened to us personally, and that's enough.

Sorry, but there you go again, talking as if you knew what everyone was about here, and marginalising me. This is a forum for discussing issues related to the philosophy of Steve and Erin Pavlina, primarily, and what I am 'about' here is just as meaningful as what you are about. Besides, I think if you read my points carefully you would see that I am not criticising people for being happy and relaxed and focusing on things they want in life. I am discussing how these ideas differ from the superstitions of people like the pavlinas and many who write on this forum, who believe they can make traffic lights change by will power, or who can't stub their toe without reading great cosmic significance into it. If you don't understand those differences, I can't make you see them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

... but that these weren't quite the points I was arguing.

John, that's exactly my point. For me, the perspective that some people call the Law of Attraction is not spooky at all -- there is absolutely nothing supernatural about it. It's part of our natural world, even thought it's not provable in the James Randi sense. There are plenty of other things in that same boat, like the fact that I really love chocolate mousse royale ice cream. I can't prove to you that I love it, but if you were present with me while I was eating it, I have little doubt that you would be in the presence of love.

Your argument that we should wake up to the delusion and perhaps even danger that is inherent in the Law of Attraction illustrates to me that you're seeing it much differently than I do -- and I know that there are people here who do see it as supernatural, but that's just people making meaning, as you say. Just like you and me.

Fun is not provable, but it's certainly part of the natural world (which is all made up -- but that is kind of spooky; we can talk about that in another thread.

I am just wondering why this is such a point of contention for you, as others have asked you. It seems to bug you very much. Because it's dangerous? Because you want to save people? From what? What might happen if people adopt a perspective of deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good and focus on their desires?

[cylon]

What's interesting is this morning at work everyone is talking bout debunking parnamormal stuff and how you would prove any of it. Right around the time I started reading ALG's post.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Oh, pardon me. I must have imagined all the posts describing magical happenings, the boards on the forum dealing with being psychic, and the fact that the forum is strongly associated with the Pavlinas, one at least of whom does psychic readings. I must have imagined a connection between Subjective Reality, parapsychology and ETs. No-one mentioned them.

This is a big forum, I think your message is better suited to the psychic and paranormal board. Although IM I suppose to some people is the same thing, it's very specific, we're here to learn how to control our thoughts and emotions and how that equals a better life. Visualization, dealing with emotions, learning to not fight against life... stuff like that.

All the other stuff while interesting is more or less kind of filtered out here, that's the reason there is a psychic paranormal board, apart from this one.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Sorry, but there you go again, talking as if you knew what everyone was about here, and marginalising me. This is a forum for discussing issues related to the philosophy of Steve and Erin Pavlina, primarily, and what I am 'about' here is just as meaningful as what you are about. Besides, I think if you read my points carefully you would see that I am not criticising people for being happy and relaxed and focusing on things they want in life. I am discussing how these ideas differ from the superstitions of people like the pavlinas and many who write on this forum, who believe they can make traffic lights change by will power, or who can't stub their toe without reading great cosmic significance into it. If you don't understand those differences, I can't make you see them.

Sorry but I've been here for awhile. I kind of know the the general theme of these posts and I know the stories of many of the people on this IM board. I say "we" because I have discussed with these people for a long time and feel I know them a certain way. I don't need you to make me see anything. If I wanted that I'd go to the "dispute LOA" discussion board.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Angela

John, that's exactly my point. For me, the perspective that some people call the Law of Attraction is not spooky at all -- there is absolutely nothing supernatural about it.

This is how I see it too Angela.

[John Freestone]

Back already ALG? Lovely holiday snaps.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

YouTube - Nina Kulagina Telekinesis Feats (This is one of the two women which led to the US and the Soviet militaries frenziedly pumping money into psychic research during the Cold War).

You posted that one already. I've responded. Yes they pumped some money into psi for a while. Mostly the US military are deeply embarrassed about it now. I said before, there was motive, opportunity and method. Moral of the story, don't believe everything you see on youtube.

