Why can't some people see ghosts?

[spacelizard667]

Okay, so I can agree that nobody should be saying, we've reached the stopping point and that's it. And I love to finally hear somebody else to say that path has yet further to go. Thanx a million.

[sinewave]

Actually it is not their proper nature to manifest to the living....that would happen only in extreme or extraordinary circumstances. So much that I have read seems to depend on the assumption that ghosts if they exist at all would manifest [to the living, and would obviously become much better known.] And therefore available for scientific study, but not so. Ordinarily a spirit who rests properly does not make itself known, it is only those spirits who are not adjusting to their afterlife that cause ripples in consciousness and those who by the odd chance or an astral plan ally themselves with a living contact, a psychic or medium, that communicate. So a ghost that is well adjusted in it's own afterlife might properly have no desire to communicate with the living at all.

Actually many people who never really gave much attention to ghosts before have contributed to the volumns of reports of ghost activity over decades. There is of course an enhanced chance that ghosts respond more favorably when they're not unrested by hecklers and 'unbelievers'.....however, they can still make themselves known.

But why would you think that? How could you know all of that without some body of work as a reference? What is the source for that information and how do you know it is true?

[Nenaraz]

I've met people who claimed to be psychic, but none of them claimed to have the ability to "talk to the dead". I've seen this happening only in the US and in the US movies and shows. Such an example is the, well recent history, "Ghost Whisperer" show.

Now, I've met a kid back in the kindergarten who, in the broad daylight, said that he can manipulate ghosts and that they'll start to aggressively shake the kindergarten window which was on the very high position.

The boy who was not from the kindergarten, yet was in the yard sitting on the stairs, said that he lives only with his sister and that their parents died not too long ago. He held some white stones and me and my friend didn't believe him for the ghosts. Suddenly the window started to share so forcefully that we thought it'll crash. The only way that physically that exact window could start shaking that much is if someone took two broomsticks (attached one to another) and started shaking the window.

I disregard any possibility that the kid was doing so for the sake of scaring us, nor that he had any help "on the inside" since I'm sure that the numerous dormitor ladies would surely forbid it or take away the brooms. Still, the question is whether the kids would get those brooms and be able to actually, on the inside, shake the window so forcefully (and soundly).Me and my friend started laughing in amazement and ran away in fear.

The kid who showed us that was exceptionally calm, with very weak to non-existent facial expressions, pale blue eyes and blue hair, I don't remember what he wore. I think he was sitting there either with his sister or with another kid, so it was four of us and quite away from the given window which was at least two floors in height.

I still think it's a prank of sorts.

What do you folk think?

If anyone was shaking the windows at the exact moment that he said it would shake it would have to be only dormitory ladies who maintenance things. But I've seen none.

[enigma7]

Where is the part where they regarded them as superstition? The absence of a concrete explanation is not the same thing. There is still no precedent in science for the idea of consciousness surviving death. It is also difficult to accept the notion that this "truth" that is so obvious to some can be so illusive to those who would try to understand it. The whole thing sounds a lot like faith to me.

Except there is scientific precedent... I'm not a fan of blindly having "faith" either and it used to bother me that I didn't have what I saw as logical validity for certain beliefs, but I've come to realize even science shouldn't be taken at face value. Seems like some people reject religious fundamentalism (which they should) but then end up going to the opposite extreme of essentially worshiping science and "rationality". There is a middle ground. And again, this isn't even outside of the realm of science really...

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/is-death-an-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isnt-the-end/

[sinewave]

Except there is scientific precedent... I'm not a fan of blindly having "faith" either and it used to bother me that I didn't have what I saw as logical validity for certain beliefs, but I've come to realize even science shouldn't be taken at face value. Seems like some people reject religious fundamentalism (which they should) but then end up going to the opposite extreme of essentially worshiping science and "rationality". There is a middle ground. And again, this isn't even outside of the realm of science really...

http://www.robertlan...h-isnt-the-end/

The scientific method is honored to the point of worship perhaps but the findings of the method are not and should not be regarded that way. Findings are always considered open and subject to change which cannot be said for religions and other systems of belief. So no, science is not a substitute for belief, it is something completely different.

