Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

[SeekerWCF]

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I liked your argument about why universe is "not perfect". If everything is in perfect harmony then evolution of spirit through tests and trials wouldn't be possible. Imbalance is a consequence of limited perspectives, but in the long term nature balances things out.

Yes. You cannot have a consciousness without evolution and a balancing act. The very act of being concious is a differential act. Any Omnipotent being would understand this bit of logic, and unfortunate to those that think a God should be bigger than what can actually happen, should know that that god would be forced to make the same conclusions you and I have. You know. "Made in his image" and all.  

[MauriOra]

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Its even more complicated and the answer likely resides in ourselves. Rather than tie in consciousness, 

Peace in the Light to you Psyche..

Hope you are well ..xx

Our Self and Consciousness, is the Same ..

The Consciousness of the Self..

Mo..xx

[SeekerWCF]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I am sure I am just as disadvantaged I am on a phone. 

Space and time are inextricably linked  I am sure you are aware of E=MC2. All we know about the pre-existing state of the universe is that the forces were one, not four, and the universe was in a state that allowed quantum laws to operate in a similar fashion to that which they do now. We might be the first big bang, we might be the trlionth, we just don't know how it worked or if time impacted it. By our standards, 14 trillion attempts at a big bang might have lasted 14 seconds, it might have been 14 trillion years on our time scales as we experience them now. Anything else is speculation. 

And quantum fluctuations arrive via a difference in potential. That's not hinting at a creator at all. 

Dude. The forces that are definable are carried by force particles except for one force that we don't know about. You completely ignored what I tried to explain to you. "Time" is definable "space"'is definable and both of them are linked in definition so simply. This is why we have spacetime... not some esoteric concept. You say they are linked, and you are dead on parroting what is actually true, however your previous statements tell me that you may think that SEQUENCE OF EVENTS  is tied to this definition of "time". It's so off the mark dude. Seriously. You need to to rethink all this and take a closer look at how "space" and "time" are defined in physics. Then see why they are linked, and then reconcile that with what most people think  "time" actually means. They are totally different things. And you are stuck my friend. You have to do this. I have some faith in you. 

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Peace in the Light to you Psyche..

Hope you are well ..xx

Our Self and Consciousness, is the Same ..

The Consciousness of the Self..

Mo..xx

 It that's not why we find the double slit experiment confounding though, that's the post you took this out of. The answer there seems likely to be in our method of observation. Consiusness has nothing to do with that. 

Self and consciousness is all in the same package, consciousness evolved like everything else did. 

[MauriOra]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 It that's not why we find the double slit experiment confounding though, that's the post you took this out of. The answer there seems likely to be in our method of observation. Consiusness has nothing to do with that. 

Self and consciousness is all in the same package, consciousness evolved like everything else did. 

Yes, I took this quote out of your post..hmm thats what we do...right..

Observing is done with the Eyes ... Yes ...

So its a Directive ....Yes ..

And where thats Directed, Consciousness goes too ..

How did Consciousness, Evolve, if It Always Was and Always has been..?

Mo..xx

[Illyrius]

11 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Yes, I took this quote out of your post..hmm thats what we do...right..

Observing is done with the Eyes ... Yes ...

So its a Directive ....Yes ..

And where thats Directed, Consciousness goes too ..

How did Consciousness, Evolve, if It Always Was and Always has been..?

Mo..xx

This reminds me of a quote;

"Energy flows where attention goes."

[MauriOra]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

There are better and far more sound explanations than an afterlife. 

Hi Again Psyche ..

I Work with Spirit, Souls, Energy..I know a lot about this Realm..

Now, if You do Not Know about the Afterlife, how can you say, that there is Better and Far more Sound Explanations..

In some Instances, you'll be on the Money, and Correct.. But to Dismiss this Possibility as Not Applicable,  Is Denial.. Not yours, just in General ..

Because It Does Exist ..

Yes, Oxygen Deprived Brains can talk a lot of Nonsense, Still doesn't Mean that One Size Fits All ..

This is a Realm of Possibilities.. And Anything and Everything is Possible..

Mo..xx

[MauriOra]

6 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

This reminds me of a quote;

"Energy flows where attention goes."

Yes..

Its ..The Same Source ..

