Product of the Cosmos

The media is so easy to manipulate. They do not validate somuch they report. Like the Iraq beheading hoax a man did in his garage in Cali. And sent to US media and they trumpted it all over. This is a big thing for Bush's campaign. nd another nail in the coffin for Kerry, who doesnt do anything. Like he knows the next 4 years are Bush's. And he's just occupying the Dem vote so it's not an issue. I wouldn't be suprised if it wasn't the Bush followers who did this. Of course I'll be critisized for thinking this. But it would be good strategy. And they are not free from that type of manipulation IMO.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need more topics like this one.

"but there is a difference, and we like to err on the side that spends less." The last 3 Republicans have spent more then all the other presidents combined. "Anyway electoral college is specified in the constitution, it is their as a means of keeping the countries leaders from being directly chosen by the people, because there are times when people are stupid. I don't see it going away anytime soon." Which is why saying we have a democracy is rather naive.

lol. "Ours is the age which is proud of machines which think, and suspicious of men who try to." -H. M. Jones "The past record of man is burdened with accounts of assasinations, secret combines, palace plots and betrayals in war. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have begun to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea merely a conspiratorial point of view." -G. Edward Griffin "I do not mind to be called a 'conspiracy theorist' by those who are called 'coincidence theorists'" -John Judge I agree with Judge. "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -J Edgar Hoover "I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in their times." -Thomas Jefferson

"My money is on no draft unless there is some hugely seriously big merde about to hit the fan." And what is not really talked about right now due to the election, **** is hitting the fan... The Iraq war is certainly not getting better for us. Niether is the Afgan war. Then we have terrorists in the homeland planning an attack, unless that is all a bunch of fear based propaganda. Then we have Syria and Iran to **** with when Bush wins the next election. I'm not sure people realize who we have running our country. And their intent... "We shall have world government whether you like it or not, by conquest or consent." -James Warburg, before the Senate foriegn relations commitee. "He who fights too long agianst dragons becomes a dragon himself." -Frederick Nietzsche "The job of the President is not to wield power himself, but to lead attention away from it." -Douglas Adams "The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." -William Stekel "Problems cannot be solved with the same level of intelligence that created them" -Albert Einstien

Considering the circumstances I can see both sides. If you kill someone while your driving drunk.. Your in a for horrible ride(unless your in the rich upper echelon, then your somewhat safe). Then there is the view of if your doing 1 illegal thing why not another? Drink=illegal? Drive=illegal? ****it! lol.

I agree if your old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to have a beer... But it's not that simple IMO. I also agree with the parents teaching the children about such things at an early age. Only parents who fear too much the sense is negated from them would think otherwise IMO. Hiding things isn't the way to keep children away from them. lol. More so it's a way to attract them.

"1) The democrats, the party of "anti-war" or whatever are the only ones in congress who have even proposed a draft" lol. I think its rather naive to generalize one party anti war firstly... 2) I think the original author of the thread overstates his case, and I'm going to guess he's against the Iraq war so his news sources are probably a bit biased to the left. Of course all these wonderfully accurate sources are also going to slam the regular media because otherwise they can't get anyone to listen to them" Being for or agianst something doesn't necessarily mean one gets opinions from the media. Sure many 'left' sources are agianst because they are biased, and many 'right' media are for it because they're biased. But somewhere in the scheme of things, there is actual logic. And IMO the logic of action shows going into Iraq was bogus and a stupid at best. "3) I'm going to wait and see, but if there is a draft big deal. I am still eligible for it, and if I have to go to Iraq, that's just fine honestly. I don't really want to serve in the military because I don't like the environment, orders, etc. but I'd have no problems doing it for a war that I did support in the first place. That's just being consistent." At least your not a hypocrite.

