Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not by those who make use of it, who are the only ones capable of implementing what I'm talking about here and thus the only ones who need to concern themselves. The NATURE of it is certainly in doubt, though.

I'm not denying the personal experience of mystics. I would agree that the nature of their experience is what is in doubt.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And has been. However, I believe all such attempts, while they produced interesting data, were aiming at the wrong audience; there is really no reason why the scientific community needs to accept this idea, as there is nothing that most scientists can do with it anyway.

Why not? Understanding the nature of mystical experience seems very useful -- certainly it could have therapeutic applications.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, but not in the sense that dipping into it reduces the supply. A better analogy might be radio reception. Your ability to pick up a given signal depends on the signal's strength and the sensitivity of your receiver, but not on how many other people in your neighborhood are tuning into the same wavelength.

OK, I can buy that model. Of course, then I wonder what the equivalent to a radio tower is in this analogy? In other words, what is emitting the mana? How do you increase signal strength?

Understanding the magical mechanics of what causes mystical experience is not necessary if one wishes to use it for therapeutic purposes. The whole thing can be pursued from another direction involving brain chemistry. If all one is interested in is the experience itself and some of its side-effects, that explanation will suffice.

What I was actually referring to was the experiments of psi researchers demonstrating paranormal effects. Lacking a good model of what they were studying, it ended up being a fairly meaningless curiosity, and one that provoked a lot of hostile skepticism because on the surface, the explanations it seemed to call for challenged the validity of scientific method itself. Or at least one of the key assumptions of science, namely that the laws of nature are a constant everywhere. Faced with what seemed to be a choice between finding some excuse to reject the data and accepting the existence of the supernatural, it's perfectly understandable that many scientists would choose the former. The blame for this falls on the psi researchers, not the skeptics.

I can answer your last question only by presenting my theory as a whole, which may not make sense to you, but here goes.

Mana is produced by the universe of experience as a fundamental natural property. It is propagated through the frame of reference of association space, in which distance or proximity is a function of properties two points have in common, including but not limited to observable similarities and past or future interaction. The universe may be divided into what I call "psychic objects," meaning any object that may be perceived or thought about, physical or non-physical. Association always exists between two psychic objects, may be quantified, and may be positive or negative. Mana itself may also be positive (increasing probability) or negative (reducing probability).

The more closely associated a psychic object is with the universe in toto, the stronger its base mana potential.

A psychic object A derives mana from another psychic object B in an intensity that is a function both of the base mana potential of B and the strength of the association between A and B, and in a sign that is the same as the sign of the association between the two.

A corollary: An event Q (which is also a psychic object) derives mana from a psychic object A in an intensity that is a function both of the base mana potential of B and the strength of the association between Q and B, and in a sign that is the same as the sign of that association.

Note that in both cases, the mana potential of the psychic object from which mana is "derived" is NOT reduced accordingly; mana is not conserved. In fact, it's increased, since the association works both ways.

The mana potential carried by an event alters its probability of occurrence, making it more or less likely to occur (for positive or negative mana respectively) to a degree that is a function of the mana's intensity. In no case can a natural probability of 1 or 0 be altered, nor can any other probability be raised to 1 or reduced to 0.

The brain's cognitive functioning, being capable of manipulating association, can also manipulate mana. There's a talent involved in this, however, and I believe it has to do with an ability to create an association with high-mana psychic objects. (I take it as given that few if any people can create a strong association with the universe in toto directly. It's just too difficult to visualize.) All of the arts of magic involve doing this, connecting mana sources with desired or undesired events in the right way (some of these being inside our own minds and others being out in the world). Only indeterminate events can be affected in this way, and only events with which we can create a strong association.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not by those who make use of it, who are the only ones capable of implementing what I'm talking about here and thus the only ones who need to concern themselves. The NATURE of it is certainly in doubt, though.



And has been. However, I believe all such attempts, while they produced interesting data, were aiming at the wrong audience; there is really no reason why the scientific community needs to accept this idea, as there is nothing that most scientists can do with it anyway.



Yes, but not in the sense that dipping into it reduces the supply. A better analogy might be radio reception. Your ability to pick up a given signal depends on the signal's strength and the sensitivity of your receiver, but not on how many other people in your neighborhood are tuning into the same wavelength.