YouTube - Qi,move things without touch!believe it? (Excerpt from the Chinese news media - what's shown here is actually pretty common in China).

Didn't seem to load on my browser. I think my copy of IE7 just couldn't be bothered, quite frankly, and gave up. Same moral. Note this title ends with a question mark.

(Btw, there are some commercial tour packages to China, where you get to be the object! That is, the qigong master will manipulate you and make YOU move, without touching you).

Wow. I can't wait.

Rather common too. Here's a special twist, how about you channel a spook and then stick a metal skewer through your cheeks? No blood will come out. I've seen hundreds of people do this annually, it's a festival called Thaipusam. The tourists love this too!

If you were paying attention, I acknowledged mind over matter when the matter in question is the body. I use such techniques myself, but I don't assume that spooks are at the bottom of it.

Sure thing, John! One of these gifted individuals was Adam Linzmayer, you can read about him here.
Joseph Banks Rhine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose you believe the raw descriptions of the research. I'm much more persuaded that there is more value in the section on the same page entitled 'Criticism'.

"Yogi Pullavar, also known as Subbayah Pullavar...

...also known as Woolly Pullavar the IIs

Also try googling this name - Daniel Dunglas Home. He levitated a few hundred times in front of all sorts of people in all sorts of places.

Can't be bothered and no he didn't. And before you tell me I'm closed minded, I've just had enough checking out your evidence and find it utterly spurious, and I just know that if I follow this suggestion the result will be the same. Someone, at least, will have good explanations. What are you going to send me to look at next, the Skull of Doom?

If you are unscientific, you may refuse to acknowledge such an idea. However, the Many World Interpretation by Hugh Everett remains one of the major theories concerning the collapse of the wavefunction.

OMG here we frickin go again. Look, I was just saying that when a psychic experiment fails to demonstrate the amazing abilities of Mme Zorg or whoever, and someone says it's because of collapsing wave functions, multiverses and all that drivel, it has this habit of making the gullible take their eye of the ball (that's all these people are actually good at), so that they don't have to explain why their claims appear to be false in this universe we're arguing about them in. Geddit? I don't give a monkeys if you can levitate in a parallel universe you can't manage to show to me.

Bear this clearly in mind, Mr Freestone. If you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of multiple universes, you are simply being unscientific and illogical.

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm bearing that clearly in mind, Mr Goddot. Do you get all your information from wikipedia? Moral: don't believe everything you read on the net.

You're exhibiting circularity here, John. Your personal definition of magick is "things which are not possible". Then you say, "Oh, magick is not possible."

It's quite hard to imagine I gave you that impression. I would say my definition of magic, with or without a 'k' for effect, is almost the opposite. To put it in simple, babytalk terms, it means being able to do any of those really extraordinary things that magicians do, but without trickery or down-to-earth explanations. That doesn't mean "things which are not possible" at all. The definition depends on the actuality of the events rather than their appearance.

Incidentally, to go into this in a bit more depth, were any to be demonstrated conclusively as real happenings, it would be widely assumed that there must be, known or unknown, a mechanism to be discovered, and hence they would then move from the realms of supernatural to natural phenomena. It is often not clear when people claim psi events whether they consider them due to some unknown natural force (i.e. that might yet be discovered) or just a kind of unknowable amazingness. I imagine you gravitate towards the former explanation for levitating gurus, a condition of reality not yet discovered. Hence, there's nothing weird at all, there are just things we know about and things we don't. LoA is slightly different, because it says things are true if we make them up.

You could be right. And if you say that the Great Flood for which Noah built his Ark was simply not possible, well, you could be right too. After all, how could a single flood affect the whole world?

Then again .... who knows?

Catastrophic ancient flood cooled the Earth | COSMOS magazine <---- This just in from our scientists, four months ago.

Hmmm, yep, you might say that dragons are mythical beasts and didn't really exist, too, but I've seen this: http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/images/dinosaur3251a.jpg

There were floods, yeah. People told each other about them. The stories became retold, chinese-whisper stylee. We got Noah and the ark and the animals going in 7 by 7.