I don't back Kerry any more I would back Sylvester Stallone(lol). But I don't blame him. The whole count, and recount fiasco was a big screw up. Also, the CEO of the maker of the electronic vote machines(I think it's die-bold or something like that) has been on the record saying he'll support Bush as much as he can. Odd these machines don't have paper trails. Not that I'm saying a conspiracy will, and has happened. But it's rather fishy... "Bush voluntarily limited his recount donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million. Gore took unlimited donations and spent about $3.2 million on the recount." lol, the normal Fox News spin. What they obviously didn't mention for bias reasons, is Bush got many parties who had numerous 5,000 or less donations. The Goldsteins(Larry Goldstein bought the WTC 6 weeks before they went down and benefitted multibillions of dollars in insurance as well as saved hundreds of millions in repairs needed as the building were destroyed) donated in 24 installments of donations from $50-2,500 dollars in election donations. This is one of the tactics of deception by politicians(Bush's staff are masters at it) so often to make claims more credible to their benefit.

"Heinlein was roundly condemned... [by the] useful idiots of the day. LMAO, those useful idiots of the day I tell ya. I've heard the book is like 10x better then the movie. Is that true?

"This was to braod an arguement and showed you knew little of farming and the farming industry. As I said farmes and the farming industry have genetically manipulated plants and animals for centuries. So there is not one piece of meat, vegetable, canned good, or even milk that has not come from something genetically modified. As I said it is a crude way but still genetic modification. When confronted with this fact you then tried to defend your stance by simply saying you don't consider that genetic manipulation." The definition of the word is used in both context of 1. changing something, 2. devious or shrewd management. I obviously was not using the word in the same way you were. Why am I still having to explain this? Do you not understand yet? And when did this world start to conform to my opinions in every way? Me having an opinion for something means it has to be done, or I don't know about the subject? *sigh* Wheres mith? I miss a good debate.... BTW, quoting one thing from a previous post, then a quote from a page or two before it taking out of context what I was reffering to. Then replying with your argument is rather ridiculous IMO. "The last to things I want to adress are things you said and then took back. When you post after some one about some thing in their post wether you mean it or not you are talking about them. You quite simply make an implication." I didn't say it and take it back, it was your perception that was misled then informed of the truth. As you say, there is importance in something directly above the text, and it just so happens that directly above the text 'hunting for sport' I said we have somewhat shredded a sacred connection with animals. You bringing up the topic of hunting influenced it being there in a way, but as the comment was not directed at you since I didn't know(and still don't) what type of hunting you have done you are jumping to conclusions. "If you don't like sport hunting you are entitled to that opinion, but if you think hunting isn't highly regulated you are wrong there also." If(underlined for possible future prevention of a mis-interpretation and retarded rebuttal) you think a law on paper stops poachers and illegal hunters your quite faithful. But unfortunatly wrong. The locals in Wyoming kill everything they see, bears, wolves, critters, birds, deer, fish, anything quite commonly. As well as many other states Ive been to. Yes there are laws, and yes some people get busted. But just because it's regulated doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, you haven't taken into consideration(like usual) the thing your arguing. My point about the animals bond with us, it dates back more then 5-30 years or so. Are you aware how bad we slaughtered this countries people, and animals when white people got here? heh, I can tell you, they were not being regulated at all. If you comprehend, and respond to one of my statements, without me explaining myself 2-5 times I would be amazed by your progress after the previous few posts you have shown. "What your better argument would have been and one I would not have argued with you on is I don't like genetic modification through gene splicing. The reason you would have gotten no argument from me is I know little about gene splicing." Gene spicing: any alteration of genetic material. So, no, it would have not been a better argument, other then you would not be trying to debate me in an extremely non-fastidious way. So maybe all in all it would have been better. lol. I have explained myself clearly numerous times. By now were just spamming the topic with crap it seems............. lol. Want to stop yet?

lmao! Ditto^

You don't think this being their first project allows for any more emphasis? A lesser product doesn't mean no effort. There are other things then all out effort, and no effort, if ya didn't know. I was just curious if they pushed harder then they may normally, because they want the name 'Obsidian' to take a big recognition to the people who havent heard much about Black Isle. In the gaming industry I think a lot of emphasis is put on the name of the game, or developer then probably should be. And I'm not a gaming business expert. But it seems to me a first title from a developer is very pivitol. I find your rant rather angry and feeble. Even if they worked as hard as they would on anything. I dont think the question is so off that it merits your flaming.