I think those were good statements.

What I was actually referring to was the experiments of psi researchers demonstrating paranormal effects. Lacking a good model of what they were studying, it ended up being a fairly meaningless curiosity, and one that provoked a lot of hostile skepticism because on the surface, the explanations it seemed to call for challenged the validity of scientific method itself. Or at least one of the key assumptions of science, namely that the laws of nature are a constant everywhere. Faced with what seemed to be a choice between finding some excuse to reject the data and accepting the existence of the supernatural, it's perfectly understandable that many scientists would choose the former. The blame for this falls on the psi researchers, not the skeptics.

What psi experiments showed, was phenomena which can not be accounted for by conventional scientific assumptions. The assumptions are not necessary; it is up to people to be open-minded enough to pursue the research honestly. I doubt it matters who is to blame; what would be helpful is more people interested in the subject again, which declined because some people decided psi doesn't exist. The empirical scientific method does not need to be challenged, which can be used simply to verify claims of something happening in the world. What people decide to make of it after that, to revise or defend known laws of nature, or one's philosophy, etc., is up to them, and may be interesting. But if psi ability can be demonstrated, then it can be used and applied, including in ways you suggest. Research can help develop our knowledge of how it works and how it is acquired. That is the most useful thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What psi experiments showed, was phenomena which can not be accounted for by conventional scientific assumptions.

I disagree, but then, I suspect you are thinking of something when you say "conventional scientific assumptions," other than what those actually are.

The assumptions of science, without which one cannot do science, are:

1) Nature follows universal modes of behavior without any exceptions.
2) The human mind is capable of discovering these modes of behavior through an interactive process of observation and hypothesis known as the "scientific method."
3) It is not possible to know everything.

There are no other assumptions behind science than these.

Supernatural explanations of psi (or of anything else) violate the first of these assumptions. Explanations which lie outside of scientific theory as it currently exists, however, do not; in fact that some things require explanations outside current theory is a logical outcome of the third assumption.

The problem with psi research is not that the researchers provided explanations outside current theory but that they provided none, leaving critics to jump to the conclusions advocated by religions: "God did it," or "the soul did it" -- explanations requiring something outside nature itself. Rejection of these explanations was automatic. Rejection of the data themselves should not have been, but was, and understandably so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What I was actually referring to was the experiments of psi researchers demonstrating paranormal effects.

If a paranormal effect is demonstrated, it is difficult to call it paranormal any longer. Sort of like how alternative medicine that has been proven to work is just called "medicine."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Lacking a good model of what they were studying, it ended up being a fairly meaningless curiosity, and one that provoked a lot of hostile skepticism because on the surface, the explanations it seemed to call for challenged the validity of scientific method itself. Or at least one of the key assumptions of science, namely that the laws of nature are a constant everywhere.

Uniform constants are not a necessary assumption of science. The actual assumption is the consistency of causes, which would not be violated by psi, should psi exist. The problem with psi research is the attempt to convert lack of replication into a virtue rather than a failing of an experiment. If psi exists and has rules, then a properly controlled experiment should discover it. That doesn't rule out the possibility that previous studies have failed to be organized properly -- but it doesn't permit researchers to describe an un-replicated event as "evidence."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I can answer your last question only by presenting my theory as a whole, which may not make sense to you, but here goes.

It seems like your proposal creates a testable framework. You should be able to find strongly associated people and objects and run experiments accordingly -- ultimately leading to proof of the phenomenon, solid theories about its operation and eventually, technology to augment it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I disagree, but then, I suspect you are thinking of something when you say "conventional scientific assumptions," other than what those actually are.

The assumptions of science, without which one cannot do science, are:

1) Nature follows universal modes of behavior without any exceptions.
2) The human mind is capable of discovering these modes of behavior through an interactive process of observation and hypothesis known as the "scientific method."
3) It is not possible to know everything.

I don't disagree, but we only need a testable claim of something that exists, and a procedure to test the claim, in order to get useable data.

Supernatural explanations of psi (or of anything else) violate the first of these assumptions. Explanations which lie outside of scientific theory as it currently exists, however, do not; in fact that some things require explanations outside current theory is a logical outcome of the third assumption.