There is no precedent in science for concept of human consciousness surviving death as a sentient energy entity Despite the various belief systems devised to explain our mortality, we are a function of the matter comprising our cells and nothing more. There is simply no evidence to support the notion there is some magical life force that lingers for a time after we die. We are a collection of bio-chemical processes that work in relative harmony for a time and then stop or are stopped. We may live on in the minds of those who survive us but in their minds is where we stay.

[Occult1]

There is no precedent in science for concept of human consciousness surviving death as a sentient energy entity Despite the various belief systems devised to explain our mortality, we are a function of the matter comprising our cells and nothing more. There is simply no evidence to support the notion there is some magical life force that lingers for a time after we die. We are a collection of bio-chemical processes that work in relative harmony for a time and then stop or are stopped. We may live on in the minds of those who survive us but in their minds is where we stay.

At this point it is but an assumption made by materialist and Atheist scientists claiming that Humans are basically computers and that our thoughts, our minds, the ''me'' is only the product of electro-chemical prorcesses, neurons and synpases.

Until the Human kind has a much better understanding of the fundamental nature of Life, of our World as well as Ourselves as living beings if such thing can one day be achieved, claiming that ''nothing more'' exists beyond our carnal bodies is pure speculation. No more than a belief. The fact that there is no scientific evidence of the contrary (the same can be said about the survival hypothesis) does not objectively make it more or less probable.

Edited June 7, 2014 by sam_comm

[Crabby Kitten]

Some people are sensitive. The reason most people can't is biological. Humans are able to identify colour and not ultra violet. That's one clue. Humans are unable to see in the dark, and if people train themselves to do it, it's not as good as nocturnal animal visions. Humans haven't got the lenses as cats and dogs so we haven't the same physical ability to pick out finer details.

Saying this, some people are able to see ghosts because of a psyhic ability and not a physical one.

[sinewave]

Some people are sensitive. The reason most people can't is biological. Humans are able to identify colour and not ultra violet. That's one clue. Humans are unable to see in the dark, and if people train themselves to do it, it's not as good as nocturnal animal visions. Humans haven't got the lenses as cats and dogs so we haven't the same physical ability to pick out finer details.

Saying this, some people are able to see ghosts because of a psyhic ability and not a physical one.

How does one tell the difference between "sensitive" and the mundane explanations for these alleged phenomena? After many decades of research in the US and USSR, no evidence of psychic abilities has ever been found. You are saying that this thing that has never been shown to exist is best observed through an ability that no one is known to have.

[sinewave]

At this point it is but an assumption made by materialist and Atheist scientists claiming that Humans are basically computers and that our thoughts, our minds, the ''me'' is only the product of electro-chemical prorcesses, neurons and synpases.

Until the Human kind has a much better understanding of the fundamental nature of Life, of our World as well as Ourselves as living beings if such thing can one day be achieved, claiming that ''nothing more'' exists beyond our carnal bodies is pure speculation. No more than a belief. The fact that there is no scientific evidence of the contrary (the same can be said about the survival hypothesis) does not objectively make it more or less probable.

We can very accurately map the process of cell metabolism. The Krebs Cycle is a well understood process and the basis for the bio-chemistry that keeps us alive. Yes, the neurological processes are complex but that does not mean there is something ethereal or extra-dimensional to our being. It is speculation to make that assertion or even to consider it based on the current evidence.

We don't know all there is to know about the workings of the brain but nothing about it suggests it is more than complex coordination of electrical impulses. Everything about us can be mapped to specific areas of the brain including consciousness. If consciousness was a separate "energy" we would not expect it be affected by damage or changes to the brain, and of course it is. Every aspect of our physiology is geared toward protecting the the central nervous system. If what we are is not part and parcel of brain tissue there would be no reason for the body to dedicate so much of the energy budget to providing for it. Besides, there is simply no reason to think otherwise.

[Occult1]

We don't know all there is to know about the workings of the brain but nothing about it suggests it is more than complex coordination of electrical impulses. Everything about us can be mapped to specific areas of the brain including consciousness. If consciousness was a separate "energy" we would not expect it be affected by damage or changes to the brain, and of course it is. Every aspect of our physiology is geared toward protecting the the central nervous system. If what we are is not part and parcel of brain tissue there would be no reason for the body to dedicate so much of the energy budget to providing for it. Besides, there is simply no reason to think otherwise.