"wouldn't you be sad if you lived in a free democratic galaxy only for some power-mad Sith to turn it into a dictatorship and probably butcher a lot of your friends and associates?" ya, well Kerry isn't much better. lol. Anyway I dont think I want to know too much about EpIII. Most like, when does it come out?

2.6 ghz P4 80 gig HD 512MB ram yadayadayada i like my 15' LCD screen the best. lol.

"You do relise that most of the genetic manipulation goes to the areas of higher yeilds, drought resistance, shorter growing times, and chemical resistance right? All things that occure naturally in plant life." And how is this relevant to my arguement? "Really was it not their invention that delivered the first Atomic weapons to their targets? So in reallity their invention truely did risk armageddon as it was the direct means of transportation of a science that could truly destroy the world." lol. You take things completely out of context. In no way does my arguement contradict what you just said in philosophy. And you continue to show you have no idea of my philosophy on this. Maybe we wouldn't have invented buttons O_O. LOL. Ya right... More so with your lacking comparison, I'll give you a more accurate one. What if the Wright brothers when thinking oft heir idea gave every single person on the planet a plane that they didnt know worked right? That would be a much bigger risk.. They took the route of isolated experimentation. Which is logical, just like my view of not introducing genetically re-coded DNA things to the populous to consume. "The trait of a truely enlightend man when all else fails call some one a name or attack their intelligence." You continue to take what I say out of context. At least mith argues what I say, and doesn't Micheal Moorify my words. I said you seem dumb to me because you continue to not understand what I'm saying by bringing up ridiculous examples of something you think is relevant in contradiction to what I say, which it is not. Also, what you conveniently left out my statement afterwards that said it was possible that it was I being nieve with my descriptions. "Actually all this dumb person is doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions." Your sarcasm is not something of virtue IMO. And I do not contradict myself or modern Science. As I did not say you were dumb. In this very thread I say things are more then they seem, I give you reasons why you seem dumb to me, followed by a possible fault on my side. But obviously you cannot see that clearly. "Your quotes after you had been proven lacking in the history of genetic manipilation." I provided my opinion on genetic subjects(which have not much to do with my 'contamination' of modern Science', more so just my opinion on the matter), and your continuously trying to find something wrong in them, you take them way out of context. And show you don't even understand what I'm saying time and time agian. "All I am saying is you can no more prove genetic manipulation is a pandoras box than we can prove it isn't. Why? Quite simple no one can predict the future." Yep, no1 can say anything definitively with concrete evidence shown at this time.. But don't you think life is something we should be somewhat cautious with? I think the cautious side, is more intelligent then the presumtuous side when it comes to messing with what we are. Simply because we do not fully understand what we are. Although I would argue some can predict the future. I have predicted some of the biggest events in mankinds history in this thread. And I'd bet my life they will happen. This may not be a paranormal prediction. Just like as I predict the Eagles and Chiefs will be in the super bowl this year at this moment. I may be right just using simple logic, but in a much harder to predict future. Many people have predicted the future. Whether it was a vision/paranormal way, or just logic. So your wrong, people can predict the future. But I believe I agree with your thought package there in that nobody truly knows right now with concrete evidence. What I think a more accurate text translation of your thought package is at this time is not 'no one can predict the future', but more 'we are not advanced enough to prove such things'. "While you resort to calling people dumb, foolish, and unwise we give you centuries of genetic manipulation that has not proven harmful to the human race." How many more times must I say this before you read it, or understand it, either one your lacking in. I don't have a problem with things we simply 'help fuse' by seeing if they will mend genetically with some help by us. If they are close enough and mathematically agreeable genetically this is a sign IMO. This sign is they are DNA compatible, enough within the net of things that are not so unnatural when done. What I am agianst is re-coding, OURSELVES, the DNA within something and releasing it to the public for consumption. And no, we have not done this for many centuries if you buy into the commonly accepted 'history' of our race. Do you understand yet? Im tired of you argueing the same thing over and over, when I'm not even agianst it. lol. You just fail to understand my statement. Once agian, I go back to my statement, this makes you seem very dumb to me. Things, of course, are not always what they seem. And I may not be compitant in using actual Scientific terms. I am but giving you my point of view so you can understand my response better. But nonetheless, I have explained this like 3-5 times, and you still argue it, when I have said I'm fine with it. lol. Your turning this more and more into a personal character battle when it has only occasionally taken that effect so far. Arguing less and less the debate, and more and more me. Me and mith while occsionally taking a harsh view on each others view, we mostly stick to the facts debated... Hey mith, question. Since your seemingly well placed in the Scientific community. Have they found a damn definition for the word planet yet!!!!!!!