Calling explanations "supernatural" does not lead to the worthy goal you state in your second sentence. Don't call them anything; just seek explanations, if you want to, without assuming ahead of time what those explanations have to be.

The problem with psi research is not that the researchers provided explanations outside current theory but that they provided none, leaving critics to jump to the conclusions advocated by religions: "God did it," or "the soul did it" -- explanations requiring something outside nature itself. Rejection of these explanations was automatic. Rejection of the data themselves should not have been, but was, and understandably so.

Not understandably so, but should not have been. Prejudice against results that can't be explained by conventional science; that is to blame. I disagree that the researchers should have to provide explanations. I'm not against seeking them, but a psi researcher only needs to show a phenomenon exists, unless (s)he is also a theorist.

Of course, God and soul are not outside of nature, so they aren't supernatural. If indeterminacy is in nature, "soul" is just a further development of that.

But I don't think a researcher needs to state that the soul or God did it, or to prove a philosophy, or to try and find a mechanistic cause for it either.

Uh, here we go again. Perhaps you won't get angry with me and go away in a huff? That would be nice. Otherwise, just ignore me

(edit)

Understanding the magical mechanics of what causes mystical experience is not necessary if one wishes to use it for therapeutic purposes. The whole thing can be pursued from another direction involving brain chemistry. If all one is interested in is the experience itself and some of its side-effects, that explanation will suffice.

Which means we don't need to argue about this here anyway.

Meanwhile, it seems like you have Kurt on board. Congratulations!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I chose "egotism, pride, selfishness, arrogance". While all of the above contribute to the problems of today's world (and yesterday's world, for that matter), these three appear to be at the root of all else.

If people weren't so arrogant, proud and selfish/egotistical, they wouldn't hoard money as a way of keeping score ("He who dies with the most toys wins")... and it really would trickle down from the not-then-quite-as rich to everyone else. People would not commit violent crimes against their neighbors and strangers alike. And there would have been no rebellion against family values, and turning against God, in the ongoing pursuit of "WOW!!!".

This was one of the better, more thoughtful polls I've seen in awhile.

That's the one I choose too for basically the same reason you summed it up. Selfish and greed are the root of all evil. Without those things, none of the others would exist.

For example, greed & corruption fall under this same umbrella. Without selfishness, people wouldn't be greedy or corrupt. And you could probably track back just about all this answers back to selfishness, pride and arrogance.

Originally Posted by ASB65

That's the one I choose too for basically the same reason you summed it up. Selfish and greed are the root of all evil. Without those things, none of the others would exist.

For example, greed & corruption fall under this same umbrella. Without selfishness, people wouldn't be greedy or corrupt. And you could probably track back just about all this answers back to selfishness, pride and arrogance.

But don't we need a degree of selfishness? We need to care for ourselves. We don't need addictions and unmindful habits and compulsions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But don't we need a degree of selfishness? We need to care for ourselves. We don't need addictions and unmindful habits and compulsions.

I'm sure you understand the difference between normal, human survival instincts and just plain selfish and greedy people. I'm talking about the people who mainly think only of themselves with little regard for other people. I don't have much use for people in fall in the second category.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm sure you understand the difference between normal, human survival instincts and just plain selfish and greedy people. I'm talking about the people who mainly think only of themselves with little regard for other people. I don't have much use for people (who) fall in the second category.

Sure, I understand. I guess my working insight is that there's nothing in any of those other "greedy selfish people" that is not also in me, and I can observe it in me, and in everyone, not just certain people who may have the problem to a more severe degree. Nothing that is human, is alien to me. "Categories" of people overlap. But I think behind the need to be selfish and regard only oneself, is the automatic or reactive urges (like fear, panic, cravings) that take over the mind, rather than consciousness and choice. If people have mindful self-possession, whoever they are, they will not be so selfish. People dominate and combat others or cling to money and power because they are not free and conscious enough within themselves, and instead are driven by reactive fear and cravings. I think calling them "selfish" is a bit misleading, since what people need to do is to take possession of themselves, rather than be led by fear of how society or the environment wants or threatens them. And mindfulness leads to greater consciousness that we each are part of others and of what's around us. That's my analysis FWIW.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But don't we need a degree of selfishness? We need to care for ourselves. We don't need addictions and unmindful habits and compulsions.