[Daffy Duck]

Hello all. I like Steve Pavlina's blog and decided to check out his forum. Interesting discussion we have here. This is my take:

The interesting thing about LoA is its self-defensive belief. It removes itself from the burden of proof. To anyone who tries to test LoA, people will just say you didn't "believe enough" if it does not work. But if it does work, then they will say, "see, you believed! There's proof!" LoA does nothing to set itself apart from the traditional Think > Do > Have mindset. Even if LoA is 100% true, it is compatible with the old mindset. In other words, you wouldn't have to know of LoA to use its power to the fullest extent.

LoA becomes a dangerous idea when people believe they don't have to do anything. Action is where the magic is. Sure, Steve Pavlina or ALG may believe in LoA, but they still get up every day and take action. They get dressed, they brush their teeth, they go to work, they use the bathroom. They live a normal life, but they live it with purpose, and that purpose causes them to think, plan, and take action. Positive thinking and LoA have something in common: neither of them work without action. LoA doesn't enable them to sit on the couch and have money pour in magically from out of nowhere with no action except meditation. LoA does not enable you to become Jesus, with the ability to walk on water, or make things appear out of nowhere in front of your eyes. We are not Samantha the Witch, who can twinkle her nose and stop time or transport to a far away land. I get the feeling that LoA is just a more "spiritual" way of viewing something simple.

But listen, the truth is this: there is a magical pink unicorn. He is the one who decides what you get in life. He likes people who believe in positive thinking or LoA, and He rewards them. You all are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Don't ask me to show you this pink unicorn... He is invisible to all human detection!

There was once a man who believed he could do anything. He jumped off a building because he *knew* he could fly! He died a few seconds later. Obviously, he "didn't believe" enough, right. Wrong. He got cocky and challenged the pink unicorn.

Excuse my jokes.

Summary: Action is where the "magic" happens. Action is what affects the "outside" world. Our thoughts decide what actions we take. Our thoughts are also part of what affect our internal world. External stimuli (such as a nail shot through your head) can also affect your thoughts. The external world has its own set of rules (such as gravity) that we have to abide by. If we ignore these rules, or if we think we can defeat these rules with our "Law of Attraction thinking," then the world will quickly remind us of how wrong we are. If you think I'm wrong, then please fly to my house (don't use an airplane, cheater) and tell me in person. I will be eternally grateful.

[cylon]

To sum up John's post: we're all stupid.

See it's fun to make friends. I predict outright name-calling and flaming in a few posts. Now that's a PREDICTION, not an intention. We'll see.

[Dharma]

This thread still alive? I'm always surprised to see it made it back to the surface for air when I hit the new posts link.

There is an irony about arguing something in a thread called, "Garbage, all of it."

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by cylon

To sum up John's post: we're all stupid.

See it's fun to make friends. I predict outright name-calling and flaming in a few posts. Now that's a PREDICTION, not an intention. We'll see.

I don't understand. I looked over John's post and didn't see the word "stupid." You're the only one who said the word "stupid," but then you say that you don't intend to encourage flaming and name-calling.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I don't understand. I looked over John's post and didn't see the word "stupid." You're the only one who said the word "stupid," but then you say that you don't intend to encourage flaming and name-calling.

please don't use the sad face. Cheer up.

[Angela]

I think the whole phenomenon of people trying to save others here from delusional or dangerous beliefs is very interesting.

A bunch of people are here on a forum called "Intention-Manifestation" exploring how this perspective is working, how they can they be more effective, how good it feels, the wins they are having, encouraging each other. The some other people come on and say, basically, "you guys are nuts, you're deluded or scamming or gullible, let's face it: you are wrong!"