There is absolutely nothing that contradicts the idea that you might exist somewhere else, in some other form, and that you are currently experiencing a life in an embodied state. Scientists and philosophers have been debating this concept for centuries.

Understanding the functioning of the brain does not mean understanding the fundamental nature of life, our place in it and the reason why we are experiencing it, at least temporarily. We know so little of these great questions and science is very far from having a grasp on them and that might not even be it's ultimate goal. We don't even have a grasp on what is the Universe exactly. Some physcists now suggest we are holographic projections on a lower, flatter cosmos with no gravity.

See: http://www.nature.co...ologram-1.14328

So a belief based on a strict materalist approach is legimate (because that's what it is, a belief, you just assume that there is ''nothing'' based on current knowledge), but I don't see how it should be more valid than a belief in an afterlife or post-life whatever it might be. At this point it's just anybody's guess, the fact is that we just don't know.

Edited June 7, 2014 by sam_comm

[Awake2Chaos]

*snip

We don't know all there is to know about the workings of the brain but nothing about it suggests it is more than complex coordination of electrical impulses. Everything about us can be mapped to specific areas of the brain including consciousness. If consciousness was a separate "energy" we would not expect it be affected by damage or changes to the brain, and of course it is. Every aspect of our physiology is geared toward protecting the the central nervous system. If what we are is not part and parcel of brain tissue there would be no reason for the body to dedicate so much of the energy budget to providing for it. Besides, there is simply no reason to think otherwise.

No, everything about us has NOT been mapped. fMRI is still what people in my profession (medical imaging) consider an 'emerging' field, and there are many things about the brain that we still do not understand.

If we are nothing more than a group of bundled nerves and electrical impulses, what happens to all that electrical energy when we die? As someone who's witnessed thousands of deaths up close and personal in my career, much more goes on in and around a person as they draw their final breaths than just the ceasing of life. (*let me add my disclaimer* Of course, I've no 'proof' or 'documented research' to back up what I am saying, just my life experience, and yes, I know that doesn't count for anything.)

As to the OP why do some people never have any paranormal experiences? The psyche is very much like a door. If you are open to the experience, you will discern it; by the same token, if you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing and you close yourself off, you ultimately dull and void your ability. (Which I believe every person has the capability, it is not exclusive or special to anyone) Consciousness is very powerful; an ill mind can cause the body to be ill, and certain mind-sets can lock away certain potentials. This is not just applicable to the paranormal, but to other areas of life as well.

I was very skeptical for most of my adult life, and back in 2009 I had a truamtic experience that changed my belief. I think that is what it all comes down to ultimately; our experiences.

If you haven't experienced it, you have no reason to believe, do you?

[sinewave]

There is absolutely nothing that contradicts the idea that you might exist somewhere else, in some other form, and that you are currently experiencing a life in an embodied state. Scientists and philosophers have been debating this concept for centuries, and some physcists now suggest we me be a projection in an holographic Universe.

See: http://www.nature.co...ologram-1.14328

Understanding the functioning of the brain does not mean understanding the fundamental nature of life, our place in it and the reason why we are experiencing it, at least temporarily. We know so little of these great questions and science is very far from having a grasp on them and that might not even be it's ultimate goal.

So a belief based on a strict materalist approach is certainly legimate (because that's what it is, a belief, you just assume that there is ''nothing'' based on current knowledge), but I don't see how it should be more valid than a belief in an afterlife or post-life whatever it might be. At this point it's just anybody's guess, the fact is that we just don't know.

The idea is rooted in folk tales and superstition. There is nothing substantial holding it up. I think ghosts are more of a view into how the human mind works than a description if a greater reality. Just like the belief that Earth was the center of the Universe - the focal point, ghost demonstrate a human need to feel special and unique in terms of the Universe. Given the enormity and age of the Universe, we are anything but special.

There is simply no reason to think we are anything more than our synchronized biological functions. We don't know exactly how the brain works but nothing about it suggests it is any deeper than chemistry.

[sinewave]

No, everything about us has NOT been mapped. fMRI is still what people in my profession (medical imaging) consider an 'emerging' field, and there are many things about the brain that we still do not understand.

