A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am curious as to the reason for this latest return after exiting, peacegirl.

She was compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction. And that makes as much sense as Lessans book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about using a compass which points north, south, east, west? Doesn't that show depth?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, it shows coordinates according to a grid. That grid can be flat or sitting like a net around a globe.

Thanks for the explanation.

What you're saying is that because they believe there is a preponderance of evidence in their favor, they feel they are being treated unfairly, and this is the exact situation that exists with the claim regarding the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not exactly, though I am sure this would be their point of view. I am saying that they want to believe the earth is flat for various reasons, and that this leads them to treat evidence in favour of this idea according to a different standard than evidence that is against it.

For example, quite a few of them believe the earth must be flat because it is described as such in the Bible. They assume the Bible is correct, and then work backwards, looking for anything that works witht heir idea, and thinking up ways to discredit anything that works against it.

Thus, images from space are discredited on account of the global conspiracy they believe is producing them, while the faulty experiments conducted by a 19th century surveyor are considered compelling evidence.

You have a very similar approach.

That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.

All I can say to this charge is that Lessans was an observer of reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, all you can do is claim that, but you can never support it.

I'm supporting that claim as best I can. You never gave him a chance.

Moreover, the comparison isn't fair. Just because flat earthers say they are right even though, according to scientists, they are wrong given the compelling evidence to the contrary, does not mean that just because Lessans says he is right even though, according to scientists, he is wrong given the compelling evidence to the contrary, that he is necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is unfair about it? You have even less convincing evidence than they do. And like them you demand special treatment: you happily dismiss the flat earth theory, but you demand that your idea is not dismissed.

I never thought much about the flat earth theory. If there is compelling evidence then they should be heard. If there is a preponderance of evidence favoring the round earth theory, this theory should remain. You are too quick to reject Lessans' observations. There is evidence that the eyes don't work the way the other sense do. He saw this in an indirect way, which is why he could make these claims without being a biologist. Because you think he has no evidence, you'll have to wait to see if empirical testing supports his observations. One thing is for certain, his observations are anything but an assertion.

These are two different cases and they stand on their own merit. It is too easy to classify a claim as wrong just because people who challenge other established theories sound similar.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed they are different cases, and I am treating both according to their merit. The problem is that you do not: you demand special treatment for your idea. You demand we ignore evidence against it and not dismiss it, and that we accept key parts of it without any evidence... without even a case in its favour having been made in the first place!

I don't demand special treatment. I don't want you to ignore evidence against it, or accept what he says without further proof. I just hope his knowledge is taken seriously, not just ignored because it sounds ridiculous in view of what has already been determined is true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.

He didn't say Lessans, he said YOU. You are the Flat Earther-like person, not Lessans

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.

So ... he investigated his claim about the lack of afferent nerve endings (receptors) in the eyes before making that assumption?


He didn't do a very good job, then.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Aha! So your problem was never about science stifling or preventing the expression of opposing viewpoints, but that various opposing viewpoints aren't automatically respected and accepted by everyone. They can earn that respect by bringing on the evidence, just like science does.

I agree that not all viewpoints are to be respected if they don't add up. But science doesn't have a monopoly on what is true either. They're conclusions are often wrong using their very own methodology. Empirical testing is not always accurate and can be misleading. No matter how an experiment is set up there can be unknown variables that are not accounted for. This is especially true when it comes to the effects of drugs on the body. I found this guy very perceptive. You probably won't because he is just a journalist.

http://www.ihealthtube.com/aspx/view...7a1408186331f1

The type of society we live in doesn't allow anyone from outside this inner circle to be taken seriously, which is a terrible injustice because a genuine discovery could go unrecognized.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are still incorrect. Lots and lots of people take all manner of outside the "inner circle" viewpoints very seriously. Almost half of Americans believe in Creationism and 45% believe in ghosts. 25% believe in astrology. About half the public believes in ESP

There has to be a scientific basis for what is believable, but the problem is the scientific method is too narrow.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mike Adams and Joe Mercola and other natural health proponents aren't talking to themselves, are they? They have many, many readers.

So, if a genuine discovery is indeed genuine, there is no reason at all it should have any trouble finding believers to promote it....certainly science is not stifling anyone's expression, nor is science preventing anyone from putting their discoveries into the public realm. Do you retract your statements?