Our economy requires that people take calculated risks and put up with unpleasantness even if such requires unusually-good rewards. Without higher pay than normal, few would mine coal, do high-elevation construction work, or even do plumbing. A market system depends upon rewarding people for investing well and using the investment appropriately. The problem arises when we have a set of soft rules for elites and harsh ones for the masses. Such suggests some plutocracy, quite possibly hereditary.

It is of course wise to look out for self-interest. That means checking one's needs before they become harmful, destructive, or discrediting excess. Excess for one usually means lack for others. Such explains how our economy has gone so bad so fast.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If a paranormal effect is demonstrated, it is difficult to call it paranormal any longer. Sort of like how alternative medicine that has been proven to work is just called "medicine."

Well, that's true. The problem lay as much in the terminology researchers used, perhaps, as in their lack of any theoretical accounting.

Uniform constants are not a necessary assumption of science. The actual assumption is the consistency of causes, which would not be violated by psi, should psi exist.

It would, if no explanation is provided, and if the mind immediately jumps to something supernatural, a "God did it" kind of explanation. Note that this is traditional in beliefs of effects of that kind, so that it is understandable people would make that assumption, and reject the data for that reason.

Note, as well, that Eric is presenting exactly that sort of explanation, while insisting that it is not "supernatural."

The problem with psi research is the attempt to convert lack of replication into a virtue rather than a failing of an experiment.

No. I'm sorry, but I've studied the subject extensively, and there was nothing wrong with either the experimental method or the outcomes. This sort of an argument is only an excuse to reject, when rejection is actually being made for other reasons. The scientific community has not evaluated psi research with integrity; that, however, is not (in my opinion) the fault of the scientific community but the fault of psi research itself. It should have proceeded to developing a theoretical explanation rather than trying again and again to get scientists outside the field to acknowledge experimental results that had no clear meaning, that suggested possibilities completely destructive of science as such, and that would automatically provoke intemperate hostility. As long as this is the case, the scientific community will remain unable to evaluate the results with integrity.

I'm afraid I put you in the same category, necessarily.

It seems like your proposal creates a testable framework. You should be able to find strongly associated people and objects and run experiments accordingly -- ultimately leading to proof of the phenomenon, solid theories about its operation and eventually, technology to augment it.

Yes, I agree. However, it's of no importance to anyone who is not already an adept of the Arts. The problem I'm finding is that the intersection of the set of mages and the set of those with scientific backgrounds is very, very small. A scientist who is not a mage is of no use here, nor is a mage with a medieval mind-set. I'm not saying it's impossible, though, and I still hope to do it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course, God and soul are not outside of nature, so they aren't supernatural.

Until they can be defined operationally, yes, they are. Certainly in the conventional conceptions, they are. Nor do these suffice for explanation of the phenomena, as they lead to nothing in the way of falsifiable predictions.

Perhaps you won't get angry with me and go away in a huff?

That depends on you, Eric. My problems in the past have been that you begin to lose an argument and then in effect throw the game board away, claiming that nothing can ever be proven anyway. If you do that again, I'm going to get upset with you again. Your choice entirely.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Until they can be defined operationally, yes, they are. Certainly in the conventional conceptions, they are. Nor do these suffice for explanation of the phenomena, as they lead to nothing in the way of falsifiable predictions.

Defining operationally or not means investigatable by science or not, not part of Nature or not. Not the same thing. Nature is all.
I understand the problem with postulating "soul" or "God" as "explanations" when we have (or wish to have) nothing else; it may not say anything. Still, those words do refer to something we actually experience, and which may be the actual cause of psi events (I think they are). As we study the spiritual realm in greater depth, better and more precise terms may emerge. Science can only investigate effects (such as psi effects or the effect of claimed abilities) in the phenomenal world, so it may be that what someone attributes to them is not a question of science. That's why I suggest scientists do best to leave them to the interpretive phase of knowledge.