"This is your direct quote this in its elf shows you know little of selective breeding. By combing the DNA of the 2 animals you most assuradely make a concious effort to engineer a genetic masterpiece, even if it is in your own eyes." read my response to miths prior quote. "See thats where I get confused. You freely admit it could happen in time anyway yet because we speed the process up that is bad. Quite frankly no I don't see the difference because I don't split hairs genetic manipulation is gentetic manipulation no matter how you perform the task." If we do not re-encode the DNA and it accepts it is acceptable to me. We can fiddle with re-coding the DNA, but don't let it out for the masses to consume. "So the wright brothers should have never developed a plane, Henry Ford should have scrapped his idea for an automobile because they had no prior knowledge of the ramifications? Revolutionary inventions usually come from the previously unexplored areas of science and technology. Is this something that is lost on you?" The wright brothers didnt risk Armageddon by releasing re-coded tampered with hybrid DNA made by infantile genetic architects. They made a plane. I applaud them. But releasing re-coded DNA into the populous is lunacy IMO. You have barely a concept of my philosophy for this as I explained numerous times, so to me you seem very dumb. Maybe I was nieve in my explanation for this isnt my job. But nonetheless, you still dont understand what Im saying. Funny, one post in the thread Im being called illogical for having 'creative thought' at worst, and knowing some big breakthroughs to come at best. Then another post Im being attacked by someone saying my philosophy lacks the vision for gain in the future! LOL!

While selective breeding is more along the lines of human selection(like stomp that weed, keep that rose), the DNA's are intact naturally. Meaning, we did not go in, and ourselves re-code the DNA structure. And that is what I am agianst(for population consumption). Genetic alteration when I say it, means re-coding the DNA. Maybe I dont have the PC term :~P Most things will not blend successfully. And this is the safety net for error it seems to me. As for re-encoding the DNA, holds no bars. And IMO we don't know even close to the amount needed to do so safely.

"I do belive in the things science has shown us as fact with tangible experiments. Something you seem to not care about." What is this based on? "Heh you obviously have no idea how selective breeding works do you? Selective breeding takes many years to accomplish as White said, some times many generations. The process goes a little like this you start off with 2 animals that have the traits you desire. After they produce offspring you cull the ones out that don't have the traits you desire and start over. After many generations you are normally left with the traits you desire as the dominate trait, meaning it is the one that normally shows up in the offspring. Can a recessive trait pop up every once in a while? Yes but it is not very often, and from what I understand that can happen to second generation GMed plants also." When did I bash selective breeding? As long as we aren't going in and re-coding the DNA ourselves I'm not agianst it being given to the masses as long as they know about it. "You see Product the only thing scientist actually bring to the table is the ability to do it faster and more reliably." Thats where my "Do you not see the difference between something that would happen naturally with time anyway, and genetic alteration?" Quote comes in.... I dont think you understood what I was saying. Cosmos:"Do you not see the difference between something that would happen naturally with time anyway, and genetic alteration? As you were so fond of saying to White and the others Cosmos: Your judgements are not that of a wise person. So only a fool would claim things he does not know to be true. I'm going on what we know, and that is we don't know a lot! So its just not wise logic to just do something without prior knowledge. Agian, I dont think you understood what I was saying.