If we had a thread about the Church of the Pink Unicorn, would you be drawn to debunking it? I'm thinking you might post once or twice with ridicule or scorn, but for the most part, you wouldn't even be drawn to it -- your eyes would scan and skim, probably. Kind of like what I do with astral travel -- I don't really believe our souls leave our physical body and travel around, but if others want to experiment with it and talk about it, it's no skin off my nose so I just leave them to it.

For awhile there, I was drawn to debunking what I see as a delusional belief -- in a personal, interventionist god -- so I can sort of understand. For me, belief in a p.i.g. has led to actual and practical interference and/or oppression, so I have felt strongly about speaking my mind about it. It's harder for me to see how I.M. or the Law of Attraction might be "dangerous," though -- maybe you feel like people are in danger of losing their money to people who profit from it? Or that they are in danger of wasting their time or energy when they *should* be taking action in an objective reality?

That whole phenomenon happened some time ago with the PATHS threads -- people got really, really upset about it -- some folks even went so far as to report the PATHS people to the IRS & FBI! (I haven't seen any further word from them, so I don't know what happened there, but PATHS is still in business, and I still love it.)

But why? I don't believe it's as simple as trying to keep people from being separated from their money. Something draws you (me) to protest about other people's non-interventionist, non-oppressive beliefs -- to protest loud and long, to heartily and thoroughly tell people they are full of crap. What is that all about? Again, if it were the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you probably wouldn't even care -- and they actually ARE making money!

I wonder if it's like most other button-pushing issues: the reason you it bugs you is that there is a part of you that believes it may be true.

(....and then of course there is the question: why am I drawn to keep asking this question? )

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by cylon

please don't use the sad face. Cheer up.

No worries, mate. Clicking on the purple face does not mean I am sad.

Angela, I'm not sure if you were referring to me at all, but in case you were: I don't personally care if people believe in LoA or pink unicorns. As long as people live with integrity and follow the golden rule, that's all I care about. It doesn't matter much to me if they believe in Jesus, LoA, Buddha, or Peter Pan.

LoA is dangerous (physically speaking) if you're trying to fly off a cliff. Or if you deny medical treatment because you are gonna cure it with your mind. But if you just want to be happier or make more money, then yay.

I do like a little bit of philosophical thinking on occasion, though. And I would gladly comment in an active topic about the Church of the Pink Unicorn. I would explain to them that the Mighty Blue Dragon is more powerful anyway.

I don't understand why any LoA followers would be upset about people questioning them. Surely they are the ones attracting the nonbelievers? Maybe the reason it bugs them is that there is a part of them that believes it may be false...

[cylon]

Well contrast exists in everything, yin/yang, belief/non-belief. If IM holds we're all attracting each other. Some may have a need to be self-righteous, some may have doubts, some may wonder if their old beliefs still hold up (ego maintenance).

I attracted Angela to put into words what I was thinking too. Especially since her and I have similar experiences with our problems with p.g.s.

I was like John here, basically word for word a few years ago. And I felt the same frustration with people who I thought were damaging themselves and society at large. It's all good.

[Daffy Duck]

Excuse my ignorance, what is P.G.S.?

Also, I received an email saying that you replied to my original post by simply saying "bye." That's kind of odd.

[Angela]

DaffyD, you're a relative newcomer; I was thinking more of John, who has been here for months and pretty much his entire contribution has been of a would-be debunkative nature -- he doesn't seem to be interested in talking about any of the topics here except to seriously wake us up from irrational thinking. John, I'm sorry to speak of you in the third person; I'm merely responding to DaffyD's question. I'm not saying you *should* do other than what you're doing, John; I have no qualms about it, just noticing your commitment.

I don't think the LoA followers are upset about people challenging the LoA (not most of them, anyway.... there have been a few little fires here and there). I think there has been some irritation among people who are focused on optimizing a particular perspective but getting distracted from that by naysayers. There's no rule against naysaying, though. And you may be right -- it might be irritating to some folks who have small secret doubts. You may have noticed Acting Like Godot rarely if ever seems to get even the least bit emotionally riled up in his responses to people about the LoA. I suspect that that is because he is very strongly centered in his perspective.

p.s... by the way, where do you get the idea that people want to use the LoA to fly off of a cliff?!?

