Roger's Equations: An Informal Poll

And I, sir, just bumped-up your post.

GA, with thanks.

Gene

Your (rather long, but well-written) post gives me a lot of trouble at paragraph 3, regarding scientific methodology.

You state:

"the "experimenter" performs the experiment ... to see if it proves the hypothesis".

I do not think that it is possible to prove a hypothesis by experiment^[1] - only to disprove it. How many times should the experiment be repeated, before deciding that the hypothesis is proven? If the experiment only once (among an indefinite number of repetitions) produces a contrary result, then the hypothesis is disproven (or proven to be false).

Hypotheses such as "gravity causes apples always to fall to the ground", or "increasing the temperature of a constant volume of a gas always increases the pressure" will work time and time again, so perhaps could be said to to prove them (and result in "laws" of physics), but the method fails badly at the quantum level (and possibly elsewhere, but my physics is rusty).

[1] Except perhaps in mathematics, where induction may be considered to be a kind of experiment.

O.K. But I did state it was "my understanding." I would be happy for you or any other reader to correct the basic premises I laid out. I was only trying to give a "general" explanation that appeals to the average person's understanding of science. In even more terse terms it could be stated that science analyzes any "statement" of truth or fact through the lens of "data" in support of that statement. You may certainly have a better summary of the scientific method, which I would heartily welcome.

Bottom line: the scientific method depends on "data" which can validate or disprove, as the case may be, the premise of the experiment. Experiments are designed with a goal in mind: to collect data which will either support or disprove SOMETHING. Anyone who designs an experiment does so for a reason. Otherwise, what is the point of the "experiment?"

The famous (at least to physicists) Michelson-Morley experiment's goal was to prove or disprove the existence of "aether." Now, I would agree that it might not have definitely proven it, even if a phase shift had been detected, but it would have been positive data rather than negative.

Likewise, if one makes an effort at concentrating within (and this is not a short affair... also, understanding the basic methodology) and has no experience, then he is more justified in saying "he/she" certainly couldn't prove or disprove it, as you say. But then there are others who will definitely have experiences. This is where the background issue comes into play and why it should not be dismissed. We could discuss this kind of thing for pages and pages, but I was only interested in conveying the basic idea that spiritual experience is achievable and repeatable in a "scientific" way. So why post? Because people don't normally think in these terms when they think of "religion" and therefore dismiss it all out of hand.

What is most startling to me, is that many people have given their whole lives over to research and investigating "truths" of much less significance, and yet won't give this perspective any consideration because it seemingly is "religious." It just boggles my mind that THE most important question for science and religious believers is, "Is there a God, or some Unseen power behind all we see and experience." (Otherwise, why such a heated debate between the two sides when it comes up?) And if there is even the slightest indication that there may be a way of experiencing this, so very few are interested. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

I propose to reword your question, ""Is there a God, or some Unseen power behind all we see and experience." I would prefer addressing the question, "IF there is a God(s), or some 'undetectable guiding power' behind all we see and experience, then what is the message being delivered to us through all these works that have been laid before us?" It really matters not that the universe was only created 25 minutes ago- what matters is the fact that it was created with fossils and history lessons and smart phones and the Internet, which suggests that no matter what the answer is, for some reason, at this stage of our evolution (25 minutes into the experiment), there are lessons we are to learn.

Scientists are just as prone to "ignore" data that does not fit their model as anyone else, and tend to only publish "successful" (i.e., results that conform to the Current Main Theory of Whatever), or risk being sneered at and laughed into oblivion.

Now, some of us would rather seek the wisdom to be found in ancient texts (which, by the way, were also created 27 minutes ago- it has taken 2 minutes to write this), while others would rather explore more current phenomena. Neither is wrong, and, I suspect, neither is going to find the answer to the question, "Just what is it we are supposed to be learning?" But if we listen to each other, we may all come out the richer.

Unfortunately, most of the religious fanatics I encounter don't like this approach.... And some supposed "Scientists" (Like Dawkins, who I find just as obnoxious as those who would kill "non-believers" for their lack of faith, whatever faith).

I don't follow how that is at all relevant to my post.

Must be the week for people superimposing what they think I probably wrote.

"Believers" know their Deity exists - end of story - no 'question'.

When you made this statement. I was merely attempting to point out, that within the context of a particular thread, when people make posts proclaiming, "This is how it is!", whether it is in reference to a religious belief or not, it's usually when the thread starts rapidly degrading.

I then followed up with some of my thoughts on how, or if, such conversations might be possible without these proclamations being interjected.

Yeah, I should have just posted as a reply to thread rather than a reply to your reply.

The line from your reply is what led to my post.

"O.K. But I did state it was "my understanding."" - fair statement.

What is most troubling to me is that many people have given their own lives, and more important, often taken the lives of many others, in defence of their unprovable "truths".

I accept that there are many "unknown unknowns", but I have no intention of worshiping or obeying "them", whatever they may be.