No I don't retract my statement because I already told you that the point I was making was not that people can't express themselves. It's that this dividing line between woos and science is blurred. That the woos, as you call them, may end up being the best fit because they aren't using the same narrow criteria to evaluate this work is disheartening but true. To repeat: Thank goodness everyone in this society can express themselves. That's not the problem. The problem is that those who hold strictly to one and only one methodology are leaving out other methods that can be just as valuable. Unfortunately, the very people who are respected for their work (the scientific community) could be throwing out a genuine discovery. That's going to be tough for me because I'm going to have to resort to new agers who believe in all kinds of strange things. Don't you see, I don't want to go to people who believe in fairies, ESP, crystals and ghosts. Maybe Wayne Dyer would be the type of person who would give Lessans the benefit of the doubt because he is open to possibility. I wish it was that easy to get in touch.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"science"

"facts"

"scientific"

You keep using those words.

They don't mean what you think they mean.

[Vivisectus]

That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.

I mean you. You assume the book is correct, ignore or attempt to discredit all evidence against it, and treat whatever you think is compatible with it as evidence in it's favour.

Like the way you expect dogs to behave, for instance, or the way people act when accused of a crime.

I'm supporting that claim as best I can. You never gave him a chance.

Ah! Harken one of the distinctive calls of Gavia Immer. Somehow it is my fault that you have nothing to back up your claims.

I never thought much about the flat earth theory. If there is compelling evidence then they should be heard. If there is a preponderance of evidence favoring the round earth theory, this theory should remain.

You do not apply that standard to your own book. Despite compelling evidence against it and none in favour, you feel we should believe every letter of it.

You are too quick to reject Lessans' observations. There is evidence that the eyes don't work the way the other sense do

Please provide it, or admit you are full of it. I will be insisting you do either now, because you have made this claim once too often without backing it up. Provide the proof, or you are a liar.

.

He saw this in an indirect way, which is why he could make these claims without being a biologist. Because you think he has no evidence, you'll have to wait to see if empirical testing supports his observations. One thing is for certain, his observations are anything but an assertion.

Another claim. Back it up, or admit you are full of it. Where is this evidence?

I don't demand special treatment.

That is a lie, and you know it: you have repeatedly asked us to "wait for the empirical evidence to come in", which is something you do not demand for the flat earth theory. You demand special treatment. You also expect people to believe conscience works as described in the book solely on the books say-so: the case in favour of it is not even made.

I don't want you to ignore evidence against it, or accept what he says without further proof. I just hope his knowledge is taken seriously, not just ignored because it sounds ridiculous in view of what has already been determined is true.

If we do not ignore the evidence against it, then we should dismiss it. Because it is, you know, evidence against it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... he investigated his claim about the lack of afferent nerve endings (receptors) in the eyes before making that assumption?


He didn't do a very good job, then.

Maybe he wasn't clear in what he was trying to say. Maybe he didn't do a good job. That still doesn't mean he was wrong. He never said that light doesn't cause a reaction and that there aren't afferent nerve endings in the retina, but he did not believe that the optic nerve is sending the necessary impulses to allow the brain to interpret the kind of image that would allow for normal sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I mean you. You assume the book is correct, ignore or attempt to discredit all evidence against it, and treat whatever you think is compatible with it as evidence in it's favour.

I have heard the evidence against it, and I don't agree that this evidence is foolproof when it comes to the eyes. In this case, empirical testing is valuable as long as it's reliably done. And it needs to be replicated more than a few times. I don't agree that having a dog push a lever to identify his handler is enough to conclude that dogs can actually identify from sight alone. There doesn't seem to be that many empirical tests on this issue to draw from.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Like the way you expect dogs to behave, for instance, or the way people act when accused of a crime.

I answered the dog question. As far as the way people act when accused of a crime, it's very clear that they will come up with as many rationalizations as they can so they can extenuate the circumstances in an effort to get a lesser sentence.

I'm supporting that claim as best I can. You never gave him a chance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah! Harken one of the distinctive calls of Gavia Immer. Somehow it is my fault that you have nothing to back up your claims.

You keep saying that but it's completely untrue that he doesn't have back up for his claims.

I never thought much about the flat earth theory. If there is compelling evidence then they should be heard. If there is a preponderance of evidence favoring the round earth theory, this theory should remain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You do not apply that standard to your own book. Despite compelling evidence against it and none in favour, you feel we should believe every letter of it.

I told you you don't have to believe anything he wrote. He has offered his astute observations and demonstrated why he believes they are correct. It's up to you what you do with it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

You are too quick to reject Lessans' observations. There is evidence that the eyes don't work the way the other sense do

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please provide it, or admit you are full of it. I will be insisting you do either now, because you have made this claim once too often without backing it up. Provide the proof, or you are a liar.

It's all in the book. You want proof of the proof. Butt understood this. Where are you Butt?