Mo..xx

[psyche101]

52 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

Dude. The forces that are definable are carried by force particles except for one force that we don't know about. You completely ignored what I tried to explain to you. "Time" is definable "space"'is definable and both of them are linked in definition so simply. This is why we have spacetime... not some esoteric concept.

So your telling me time runs at the same pace in every multiverse when it cannot even do that in this one alone? 

52 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

You say they are linked, and you are dead on parroting what is actually true,

That's generally how it works yes 

52 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

however your previous statements tell me that you may think that SEQUENCE OF EVENTS  is tied to this definition of "time". It's so off the mark dude. Seriously. You need to to rethink all this and take a closer look at how "space" and "time" are defined in physics. Then see why they are linked, and then reconcile that with what most people think  "time" actually means. They are totally different things. And you are stuck my friend. You have to do this. I have some faith in you. 

We have to compensate for dilation in our GPS satellites. Time runs at a different pace as we increase speed. We have no idea what time was, or even if some concept of proto time existed in the previous universe state. To claim you can speak for time before it was stabilised by the big bang seems more than presumptuous to me. 

Was there one big bang or trillions? Did that take what we perceive to be a nano second or a billion years? If you can answer that difinitively I'd be impressed.

Faith is not required, information is. 

[+joc]

55 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Hi Again Psyche ..

I Work with Spirit, Souls, Energy..I know a lot about this Realm..

Now, if You do Not Know about the Afterlife, how can you say, that there is Better and Far more Sound Explanations..

In some Instances, you'll be on the Money, and Correct.. But to Dismiss this Possibility as Not Applicable,  Is Denial.. Not yours, just in General ..

Because It Does Exist ..

Yes, Oxygen Deprived Brains can talk a lot of Nonsense, Still doesn't Mean that One Size Fits All ..

This is a Realm of Possibilities.. And Anything and Everything is Possible..

Mo..xx

Anything and Everything is possible?  Simple experiment...take as much or as little time as you wish.

Hold your arm out in front of you.   Drop a spoon out of your hand.  The spoon will fall to the floor.  Try the experiment again, but this time...try to keep the spoon floating in the air with your mind.   You might want to try this several times. In fact...you could do this experiment for the rest of your life...and every single time, the spoon will hit the floor.

 

[psyche101]

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Hi Again Psyche ..

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

I Work with Spirit, Souls, Energy..I know a lot about this Realm..

Would you please extrapolate, what exactly is your  vocation. 

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Now, if You do Not Know about the Afterlife, how can you say, that there is Better and Far more Sound Explanations..

Everybody knows the ancient myths that form the basis for the idea of an afterlife, from the Christian ideas of heaven and hell to reincarnation to the spirit realms described in Australian indigenious and American native cultures. 

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

In some Instances, you'll be on the Money, and Correct.. But to Dismiss this Possibility as Not Applicable,  Is Denial.. Not yours, just in General ..

Its what the evidence indicates. There is no more actual reason to believe in an afterlife than there is a creator, these are clearly man made constructs. 

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Because It Does Exist ..

Only in imagination. 

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Yes, Oxygen Deprived Brains can talk a lot of Nonsense, Still doesn't Mean that One Size Fits All ..

Its proof that it happens, there is zero proof of an afterlife. 

56 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

This is a Realm of Possibilities.. And Anything and Everything is Possible..

Mo..xx

Not everything is possible. If I ask you to grow wings and you fly to me in ten minutes so I can buy you an ice cream to discuss this in person, that's not possible and won't be happening. 

Some things are just impossible and it's not a bad thing to respect that. 

[Illyrius]

8. NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone

Dr. Jeffrey Long is a physician practicing the specialty of radiation oncology in Houma, Louisiana. Dr. Long served on the Board of Directors of IANDS, and is actively involved in NDE research. In his book, "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences," Dr. Long documents a study he conducted - the largest scientific study of NDEs ever. It is based on his research of over 1,300 NDEs shared with NDERF.org. Using his treasure trove of data, Dr. Long explains how NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, how medical evidence fails to explain them away and why there is only one plausible explanation - that people have survived death and traveled to another dimension. Dr. Long makes his case using nine lines of evidence and they are the following:

1. Crystal-Clear Consciousness. The level of conscious alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life - even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. This high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained. Additionally, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and around the world, which refutes the possibility that NDEs have any relation to dreams or hallucinations. 2. Realistic Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs): OBEs are one of the most common elements of NDEs. Events witnessed and heard by NDErs while in an out-of-body state are almost always realistic. When the NDEr or others later seek to verify what was witnessed or heard during the NDE, their OBE observations are almost always confirmed as completely accurate. Even if the OBE observations include events occurring far away from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the NDEr, the OBE observations are still almost always confirmed as completely accurate. This fact alone rules out the possibility that NDEs are related to any known brain functioning or sensory awareness. This also refutes the possibility that NDEs are unrealistic fragments of memory from the brain. 3. Heightened Senses. Not only are heightened senses reported by most who have NDEs, normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable. 4. Consciousness During Anesthesia. Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain. 5. Perfect Playback. Life reviews in NDEs include real events which previously occurred in the lives of the NDEr - even if the events were forgotten or happened before they were old enough to remember. 6. Family Reunions. During an NDE, the experiencer may encounter people who are virtually always deceased and are usually relatives of the NDEr. Sometimes they include relatives who died before the NDEr was even born. If NDEs are merely the product of memory fragments, they would almost certainly include far more living people, including those with whom they had more recently interacted. 7. Children’s Experiences. The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning. 8. Worldwide Consistency. NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries. 9. Aftereffects. It is common for people to experience major life changes after having NDEs. These aftereffects are often powerful, lasting, life-enhancing, and the changes generally follow a consistent pattern. NDErs themselves are practically universal in their belief that their experience of the afterlife was real.   https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a02

[+joc]

All of these things have been proven to be attributable to the effect on an oxygen deprived brain coming back 'online'.  It is not much different than feeling needles and pins in your feet and hands when they 'go to sleep'.  All of the memory planes in your brain are lit up when the oxygen is resurging through the brain...this experience is normal.  It in no way proves that the subject was dead.   Dead people don't come back to life.  And it in no way proves anything about consciousness while being unconscious or brain dead.   It's a myth.

 

'

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

All of these things have been proven to be attributable to the effect on an oxygen deprived brain coming back 'online'.  It is not much different than feeling needles and pins in your feet and hands when they 'go to sleep'.  All of the memory planes in your brain are lit up when the oxygen is resurging through the brain...this experience is normal.  It in no way proves that the subject was dead.   Dead people don't come back to life.  And it in no way proves anything about consciousness while being unconscious or brain dead.   It's a myth.

 

'

 

3 minutes ago, joc said:

 

 

'

Heightened Senses. Not only are heightened senses reported by most who have NDEs, normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Illyrius

[+joc]

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

 

Heightened Senses. Not only are heightened senses reported by most who have NDEs, normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable.

No it isn't.  It is similar to rebooting your computer.   When the brain is deprived of oxygen...things happen...chemical things...electrical things.   It isn't medically unexplainable it has already been explained.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, joc said:

No it isn't.  It is similar to rebooting your computer.   When the brain is deprived of oxygen...things happen...chemical things...electrical things.   It isn't medically unexplainable it has already been explained.

I guess there is a cure for blindness and daltonism. Deprive the brain of oxygen and daltonists see colors, and blind see. This is a great medical discovery.

[+joc]

 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

8. NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone

Dr. Jeffrey Long is a physician practicing the specialty of radiation oncology in Houma, Louisiana. Dr. Long served on the Board of Directors of IANDS, and is actively involved in NDE research. In his book, "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences," Dr. Long documents a study he conducted - the largest scientific study of NDEs ever. It is based on his research of over 1,300 NDEs shared with NDERF.org. Using his treasure trove of data, Dr. Long explains how NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, how medical evidence fails to explain them away and why there is only one plausible explanation - that people have survived death and traveled to another dimension. Dr. Long makes his case using nine lines of evidence and they are the following:

1. Crystal-Clear Consciousness. The level of conscious alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life - even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. This high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained. Additionally, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and around the world, which refutes the possibility that NDEs have any relation to dreams or hallucinations. 2. Realistic Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs): OBEs are one of the most common elements of NDEs. Events witnessed and heard by NDErs while in an out-of-body state are almost always realistic. When the NDEr or others later seek to verify what was witnessed or heard during the NDE, their OBE observations are almost always confirmed as completely accurate. Even if the OBE observations include events occurring far away from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the NDEr, the OBE observations are still almost always confirmed as completely accurate. This fact alone rules out the possibility that NDEs are related to any known brain functioning or sensory awareness. This also refutes the possibility that NDEs are unrealistic fragments of memory from the brain. 3. Heightened Senses. Not only are heightened senses reported by most who have NDEs, normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable. 4. Consciousness During Anesthesia. Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain. 5. Perfect Playback. Life reviews in NDEs include real events which previously occurred in the lives of the NDEr - even if the events were forgotten or happened before they were old enough to remember. 6. Family Reunions. During an NDE, the experiencer may encounter people who are virtually always deceased and are usually relatives of the NDEr. Sometimes they include relatives who died before the NDEr was even born. If NDEs are merely the product of memory fragments, they would almost certainly include far more living people, including those with whom they had more recently interacted. 7. Children’s Experiences. The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning. 8. Worldwide Consistency. NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries. 9. Aftereffects. It is common for people to experience major life changes after having NDEs. These aftereffects are often powerful, lasting, life-enhancing, and the changes generally follow a consistent pattern. NDErs themselves are practically universal in their belief that their experience of the afterlife was real.   https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a02

Not sure why I can't quote that however it's not true. 

1 & 2 are the same thing aren't they? There is an experiment that he omits done on NDE patients, a card is placed in the room. NDE claimants have been asked what is on the card. 

Not one of them has identified it correctly to date. Doesn't sound perfectly clear and coherent then does it? 

2 is medically explainable when we use real figures as opposed to vague descriptions. A study of blind NDEers led by Kenneth Ring at the University of Connecticut in the 1990s found that 15 out of 21 blind participants reported some kind of sight, three were not sure if they had visual perception, and the remaining three did not see anything. Half of those who were blind from birth said they saw something. That's well within the realms of chance, more so when death expectations are involved. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/122441287/Near-Death-Studies-and-Out-of-Body-Experiences-in-the-Blind

3. Heightened senses, like how blind people pay more attention to sound. Does not sound particularly special to me. 

We know senses go one by one in the death process hearing being the last to go. As they diminish, others seem stronger in their absence. 

4. Consciousness during anesthesia is anything but impossible. People have woken up during operations. He is really reaching here. 

5. & 6 & 7. again similar enough that one answer suffices, simply put recorded history. Claims of children recalling the afterlife are as damming as those with the card experiment. A child might recall being a working Chinese pleasent  but cannot recall the emporer of the period. Its just cherry picking is all. 

 

8. Consistency he reckons. Between recalling a past life and seeing a light, we have two distinct experiences right there, the AWARE project has documented at least 7 different experiences. He not only contradicts himself, its not true. 

9. Happens after most heart attacks too. Nothing like embracing your mortality to make you appreciate it. Funny how NDErs don't want to go straight back, if the afterlife is half as good as its supposed to be, wouldn't that be a regular occurrence? 

 

Its good you ask these questions, I just hope it's not so disillusioning that it makes you draw a cloak of belief even tighter about yourself, unfortunately that's what usually happens. People don't like to hear beliefs crumble there is after all a lot of personal investment in these beliefs most of the time. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by psyche101

[Illyrius]

41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

3. Heightened senses, like how blind people pay more attention to sound. Does not sound particularly special to me. 

We know senses go one by one in the death process hearing being the last to go. As they diminish, others seem stronger in their absence. 

But how can somebody blind from birth describe visual experiences from this near death state?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Illyrius

[psyche101]

14 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

But how can somebody blind from birth describe visual experiences from this near death state?

By exaggeration, remember the study I quoted? 

 

Quote

 A study of blind NDEers led by Kenneth Ring at the University of Connecticut in the 1990s found that 15 out of 21 blind participants reported some kind of sight, three were not sure if they had visual perception, and the remaining three did not see anything. Half of those who were blind from birth said they saw something.