However, I do think that many scientists have quit researching psi because it might call into question their "assumptions;" not the ones you claim are the only ones they make (which seem reasonable, if rightly interpreted), but indeed philosophic materialist assumptions. And you have these as well, since they lead you to dismiss certain phenomena with speculative explanations of your own. Such things as life after life are valid areas of investigation, and need not be explained away in terms of death and mechanics, even if science can't offer a definitive statement about "consciousness" or "soul" as "causes," but only report on and describe the phenomenon and leave conclusions to others.

It is not for psi researchers to explain psi in materialist terms that scientists accept, so that scientists will be willing to study it. It is for scientists to put their philosophy aside. It does not matter if they are not willing to do that; that is a loss for science, but that is the decision of those scientists. The phenomenon remains, and some people will still be interested in understanding it better. And no such understanding or non-materialist theory of psi will ever "threaten" science in any way.

That depends on you, Eric. My problems in the past have been that you begin to lose an argument and then in effect throw the game board away, claiming that nothing can ever be proven anyway. If you do that again, I'm going to get upset with you again. Your choice entirely.

I explained that my statements about "proof" were a side issue and irrelevant, and that I didn't use that idea to reply to your arguments; but you didn't accept that. But I'm not the one who usually quits, so I must not be the one losing the argument. I'm still willing to sort it through, even if I make mis-statements or go off on wrong tangents (which I'm not immune to doing). So, it's your choice. If this goes on though, we should transfer it to the philosophy thread.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Defining operationally or not means investigatable by science or not, not part of Nature or not. Not the same thing. Nature is all.

If they can't be investigated by science, then science can't concern itself. There the matter ends.

However, I do think that many scientists have quit researching psi because it might call into question their "assumptions;" not the ones you claim are the only ones they make (which seem reasonable, if rightly interpreted), but indeed philosophic materialist assumptions.

It's not necessary that that be the case. The model I presented above is compatible with philosophical materialism provided one's understanding of the nature of material reality is reasonably flexible. That is, it's compatible with what I call non-classical materialism, although not with classical materialism. Since, in your view, that which can be studied by science is intrinsically materialist, and science would have to abandon its own methodology in order to approach something other than "materialism," that word and "science" become highly related, indeed almost synonyms.

You're mistaken about that, strictly speaking; as I've pointed out before the entire edifice of science is completely compatible with an idealist everything-is-illusion metaphysics, just as it is with a realist/materialist, everything-is-objective metaphysics. Neither of those views has any scientific substance in and of itself. But what you mean by "materialist" is not precisely that.

It is not for psi researchers to explain psi in materialist terms that scientists accept, so that scientists will be willing to study it. It is for scientists to put their philosophy aside.

For the reasons I explained above, I disagree. Scientists cannot put what you mean by their "philosophy" aside without simultaneously abandoning their methodology. As science is defined by its methodology, that means they must abandon science. Naturally, they are not inclined to do this.

I explained that my statements about "proof" were a side issue and irrelevant

I did not read that explanation and have no intention of going back to do so. You're wrong. The way we prove things is the basis for any logical discussion. If we don't have agreement on this, we have no common ground in which we can discuss anything, except perhaps aesthetically. And you DID use it in response to my arguments. And I did not, and still do not, find that acceptable.

So far you haven't done it here, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If they can't be investigated by science, then science can't concern itself. There the matter ends.

Perhaps so.

It's not necessary that that be the case. The model I presented above is compatible with philosophical materialism provided one's understanding of the nature of material reality is reasonably flexible. That is, it's compatible with what I call non-classical materialism, although not with classical materialism. Since, in your view, that which can be studied by science is intrinsically materialist, and science would have to abandon its own methodology in order to approach something other than "materialism," that word and "science" become highly related, indeed almost synonyms.

The model you presented is not the issue; the issue is why some scientists have turned away from psi research. Most if not all of them don't know your theory, even assuming it would assuage their misgivings.

I did not say "that which can be studied by science is intrinsically materialist." Where in my last post did I say that?
Science does not need to abandon its own methodology in order to approach something other than materialism.

You're mistaken about that, strictly speaking; as I've pointed out before the entire edifice of science is completely compatible with an idealist everything-is-illusion metaphysics, just as it is with a realist/materialist, everything-is-objective metaphysics. Neither of those views has any scientific substance in and of itself. But what you mean by "materialist" is not precisely that.