He saw this in an indirect way, which is why he could make these claims without being a biologist. Because you think he has no evidence, you'll have to wait to see if empirical testing supports his observations. One thing is for certain, his observations are anything but mere assertions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another claim. Back it up, or admit you are full of it. Where is this evidence?

The observations are the evidence. It's never going to be enough for you. Like I said, if I am describing an animal that you have never seen, and my observations and description are perfectly accurate, you will still say, "Show me the proof that what you're describing is for real." And I tell you that I can't prove it other than to describe it. And then you tell me that it can't be true because I have no supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed they are different cases, and I am treating both according to their merit. The problem is that you do not: you demand special treatment for your idea. You demand we ignore evidence against it and not dismiss it, and that we accept key parts of it without any evidence... without even a case in its favour having been made in the first place!

I don't demand special treatment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a lie, and you know it: you have repeatedly asked us to "wait for the empirical evidence to come in", which is something you do not demand for the flat earth theory. You demand special treatment. You also expect people to believe conscience works as described in the book solely on the books say-so: the case in favour of it is not even made.

I told you that if the flat earth theory is compelling, then, yes, I would pay attention to it, especially if the knowledge would benefit mankind more than the round earth theory. What else can I do but to tell you to wait for more testing if you don't believe that his observations have any validity. In the case of describing the animal, I would tell you that since you don't think my observations are correct, you'll have to wait for further evidence which will prove to you that this unknown animal that I'm seeing is real.

I don't want you to ignore evidence against it, or accept what he says without further proof. I just hope his knowledge is taken seriously, not just ignored because it sounds ridiculous in view of what has already been determined is true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we do not ignore the evidence against it, then we should dismiss it. Because it is, you know, evidence against it.

You don't have to ignore the evidence against it in order not to dismiss it. You can do both. You can keep your objections, and still keep an open-mind. That's all I'm asking you to do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be a scientific basis for what is believable, but the problem is the scientific method is too narrow.

It's too narrow in your opinion. Science needs to be focused and eliminate a lot of noise. There aren't all that many working scientists out there and they are all competing for research funds etc. or working on specific things for corporations.

Lessans should have spent some of that 30 years getting a science degree and conducting research on his ideas rather than burning his books. Then he could have published in a scientific journal like all other scientists do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't retract my statement because I already told you that the point I was making was not that people can't express themselves.

Your statements are right there in black and white, and the first one says exactly the opposite of what you are saying now. So why won't you retract it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's that this dividing line between woos and science is blurred.

In some cases it is not apparent what is science and what is pseudoscience or what is bleeding edge science and therefore not yet widely known about but could get there.

Woo, on the other hand, is not hard to see. Woos offer zero evidence or methodology...just a lot of assertions, anecdotes, fallacious reasoning and butthurt. They have their script that they seems to adhere to across the board...many elements of which you use frequently. The red flags are well known by most skeptics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That the woos, as you call them, may end up being the best fit because they aren't using the same narrow criteria to evaluate this work is disheartening but true.

Yes, as I've told you for some time now. Lessans work isn't science as it doens't meet the criteria for the term science to be applied.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that those who hold strictly to one and only one methodology are leaving out other methods that can be just as valuable.

When talking about scientists they will of course "leave out" anything that wasn't come to by scientific methods and/or can't be evaluated with the tools of science. Maybe it is valuable spiritually, or philosophically, but that doesn't make it valuable scientifically.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, the very people who are respected for their work (the scientific community) could be throwing out a genuine discovery.

Could be, but that is a problem for the presenter or discoverer to address and overcome, not for scientists. They can't do their work and spend time locating and evaluating all the millions of claims out there in the public realm. Why would they bother?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe he wasn't clear in what he was trying to say. Maybe he didn't do a good job. That still doesn't mean he was wrong. He never said that light doesn't cause a reaction and that there aren't afferent nerve endings in the retina, but he did not believe that the optic nerve is sending the necessary impulses to allow the brain to interpret the kind of image that would allow for normal sight.

In other words, he assumed that this was the case.

After all, as you yourself have pointed out, it's not like he actually investigated whether or not this is the case.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe he wasn't clear in what he was trying to say. Maybe he didn't do a good job. That still doesn't mean he was wrong. He never said that light doesn't cause a reaction and that there aren't afferent nerve endings in the retina, but he did not believe that the optic nerve is sending the necessary impulses to allow the brain to interpret the kind of image that would allow for normal sight.