As Moore said.. 1 is fighting in Iraq. As he was trying to get politicians kids to sign up for the war. And they all looked at him like he was the devil or something. I would feel disgraced if I had a young one in the war by the looks on their faces. The looks on their faces were like: *O_O WHAT! GO IN HARMS WAY FOR THE IRAQ WAR?! YA RIGHT* The looks on their faces were like the look onmy friends face when I ask him if it was true ihis religion(Islam) was formed by disgraced and banished Jews(like some Jew told me). lol. Not very happy.

Except you've got a slight problem, I can construct DNA entirely without needing an organism at all. It can have the same sequence and function as any other strand that came from a living organism. In fact, some genes from entirely different organims, even from primitive ones like anthozoans, will build the same structures when placed into an entirely different animal. Again, there is no such thing as DNA belonging to any specific organism, it doesn't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once agian. you talk like you consciously engineered this masterpiece of a universe(multiverse). Imagine all the variables from billions of years of evolution for one. Secondly, saying you understand one thing does not mean you understand the whole. The whole is what we are effecting based on the knowedge we have of one. Can you not understand? "I can construct DNA entirely without needing an organism at all. It can have the same sequence and function as any other strand that came from a living organism." IMO there is more to a being then DNA. The DNA is like the 'blueprint' for a house. A 'house'(body) is not a 'functional' place without its inhabitants(spirit,soul,energy,aura). "Not pictured by him, obviously, is the picture of a rock with a similar pattern around it." A rock had a very small amount of energy yes. About the same amount as microwaved food. Raw organic veges and fruits had high amounts of energy. A Common hand had a reg amount of energy, a healers hand has a large amount. When such is seen with the naked eye, its like static. You can see static everywhere if you pay attention. But the static generated by life is concentrated higher. Although I have better then 20/20 vision, and I am a night person, so I have better night vision then most.. So some may be unfortunate as to not be able to see it. But think of it this way.. If you have crappy eyesight, you can know when your in a lucid dreaming state when you see things clearly!! This is by far the easiest way to gain control of your dreams and be aware you are in a lucid state.

"Actually we know ****loads, more than you are probably even remotely aware of. What can be done with genetics today, eclipses what knowledge we had even 5 years ago." Funny.. You know. We learn new things about genetics literally every day. Quite common is the thought we know alot when what we know is all we know. And Our scale of a lot is only based on what we know. Some fail to imagine. And I lean towards us not being able to imagine in full what actually is. "The problem you will find with the general public, is they don't get the idea that DNA is JUST DNA." Funny. Thats what I would say about many of the opposite side.. They figure DNA, is JUST DNA. LOL. Funny how stuff like that works. "edit: C'mon, Potty, give me ten minutes and I could have done that in Photoshop myself." As for the slanderous name. No need for it. And this is a known technology. Kirlian developed it.

"Google turns up nothing. What are you talking about?" changing the files to jpg and uploading right now: Here they are. Well. the ones I could find in a quick search anyway.

Ah the typical stance of someone like you. See now you are splitting hairs and giving opinions to justify it. As I said before they are both a means to an end, and they both involve genetic manipulation. One you are ok with the other you are not seems odd to me others might agree with you though. Thats odd when did tomatoes start to taste bad to you? They have been selectively breed for many years to be some what drought resistant. What kind of corn tastes bad to you now? You know there are 2 different kinds of corn right? There is sweet corn normally ment to be ate right off the plant after it is cooked, and usually tastes pretty good. Then there is field corn which tastes horrible off the plant, because it is ment for processing before being consumed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you not see the difference between something that would happen naturally with time anyway, and genetic alteration?