[Angela]

Cylon, you may be right... John is a part of me. He is definitely here to be my mirror buddy; it's just still hard for me to see my reflection clearly. (again, sorry for talking about you in front of your back, John.)

Hey, how about if we try posting from the opposite perspective, John? You be me and I'll be you, and see what comes up for us? I would love to try you on for size.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

You may have noticed Acting Like Godot rarely if ever seems to get even the least bit emotionally riled up in his responses to people about the LoA.

I haven't read every post but everyone has been pretty fair-minded, from what I've seen.

by the way, where do you get the idea that people want to use the LoA to fly off of a cliff?!?

If I believed that I could do absolutely anything (or attract any power) because reality only exists in my mind, I think I'd like to fly. "It's kind of fun to do the impossible." - Walt Disney

I'm sure I'm not the only one to think such things. I fly often in lucid dreams.

[Angela]

Hmmm... it would be fun to fly on our own personal power, wouldn't it? It doesn't happen to be my game to make that happen, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear of someone who did play that game, and did fly successfully under her own personal power. It would delight me, though!

I'm not worried about people using the LoA to jump off cliffs in an attempt to fly.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Excuse my ignorance, what is P.G.S.?

Also, I received an email saying that you replied to my original post by simply saying "bye." That's kind of odd.

Sorry meant "P.I.G.S.", stealing Angela's word for personal interventionist god (s)

I thought I'd add to my earlier "bye". Sometimes on internet discussions people go back and modify/correct their posts.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, how about if we try posting from the opposite perspective, John? You be me and I'll be you, and see what comes up for us? I would love to try you on for size.

Ooh role-playing. This should be fun.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm not worried about people using the LoA to jump off cliffs in an attempt to fly.

It probably doesn't happen much. Most people (LoA included) don't believe they can do it. They acknowledge gravity.

I'm sure you acknowledge gravity too. It might not be your "game" to fly, but could you fly if you tried?

I'm sure more people die in car accidents, so cars are more dangerous. But of course that wasn't the point of the example.

Originally Posted by cylon

I thought I'd add to my earlier "bye". Sometimes on internet discussions people go back and modify/correct their posts.

I was just curious why you said "bye" to begin with. Isn't "Hello" a more typical way to start a conversation?

[cylon]

I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello. Hello, hello. Oh no. (guitar)

[Daffy Duck]

Aww, that's not an answer. What was your intent with "bye?" Was I supposed to be going somewhere? I guess my intent was stronger than yours.

(I will soon be going home from work!)

[cylon]

Bye.

[Daffy Duck]

Goodbye, for now. You will be signing off some time too.

Look at us, predicting the future and stuff!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I'm sure you acknowledge gravity too. It might not be your "game" to deny it, but could you deny it if you tried?

Well, this is where it starts to get spooky. I 'acknowledge' gravity, and the rest of physical laws, and I play by the rules -- I'm okay with the idea that if you jump off the Empire State Building naked, you will probably be dead when you hit the sidewalk. I'm fine with the concept that if I drive my Mustang really, really fast until a brick wall interrupts me, there will almost certainly be pain of some sort involved. And... I also acknowledge that there are loopholes to every physical law. For instance, 80 years ago the idea that a man might land on the moon would, to most people, be lugubriously impossible, like the idea of flying under your own steam might be to you now. I don't know what I don't know, and that leaves open the possibility (or even probability) that what Angela the avatar thinks is impossible are things that none of us has figured out how to do yet. In other words, I believe that nothing is impossible.

Because of that, I don't have any interest anymore in arguing anyone out of their beliefs. Which is not to say that it's not fun to explain perspectives that I am trying on, or to promote tools I find useful! Doing that is a whole lot of fun, because it's really myself I'm talking to, anyway. You know, like John, or Me as he's also known.

d'oh! there I go with that third person thing again! Sorry, John.