I agree mostly with your first two sentences, if you mean "idealism" as usually defined, not just the kind of idealism you uphold (take out the "everything-is-illusion" part since there are other kinds of idealism than that).

For the reasons I explained above, I disagree. Scientists cannot put what you mean by their "philosophy" aside without simultaneously abandoning their methodology. As science is defined by its methodology, that means they must abandon science. Naturally, they are not inclined to do this.

There is not such reason that I can see. But yes, if they can't put aside their philosophy, (whichever it is), then they can't investigate psi honestly in a scientific framework. That's their problem if they can't be open minded, and assume psi has to be explained either spiritually or materially. I'm not sure what else can be said here.

I did not read that explanation and have no intention of going back to do so. You're wrong. The way we prove things is the basis for any logical discussion. If we don't have agreement on this, we have no common ground in which we can discuss anything, except perhaps aesthetically. And you DID use it in response to my arguments. And I did not, and still do not, find that acceptable.

So far you haven't done it here, though.

So far so good. I'm not sure this discussion can find common ground though if you argue against what you assume "I mean" by things. Let's just stick to where we are now and what we say here, as much as possible.

I'm still going to stick with population rise and control, all of these things seem very much an effect of too many people living in a world of finite resources.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I'm still going to stick with population rise and control, all of these things seem very much an effect of too many people living in a world of finite resources.

I'll go along with that one too. It's going to become an even bigger problem in the years to come.

One thing that amazes me, is how little people listen to each other; how hard it is to get something across.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One thing that amazes me, is how little people listen to each other; how hard it is to get something across.

Ahhh sweet, sweet irony.

I'll go along with that one too. It's going to become an even bigger problem in the years to come.

I guess, what really frightens me is not necessarily the large amount of populations using up resources, but the impact that will have on our crisis wars. The more people there are taking up space and resources, the bigger and more violent our crisis wars will have to be in order to manage these populations.

Think about the population increase during the Industrial Revolution and then the amount of people who died by the end of WW2. The more people born=more people who will have to die in the crisis era/war for society to balance itself again. The greed, hoarding, selfishness, bickering, it's all just a symptom of the growing discomfort and claustrophobia we feel in having to live with so many people. It's like a pressure cooker waiting to burst, I'm not looking forward to when all of this is going to burst.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I guess, what really frightens me is not necessarily the large amount of populations using up resources, but the impact that will have on our crisis wars. The more people there are taking up space and resources, the bigger and more violent our crisis wars will have to be in order to manage these populations.

Think about the population increase during the Industrial Revolution and then the amount of people who died by the end of WW2. The more people born=more people who will have to die in the crisis era/war for society to balance itself again. The greed, hoarding, selfishness, bickering, it's all just a symptom of the growing discomfort and claustrophobia we feel in having to live with so many people. It's like a pressure cooker waiting to burst, I'm not looking forward to when all of this is going to burst.

The two scenarios are not unrelated, to the extent we might have wars over scarce resources, dried up by overpopulation and climate change.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Felix5

I guess, what really frightens me is not necessarily the large amount of populations using up resources, but the impact that will have on our crisis wars. The more people there are taking up space and resources, the bigger and more violent our crisis wars will have to be in order to manage these populations.

Think about the population increase during the Industrial Revolution and then the amount of people who died by the end of WW2. The more people born=more people who will have to die in the crisis era/war for society to balance itself again. The greed, hoarding, selfishness, bickering, it's all just a symptom of the growing discomfort and claustrophobia we feel in having to live with so many people. It's like a pressure cooker waiting to burst, I'm not looking forward to when all of this is going to burst.

The two scenarios are not unrelated, to the extent we might have wars over scare resources, dried up by overpopulation and climate change.

Oddly enough those who might be characterized as most greedy are those living in estates far away from anyone else.

Best...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One thing that amazes me, is how little people listen to each other; how hard it is to get something across.

Oh Eric, really. Now often do you really listen to people from the right and consider their views in a completely unbiased and objective way? I'm sorry if this sounds snotty, but I think this is bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One thing that amazes me, is how little people listen to each other; how hard it is to get something across.

People *hear* what they are in range to listen to.

Cheers.