If we are nothing more than a group of bundled nerves and electrical impulses, what happens to all that electrical energy when we die? As someone who's witnessed thousands of deaths up close and personal in my career, much more goes on in and around a person as they draw their final breaths than just the ceasing of life. (*let me add my disclaimer* Of course, I've no 'proof' or 'documented research' to back up what I am saying, just my life experience, and yes, I know that doesn't count for anything.)

As to the OP why do some people never have any paranormal experiences? The psyche is very much like a door. If you are open to the experience, you will discern it; by the same token, if you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing and you close yourself off, you ultimately dull and void your ability. (Which I believe every person has the capability, it is not exclusive or special to anyone) Consciousness is very powerful; an ill mind can cause the body to be ill, and certain mind-sets can lock away certain potentials. This is not just applicable to the paranormal, but to other areas of life as well.

I was very skeptical for most of my adult life, and back in 2009 I had a truamtic experience that changed my belief. I think that is what it all comes down to ultimately; our experiences.

If you haven't experienced it, you have no reason to believe, do you?

We don't understand exactly how it works but the major centers of the brain have indeed been mapped to their corresponding functions. We cannot read memories or thoughts but we can predict which parts of the brain will become active when a person is exposed to specific stimuli. Each sense has a specific area or combination of areas as do things like speech, logic, empathy, fear, and humor. The God helmet, developed at Laurentian University is capable of stimulating those specific regions with electromagnets. It is possible to make a person experience things simply by activating specific magnets in the helmet. The things they experience are not controllable or predictable but a fear response of some kind will be triggered by activating the appropriate magnet. Pleasant memories, music, fragrances, and touches have all been induced in people wearing the helmet. It is really quite remarkable. So yes, we do have a pretty good idea how the brain is organized.

What happens to that electrical energy when we die? It eventually stops. The electrical energy in our nervous system is the result of electrolytes like sodium and potassium being present in the synapses. Those electrolytes are transported to the synapses by other bio-chemical processes. When we die, those processes stop and the electrolytes are no longer transported to the synapses. There is nothing magical about it. It is the same basic chemistry that happens in your car battery but on a very tiny scale. All ionic solutions can be used to produce electric currents. Did you ever make a lemon battery in grade school? It is the same idea.

It would be very difficult to witness the deaths of that many people and not be profoundly affected by the experience. I don't think I could do that. I can only imagine there would be strong combination of sadness, empathy, and helplessness during those moments. Plus it is a constant reminder of your own mortality which is never fun to think about.

But witnessing death is just the kind reality that makes us look for answers. Hey, it's hard to accept. I admire you for being able to do that on a regular basis. The fact is, the mind does tend to fill in the blanks when presented with things it cannot accept or readily understand. Ghosts are very likely just a product of that fear and sense of loss.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sinewave

[Brian Topp]

The whole thing about "Some people are sensitive" is exact same thing I use to hear from adults when I was a child, Instead of explaining how something works, they said "Magic". It's a scape goat.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Brian Topp

[Occult1]

The idea is rooted in folk tales and superstition. There is nothing substantial holding it up. I think ghosts are more of a view into how the human mind works than a description if a greater reality. Just like the belief that Earth was the center of the Universe - the focal point, ghost demonstrate a human need to feel special and unique in terms of the Universe. Given the enormity and age of the Universe, we are anything but special.

I was not refering specifically to the ''ghost'' phenomenon but rather to the broad concept of an afterlife (and beforelife). Even if ''ghost'' don't exist, that certainly doesn't mean there can be no post-life and that the survival hypothesis is wrong. It seems to me that if spiritisms, religions as well as science exist it is because mankind try to understand it's place in the world, of which we obviously don't have the whole picture.

There is simply no reason to think we are anything more than our synchronized biological functions. We don't know exactly how the brain works but nothing about it suggests it is any deeper than chemistry.

There is every reason to think we may have some form of existence beyond our embodied self. What is the Universe? Why do I exist? What is the meaning of living? Will I live on, What was I before? These a fundamental questions that mankind try to puzzle out since he could think by himself. As far as I know, it is beyond the scope of science to answer these questions at this point.

Is there ''nothing'' beyond life? Perhaps..but perhaps not. That's my point.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sam_comm

[sinewave]

I was not refering specifically to the ''ghost'' phenomenon but rather to the broad concept of an afterlife (and beforelife). Even if ''ghost'' don't exist, that certainly doesn't mean there can be no post-life and that the survival hypothesis is wrong. It seems to me that if spiritisms, religions as well as science exist it is because mankind try to understand it's place in the world, of which we obviously don't have the whole picture.