"Do you now. Actually, all released GM products have met with FDA approval and I'm sure they know a lot more about the technology than you or I do." lol, there are plenty of things passed by the FDA that are known to be bad. I'm sure they know more about technology then I. But the more some people know the more ignorant they get it seems. I don't see the FDA approving it as any type of reason to say it's alright. I tend to lean to the thought that we don't know very much about genetics. It wasn't but a few years ago that we even mapped out our own DNA physical structure. "Name one claim that has substantiated when clearly it violates scientific principles. There are a number of such "theories" and "prophecies" throughout history. Nostrodamus, Anticithus, Red Star, etc, etc. Name one of these theorests that has come to any amount of fruition." My claims do not violate scientific principles, they just aren't explained by them. Unless you think the ones we know of are all thats out there, they do not violate scientific principles. As for Nostradamus etc... His 'prophecies' are rather vague and could fit to a number of things. Although the 9-11 one was pretty eery. That doesn't disprove or prove anything. One legend comes to mind though. The Hopi, and the Tibetans. I'm not 100% clear on the exact wording as it was a very long time ago I was reading it. But the myth goes of the Hopi something along the lines of:'there will come a time when brothers from the mountainous east will be persecuted in their land'. While the Tibetan goes: 'Brothers from the west will be displaced from their land by white invaders'. I hope dega knows its exact wording, as I know I didnt get it right. But it was right on point as a prediction. "Google turns up nothing. What are you talking about?" changing the files to jpg and uploading right now "His hand "radiates" energy huh. Pray tell, what exactly does this energy *do*? Or for that matter, who can see it or detect it? What sort of energy is it? I can claim my pinky radiates energy too, but that would be a lie." lol. A lie is a deception. More like it would be something that you wouldn't know. As for what does it do? lol. I dont know. But you can see it with the naked eye if you have the right light settings and focus in every living thing. *link to site saying religious prayer is a hoax or something like that* I'm not looking into that right now. Only reason I'm still awake is I just got a CD delivered and I want to listen to it. I'll check it when I get up if I have the time.. "OMG ARE YOU TEH SEKRAT GOVERNMENT AGENT MAN?" lol... "No, it's true that Bush is asking 2.5 million people to pray for his win... I fail to see how this substantiates prayer as a substitute for medicine." Subtle hints is all that was meant for. The power of collective focus is very strong. Esspecially when derived from certain faith based(at this time anyway) multipliers. "Until recently, the Chinese government outlawed open march protests. Gee, I guess picket protesting is a mystic power too. No. Ghost dances is a social activity among native americans. The government feared a congregation of so many Indians would lead to rebellion. Hence the ban. Read history sometime, will ya?" Read history?! How about realize history is false a lot of the time! The ghost dance was the most sacred of rituals by the Native Americans. Social activety, yes. Limited to, no. "Hey, gee, if 5 drug addicts surrounded my home taking their clothes off and shouting stuff I'd call the cops too. Look, it's the PENTAGON building, a core governmental institute of the US. WTF do you expect the government to do? Clap? Nevermind the hippies could be carrying bombs inside their tie dye shirts. In any other country, if some guys started doing weird stuff around a central government institute, they'd BE SHOT." lol. One can try to come up with an explanation for anything. But hear me out. The power of certain geometry for focusing and harnessing this energy is inconcievable. It's no coincidence every secret society and large power groups how have uncommon knowledge from Free-Masons, Illuminati, Religion, Ancient Egypt, US government and others use this geometry in their architecture. The reason why the pentagon is so strong is it multiplies within, and outside itself an infinite amount. But I'm guessing to you they are just shapes you had to learn in a math class. lol. To each their own I guess. "What?" LOL! "I don't consider telepathy to be a neccessary pseudoscience, as I've stated MANY TIMES in your other threads. Once again, there are differences between hoaxes and actual research. Mrs. Cleo is clearly a hoax. Sub-neural Tunneling Theory is not. It's sketchy, yes, but