He did say that there were "No Similar Afferent Nerve Endings in the Eye", which is demonstrably wrong. It has also been demonstrated that the optic nerve transmits signals to the brain that are known to be intrepreted as images in the brain.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, if I am describing an animal that you have never seen, and my observations and description are perfectly accurate, you will still say, "Show me the proof that what you're describing is for real." And I tell you that I can't prove it other than to describe it. And then you tell me that it can't be true because I have no supporting evidence.

is right. This is just like those people who can describe Bigfoot; its physical characteristics, vocalizations, diet, mating habits and preferred habitat. The only thing missing is an actual specimen of a Bigfoot. The rest of the world is perfectly justified in requiring that they produce such a specimen before acknowledging the existence of Bigfoot. That they lack such a specimen does not mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It does mean that people who doubt the existence of Bigfoot have not been given sufficient reason to believe in Bigfoot's existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you tell me that it can't be true because I have no supporting evidence.

Show me where anyone has made this argument. You can't because the actual argument is along the lines of, "I have no reason to believe what you are saying is true because you have failed to provide any supporting evidence."

[Angakuk]

BTW, has anyone here watched the series "Finding Bigfoot"? It is almost as entertaining as "Ancient Aliens". In each episode of "Finding Bigfoot" they fail to find Bigfoot, but their faith in Bigfoot's existence never weakens. A more appropriate series title would be "Desperately Seeking Bigfoot", but that would seriously undermine the fundemental irony of the series title.

[LadyShea]

Like I said, if I am describing an animal that you have never seen, and my observations and description are perfectly accurate, you will still say, "Show me the proof that what you're describing is for real." And I tell you that I can't prove it other than to describe it. And then you tell me that it can't be true because I have no supporting evidence.

Yes. As Angakuk pointed out this is exactly the situation with Bigfoot, and really Cryptozoology as a whole. Eyewitness descriptions simply aren't good enough. People make mistakes, they misperceive, they confabulate, they have faulty memories and they lie. Evidence is required such as a specimen, dead or alive, or hair samples, or multiple high quality photographs or video, or multiple eyewitnesses. The better the corroborating evidence the better the chance that the original observer is trustworthy and probably correct.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That wasn't part of this passage nor what he said at all. Can you defend and explain his actual statement or not?

The statement The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. is flat out incorrect. So why should I pay any attention to anything he says when he couldn't even get the physical facts correct?

Light is the external stimuli. Light makes direct contact Of course objects don't enter the eyeballs, just like there is no object entering the ear when we hear nor object entering our skin when we sense pressure.

Direct contact with what external, exactly. "Something external" is not very specific.

[Vivisectus]

I have heard the evidence against it, and I don't agree that this evidence is foolproof when it comes to the eyes.

Indeed. And flat-earthers unilaterally decide that they do not like evidence against their idea too.

In this case, empirical testing is valuable as long as it's reliably done. And it needs to be replicated more than a few times. I don't agree that having a dog push a lever to identify his handler is enough to conclude that dogs can actually identify from sight alone. There doesn't seem to be that many empirical tests on this issue to draw from.

The dog test is just one, minuscule part of the vast body of evidence against efferent sight. And even if dogs cannot recognize faces, then that is compatible with both efferent and afferent sight. It really isn't relevant.

These tests have been replicated hundreds of times, in hundred of different ways.

I answered the dog question. As far as the way people act when accused of a crime, it's very clear that they will come up with as many rationalizations as they can so they can extenuate the circumstances in an effort to get a lesser sentence.

Which is an excellent example of elevating what is merely compatible to the status of evidence.

You keep saying that but it's completely untrue that he doesn't have back up for his claims.

Absolutely correct. And yet he did not: you have not produced the evidence you keep referring to.

I told you you don't have to believe anything he wrote. He has offered his astute observations and demonstrated why he believes they are correct. It's up to you what you do with it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Actually he did not demonstrate why he believed it. He merely said that he believed it, claiming he was about to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He never got round to that, it seems.

It's all in the book. You want proof of the proof. Butt understood this. Where are you Butt?

No it is not, and we have been over this. You are lying again.

The observations are the evidence.

So the observation that the earth is flat is evidence of a flat earth?

It's never going to be enough for you. Like I said, if I am describing an animal that you have never seen, and my observations and description are perfectly accurate, you will still say, "Show me the proof that what you're describing is for real." And I tell you that I can't prove it other than to describe it. And then you tell me that it can't be true because I have no supporting evidence.

I have described a flat earth to you - so now a flat earth is possible because I have described it to you?

I told you that if the flat earth theory is compelling, then, yes, I would pay attention to it, especially if the knowledge would benefit mankind more than the round earth theory.

No, you are asking that we dismiss evidence against efferent sight and wait for possible future evidence in stead of dismissing efferent sight. You were happy enough to dismiss the flat earth theory as it is. You can try to weasel around and say "If the theory is compelling" but that is exactly what we are trying to ascertain: is it compelling, and on what basis do we call it so?