'something' is not visual acuity. Its 'something' 

[Illyrius]

12. The transcendent nature of minds in NDEs corresponds with physics

New developments in quantum physics show we cannot know phenomena apart from the observer and how the observer plays a supreme role in creating reality. Arlice Davenport has challenged the hallucination theory of NDEs as outmoded because the field theories of physics now suggest new paradigm options available to explain NDEs. Mark Woodhouse says the traditional materialism/dualism battle over NDEs has already been solved by Einstein. Since matter can now be viewed as a form of energy, an energy body alternative to the material body can now explain NDEs. This is also supported by Melvin Morse who has described NDEs that are able to realign charges in the electromagnetic field of the human body and wiring of the brain. He reports on patients having NDEs who recover from diseases such as pneumonia, cardiac arrest, and cancer (Transformed by the Light, pp. 153-54) suggesting the brain acts more like a receiver of information much like a television, radio, or cell phone. Signals, such as voice or music, in the form of electromagnetic waves, are received by the brain and processed to make them audible to the senses. At death, the brain (receiver) dies; but consciousness (the signal), in the form of electromagnetic waves, continues to exist (in the airwaves). https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a02

Edited February 14, 2018 by Illyrius

[SeekerWCF]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So your telling me time runs at the same pace in every multiverse when it cannot even do that in this one alone? 

That's generally how it works yes 

We have to compensate for dilation in our GPS satellites. Time runs at a different pace as we increase speed. We have no idea what time was, or even if some concept of proto time existed in the previous universe state. To claim you can speak for time before it was stabilised by the big bang seems more than presumptuous to me. 

Was there one big bang or trillions? Did that take what we perceive to be a nano second or a billion years? If you can answer that difinitively I'd be impressed.

Faith is not required, information is. 

 I have never mentioned pace my friend, you are still not listening. It's about sequence. Pace can go slower or faster, but sequence can NEVER BE SUBVERTED. I'm sorry, but your understanding of time is WARPED, BENT, BACKWARDS, WORMED THROUGH. Ahahah even FOLDED ON ITSELF. To many Star Trek episodes I'm afraid for you. 

No need to talk about "time" dilation with me. I know Einstein very well. You just haven't been listening or understand how "time"'is defined. I told you. We are going to have to work backwards if you want to understand. 

You want information?...... then why don't you listen? This is not an invite to my personal cult, this is an invite to at least try to understand REAL modern physics. 

"TIME" and "SPACE" as you are IMAGINING it are not defined in physics the same way. If you can wake up to that reality, we can start again, but  you sir have some serious homwork to do. This is not an insult, it's a challenge. I have always respected your integrity and thirst. 

 

[Illyrius]

7 minutes ago, SeekerWCF said:

This is not an insult, it's a challenge. I have always respected your integrity and thirst. 

[SeekerWCF]

2 hours ago, joc said:

 

OMG joc, I could only get through half of that. Not only because I was laughing, but because these well meant people have failed utterly to apply real science or even a thought outside of their bias. 

Hmmm how do I explain? Imagine an old TV. 

The channels are fuzzy and you move around the antennas and you get a cool channel. Your dad comes in and says... "what the hell is this?" 

You try to explain to him that there is a studio that is broadcasting something, but he says bull ****. I'm an engineer. Watch.

He does something to the antennas (he is really smart and can mess with the molecules and structure of the antenna) and the sound goes blank. He does something else and the the sound starts, but the picture goes out. Then he does something else and the speech of the man slurs or something weird. Or the picture is blurrded, contorted, or whatever. 

Then he claims that it's the antenna, and you profusely claim.... no there is a studio 10 miles away that makes that antenna give the screen it's information. Then he laughs and says bull ,  I can make their faces and vices go funny. They can't possibly be somewhere else. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by SeekerWCF

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

SeekerWCF said:

When scientists say "space" was created at the Big Bang they are not saying "space itself" or what we call the vacuum. They are talking about the SPACE BETWEEN things, because according to our observation all THINGS were together.

.....

There are reason to think there might be a designer, and there are reasons not to, but writing off potential evidence and observation of circumstances because of bias isn't science either.

.....

"TIME" and "SPACE" as you are IMAGINING it are not defined in physics the same way.

No they're talking about space, AS IN SPACE-TIME, as it's seen as beginning at the end of Planck-time (10^-43 seconds). As should be obvious space-time includes the vacuum of space we all know.

And yet you drone on about Intelligent Design as if it's a foregone conclusion when it is not. And STILL not shown that there is “strong empirical evidence that fits a theory that our reality is created” as you recently claimed (nor have you met the further criteria that it not be ambiguous) to support it, just more droning on as if your word is sacrosanct, it's not.

Would prefer to see a citation for this too and not another rather verbose and meaningless interpretation by you of same.

cormac