But why would there be an afterlife? What purpose would it serve to an organism? We the same as all other life on this planet. We are made, we live, we die. Religions provide unsophisticated and rather primitive explanations for the nature of things. Those explanations always give humans some special status apart from other life. The facts don't bear that out.

There is every reason to think we may have some form of existence beyond our embodied self. What is the Universe? Why do I exist? What is the meaning of living? Will I live on, What was I before? These a fundamental questions that mankind try to puzzle out since he could think by himself. As far as I know, it is beyond the scope of science to answer these questions at this point.

No there isn't We exist because we exist. There does not have to be a grand plan that made it happen.

Is there ''nothing'' beyond life? Perhaps..but perhaps not. That's my point.

There is simply no substantial reason to think so. Other than superstition and religious dogma, there is nothing supporting the idea.

[Brian Topp]

What is the Universe? Why do I exist? What is the meaning of living? Will I live on, What was I before? These a fundamental questions that mankind try to puzzle out since he could think by himself. As far as I know, it is beyond the scope of science to answer these questions at this point.

Is there ''nothing'' beyond life? Perhaps..but perhaps not. That's my point.

The questions are asked because people want something more than their current mundane life. They also worried that there isn't any thing out there so they create their own ideals and beliefs. I believe when i die i go to a world where I am cool and every one has a 2d personality and I fly around in a jetpack and save cats from trees.

[kartikg]

It might be that ghost choose who can see it.

[sinewave]

It might be that ghost choose who can see it.

That is more of an excuse than an explanation.

[Frank Merton]

I was brought up believing ghosts were the spirits of evil people who died violently and would harm you given the chance, but couldn't do much beyond scare you since they had no body. Most people are thought to reincarnate quickly, those who don't avoid it because they have to become animals and we do have some control over these things. Anyway this is all just talk and from the countryside at that.

Evidence for or against this sort of idea and its many variations seems impossible, since if you do see something it proves nothing except you saw something, and lots of people see all sorts of things, only some of which possibly could be being interpreted right.

So there is no evidence, except widespread and historical belief in almost all cultures. I think I will remain on the fence. No necessity for me to believe one way or the other.

[Occult1]

But why would there be an afterlife? What purpose would it serve to an organism? We the same as all other life on this planet. We are made, we live, we die. Religions provide unsophisticated and rather primitive explanations for the nature of things. Those explanations always give humans some special status apart from other life. The facts don't bear that out.

Why would there be a life in the first place? If there is a life, as we currently experience it, I see no reason why there couldn't be a beforelife and a post-life. No reason at all. It's a valid stance based on observation and reason. I am not refering to Humans as a specie apart, but to every single living organism. I don't need religion nor science to accept that possibility.

There is simply no substantial reason to think so. Other than superstition and religious dogma, there is nothing supporting the idea.

There is no substantial reason to think that it begin and end here. The sheer complexity of life and of our world seems to me ample reason to consider that, we may simply don't really know much about our origin.

I don't consider our ignorance on this aspect of existence to be the product of supersitions and religious dogma. This seems like a narrow and restrictive way of considering the subject.

The questions are asked because people want something more than their current mundane life. They also worried that there isn't any thing out there so they create their own ideals and beliefs. I believe when i die i go to a world where I am cool and every one has a 2d personality and I fly around in a jetpack and save cats from trees

Then you haven't heard about Philosophy and Ontology. Some of the greatest minds have weighted on these fundamental questions, it's something that concerns just about every Human being that can think by himself, since we all live and have to depart at one point.

I can understand that some prefer to rationalize their existence to the point where they do not need to 'worry' about the unknown. Because that's what it is, no one can objectively give any definitive answers on this matter, including science.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sam_comm

[Frank Merton]

I think the odds are there is an afterlife. Momentum and angular momentum and electric charge and mass/energy are conserved, so why not sentience? However, it won't be unchanged. It will be something else, and that probably won't include our personality and memories, as they are of the brain and would die with the brain.