it's founded on solid physics." I agree. Mis-cleo is clearly a hoax. So telepathy is not pseudo Science in your view now eh? lol. ""infant stages"? Buddy, the NAZI's had paranormal divisions. Hell, screw the NAZI's, there were serious paranormal research groups dating back to GALILEO'S time (against church doctrine of course). The Lynx society (of which Galileo was a part of) released manuscripts on parascience. Hey, guess what? 5 centuries later, NOTHING. Nuh uh, not a damn thing." You did not read 'official', as many events in our history have been supressed for valid reasons by those in power. "As we are in the infant stages of 'official' study of this subject." Official as in, what we find, is not confined to a hierarhcy of power mongers who will definetly not share with the world. "Hey, I've had personal experiences too. Nearly everyone's had paranormal experiences in their lives. The difference between you and I is" Theres your mistake. Your not me. You clearly agree with that. So how would you KNOW what the difference is? That is ego-driven and logic clouded rant, even if your right, you wouldn't know for sure. So you put yourself at fault. "The difference between you and I is, whereas you go looking for fanciful explainations which fit almost *too* well to your experiences but without the neccessary buttress of reason behind it to create an entire "science" out of nothing, while I persue a life of reason rooted in 5000 years of human knowledge and observations to further the future. You're taking the easy, but sadly incorrect, way out." Your judgements are not that of a wise person. Of course your entitled to your opinion, but when you base things on fact so much... You clearly are aware that you do not know my existance, and you are not consciously me. So only a fool would claim things he does not know to be true. "That's a quote from John Palmer, right? Do you happen to know him?" No not personally. "See, this is the point. Dr. Palmer never mentioned prana ANYWHERE in any of his lectures or seminars, or even a sort of intangible energy. He's a scientist who uses the scientific method in an obscure field. Prana would be the PERFECT explaination for most of his theories and publications and would be his strongest support, but he doesn't even mention it. This is because he knows the difference between philosophy and science, and HE WON'T TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT! Instead, his publications are filled with concrete examples and data, that although don't support his theories very well, still presents interesting new views to the community. I suggest you read his latest book about psychological algorithms in solitaire." I wasn't aware Dr. Palmer was the 'all knowing God'. lol. All jokes aside. If its that perfect for his theories, maybe you should mention it to him. Maybe he wants to seem original? *shrugs* There is need a balance of concrete Scientists, and 'mystics' if you will to pioneer the next century some of the most amazing discoveries we will make in our entire existance on this planet. As sometime this century the Scientific discovery of the soul will act as a fuse for Science and Religion, what seemed like polar opposites will be one of the same in time. Once the 2 merge the you and I types will be working hand in hand This will mark the Age of Enlightenment my friend. I sincerely hope you play a Scientific role in helping this manifest as I am surely playing a role in my part "Congratulations on your religion. Tell dalai lama I said Hi." It's not a religion, but methods to use the instrument I have been provided for more efficiency. You probably seethe body as you? Well I see it as an instrument for what we are capable of. I dont have a religion as of yet, but, as growing draft probabilities emerge, I'll surely be registering my own religion, I already have a lot of the scriptures written up actually "I agree. Dogs aren't as intelligent as we are and certainly won't know the truth if you yell it in its ear. It'll just bark and waggle its tail happily waiting for you to throw the stick. So how does this pertain to me?" "Acutally, if you want to take the quote less literally, the "dog" would probably mean you: someone who believes in everything he hears just because it happens to explain something that occured without looking for evidences of concrete truth. The ignorant one here is you." blahhhhhh Time will tell Remember what I said. When the time comes. Remember me. "Please do. I'm here all day. Got any more quotes you'd like me to rip apart?" Dig in. Your pretty good at giving an opposing point. But you still havent proved a single thing. Niether have I. Time will tell who was right.