What else can I do but to tell you to wait for more testing if you don't believe that his observations have any validity. In the case of describing the animal, I would tell you that since you don't think my observations are correct, you'll have to wait for further evidence which will prove to you that this unknown animal that I'm seeing is real.

So you now have to wait for further evidence to prove that the earth is flat. Despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that shows it is not. If you describe a two-headed fire-breathing dragon, then I can dismiss that as incorrect.

You don't have to ignore the evidence against it in order not to dismiss it. You can do both. You can keep your objections, and still keep an open-mind. That's all I'm asking you to do.

So you seriously entertain the possibility that the earth is flat, despite the fact that there is clear, coherent and consistent evidence that it is not?

Well, I must admit you have me there: if your definition of plausible is as all-encompassing as that, and all you are looking for is that we assume that the book is not impossible in the same way that we must assume a flat earth is not impossible, then sure: it is possible, or perhaps a better word is imaginable, with some effort, that some galactic conspiracy or a truly astonishing set of coincidences is at work which seems to go out of it's way to make sure that for all intents and purposes, reality acts as if sight is afferent, while in actuality it is not.

Just like it is possible that NASA is part of a global conspiracy to keep us fooled about the roundness of the earth, in order to steal our tax money. Or that fairies live in my garden. We must keep an open mind, after all.

[Vivisectus]

By the way, I notice you did not produce the evidence you alluded to. Again. Are you going to do so?

[ceptimus]

It's important to keep an open mind. But you don't want it so far open that your brain falls out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The field in question being medicine... good grief.

No, his advocacy is in healthcare of which medicine is only a part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I trust my intuition too. I have also found my intuition is usually right. My intuition tells me he is a huckster.

To each his own.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My intuition is also telling me you are considering or are already courting Mike Adams as a "celebrity endorsement" for the book. Have you emailed him, or are you just going to send him a copy?

There are quite a few people I would love to contact, Adams included. I only wish I could get the book to him.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: He's a germ theory denialist. Do you agree that no diseases are caused by bacteria or viruses, peacegirl?

No, I don't agree with that. Did he say this explicitly, or is this your interpretation? I can take a stab at what he meant by this. It's not the germs that are to blame for illness; it's one's immune system that has lost it's defense system.

[Vivisectus]

It's not the germs that are to blame for illness; it's one's immune system that has lost it's defense system

Germ theory denialism? Talk about flat earth!

Ok, so what is the immune system defending against exactly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't claim that it is

But you did say that alternative medicine could hurt people indirectly because they would be wasting valuable time getting the "right" treatment (chemo).

Chemotherapy has been known to wipe out people's immune systems and make their lives miserable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

True, but cancer has been known to kill people after making their lives miserable, and chemo may help in some cases.

That's true. There are pros and cons to everything and it's up the individual to make this choice. It has also been documented (I can't remember where I read this but it makes sense because the mind is powerful) that if a person doesn't believe in the therapy that is being administered, it will have a major influence on his ability to heal regardless of which therapy it is.

How can the doctors give patients only this one option?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think doctors give cancer patients only one option?

When it comes to cancer, most doctors will immediately turn to surgery and chemo. Cut it out or poison it out. If you go to a surgeon, he's going to think surgery. If you go to an allopathic doctor that focuses on disease management, he's going to think prescription drugs.

What if some people consider the treatment worse than the disease?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some people do consider it worse than the disease and those people choose to not do medical treatments. My grandfather chose not to medically treat his cancer.

It is up to each individual to decide which is the best option, but he needs to know the risks and benefits in order to make an informed choice. Up until recently, we didn't have very many options. We go to a doctor, we're told we have cancer, and we are also told that if we don't cut the cancer out, it will be a death sentence. That has changed somewhat.

What if they don't want to poison their good cells in an effort to regain their health?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then they should not do treatment.

I agree. But when we're ill, it's hard to resist the standard treatment. And if we choose not to go that route and get worse, we are sure to get censured because we didn't listen, as if to say that if we did listen we would have been cured. That's not necessarily true.

The point is people are entitled to make up their own mind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course, I never said otherwise

Once in a couple years, we actually are in agreement.

Nothing should be forced down someone's throat (especially parents) and that's what the medical profession has done

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, nobody is forced to take cancer treatments. We discussed this already.

Maybe not now, but in 1998 (not that long ago), a woman was forced to give her child chemo for a malignant brain tumor that was known to be risky and of little benefit. Maybe we've advanced, but it's taken years to get here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, how did he define "will"?

Who are you referring to? I missed the original post that you're responding to.