[sinewave]

Why would there be a life in the first place? If there is a life, as we currently experience it, I see no reason why there couldn't be a beforelife and a post-life. No reason at all. It's a valid stance. I am not refering to Humans as a specie apart, but to every single living organism. I don't need religion nor science to accept that possibility.

Given water, methane, nitrogen, and electricity the formation of complex organic molecules is inevitable. Coacervates have be created in laboratory conditions using just those things suggesting micro-organisms could form given enough time. It is entirely possible that life may be inevitable.

There is no substantial reason to think that it begin and end here. The sheer complexity of life and of our world seems to me ample reason to consider that, we may simply don't really know much about our origin.

Humans share genetics with every known living thing on Earth, suggesting a common origin. There are indeed substantial reasons to think we began here. Humans are not special and different. We are the same as all of the other life that ever was on this planet.

I don't consider our ignorance on this aspect of existence to be the product of supersitions and religious dogma. This seems like a narrow and restrictive way of considering the subject.

To be fair, it is not ignorance if the thing does not exist. The only narrow and restrictive thing about ghosts is the evidence.

Then you haven't heard about Philosophy and Ontology. Some of the greatest minds have weighted on these fundamental questions, it's something that concerns just about every Human being that can think by himself, since we all live and have to depart at one point.

I can understand that some prefer to rationalize their existence to the point where they do not need to 'worry' about the unknown. Because that's what it is, no one can objectively give any definitive answers on this matter, including science.

Philosophy is not particularly good at answering questions. What's the unknown here? We are born, we live, we die, the end. What part of that is unknown? Unless you are looking for meaning in our existences there is no mystery here. We give our lives meaning. It does not derive from some grand plan. It comes from what we do with the time we are given.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sinewave

[Occult1]

To be fair, it is not ignorance if the thing does not exist. The only narrow and restrictive thing about ghosts is the evidence.

Again I was not refering to the ghost phenomenon but rather to the broad concept of an afterlife as opposed to a materialistic viewpoint. That's the direction in which the discussion seems to a shifted. Even if ''ghosts'' don't exist, in no way does that rule out the survival hypothesis. Nor does that prove a pure materialistic/physcialistic conception of the world.

Philosophy is not particularly good at answering questions. What's the unknown here? We are born, we live, we die, the end. What part of that is unknown? Unless you are looking for meaning in our existences there is no mystery here. We give our lives meaning. It does not derive from some grand plan. It comes from what we do with the time we are given.

Philosophy is particularly good at laying down these questions and adressing them by a general, systematic approach based on reason and rational thinking. In case you don't know, materialism is an ontological thesis as part of philosophy.

As far as I am concerned I see no reason to avoid the fact that we know absolutely nothing about why the Universe, that is our world, exist in the first place and why living organisms are currently experiencing a life as part of it on a fundamental level. Saying that ''it just does'' seems as simplistic as stating that the Earth ''just rotates'' without further inquiry. As such, giving definitive (and perhaps incomplete) answers based on current understanding is premature. This can dangerously lead to dogma.

Because living and dying is the only thing a Human mind can account for as part of current living existence does not mean there can be nothing before and after such processes. That is a complete mystery since no one can claim to have any knowledge about what is ''dying'' and if it must result in an absolute ''non-existence'' from an universal perspective.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sam_comm

[spacelizard667]

But why would you think that? How could you know all of that without some body of work as a reference? What is the source for that information and how do you know it is true?

You're the one....sinewave, who always mentions scientific research and peer reviews as the basis for your skepticism so who's research are you speaking of usually ? I don't give any lip service to anonymous 'scientists' . Yes they can be crackpots, that's why it's called the Liberal Sciences, just in case you didn't know that. As well, there has been no significant paranormal research done in any American University system anywhere in more than twenty years. Duke University having closed it's experimental lab about twenty years ago; there's been nothing since. So what then exactly is it you can point out that has some really undeniablly currently relavant status ? Skeptics have only their own opinions to relate, so I've noticed, when it comes right down to revealing their facts it vaporizes like non-existant. And there is nothing that makes their own opinions any better than mine scientific or not. You feel so entitled to having your own opinion you fight with almost every other person who contrasts your own narrow point of view or that just doesn't agree with you. Just name those scientist(s) yet, and where their research was done.

I am getting rather tired of just waiting for the other shoe to fall. So sue me.

Edited June 9, 2014 by spacelizard667