But that's a personal viewpoint.

Trial Lawyers (forgive, if you must, my use of title case in this instance) are in opposition to Scientists (ditto) in this regard: the barristers proclaim "NEVER ask a question to which you don't know the answer."

That's lousy science. Lousy science makes for bad engineering, and the combo makes CR4, well, at best irrelevant.

We are offered a blog, and invited within "limits" to submit commentary, both of which purport to be in search of truth. The blogger apparently decides, using his blog's "delete" button, what is NOT true. Ergo, the blogger decides "truth."

This is, to me, the crux of kramarat's and ky's complaints. "understandings" or "basic premises" from commentators who choose to remain Anonymous demonstrate a lack of integrity on the part of the latter which might bespeak some goal more sinister ...

Anonymity will NEVER always hide the emporer's nakedness.

Roger?

(Of course, AnonPoster, I meant "roger" as opposed to "wilco" or the laughable "over-and-out." I wasn't attempting to question the emperor's state of dress). Of course!

(Because the subset comments precipitated by mine (#94) wrapped to the next page, I'm, unfortunately, going to break the continuity and post to the general thread.)

34point5 - I'm sorry. I should have said "should be" the most important question. Why? Because of death. Believers say there is survival afterwards and non-believers say otherwise, or they don't know. But both of their comments about post-death status are usually not based on experiential data. This question is definitely NOT important to a lot of people. You may be one of those people. But at a very early age, because of having a friend killed in an accident and a friend of my brother's, also, killed in an accident, this became a very important question for me. I was raised in a Baptist church. Naturally, one expects to get the answers to knotty questions about life -- and death -- from the teachers of one's "inherited" religion. I didn't. My journey of seeking such answers began. No need to recount details.

I wasn't sure if you were being facetious saying "believers" Know their Deity exists. I think you were. And if so, you are probably bothered by the type of "data" or lack thereof that is being used to "Know." But if not, please, explain how they do know?

The essence of all I've posted is to say the experience one can have through proper focusing of one's attention inside can lead to leaving the body, just as at death, only the connection with the body isn't broken. No religious affiliation. No argument. Just a "Hey, if you do this, you might have a life-changing experience." That's all. And I'm leaving to anyone interested in this perspective to seek for a "method" for themselves. No need to denigrate anyone, either. To state it another way, when you're thirsty, would you rather read about water (or your preferred beverage) or actually drink some. This is the difference I was trying to convey.

I've certainly posted enough to get the general idea across. If my similar post(s) had been left in Roger's thread none of these would have appeared here, because this thread would probably not exist if kramarat's posts had not been deleted, also. I was hesitant to post because there seems to be no way to discuss this sort of thing outside the label of religion. And that, generally, leads nowhere.

So adieu for now. I'm sorry to have detracted from the subject of this thread. If an official venue becomes available on CR4 (or somebody wants to say, "Let's all go over "here") for non-engineering topics like this, all manor of things can be discussed there. Otherwise... to each his own.

Well, kramarat, I thought I wasn't going to post again in this tread, but your post helps make my point. You said, "I actually found one that was almost identical to what I experienced."

Anyone who does a little research/reading about NDE will note there are basic commonalities to these experiences. But they can be of different types. One is what is incorrectly termed "astral projection," where one finds oneself outside of the body but still aware of the physical world; i.e., one's own physical body and/or the environment of this world. The other type is where (commonly) people travel through a dark tunnel and into a bright Light which "radiates" Love, etc. There are of course other experiences reported by people (some very negative), but these characteristics constitute part of the basic list, if categorized.

The point being, as I mentioned, going within has a "scientific" element to it, whereby people report similar, or exactly the same, experiences. Because of the vastness of the inner side of creation, there can be many seemingly contradictory experiences. But the fact that you found a "corroborating" experience gives more credence to yours.

The fact that some characteristics of NDE's are being duplicated in some neuro-science labs, does not prove that it is only chemical phenomena. If one is fortunate enough to have genuine inner experience, the reality of it is self-evident as it is happening. There are other elements that could be discussed related to "How do I know what I experienced wasn't just some delusion or other illusory phenomena?"

I could go on, but I was trying to wind my posting down. If you find a suitable framework or venue that would work on CR4, the half of those who voted "For" in your poll, would be happy to participate there.

It's not my site. The best idea I can think of at the moment, if you would like to discuss these things, is to start a thread in the general section, making sure that the thread is appropriately titled so that those that aren't interested, or believe that nothing can be experienced beyond the 5 senses, will know to stay away from it.

I think that admin would be surprised at the traffic that these discussions would generate.......as well as our ability to talk about these things without everything going crazy. After all, most of us think about this stuff at some point in our lives. It's really not much different than philosophy.

I probably wouldn't start a thread. I have just wanted to plant a seed, so to speak, for consideration. As you say, since everyone knows they will die, thoughts about it do cross their mind, whether or not they would admit to it.

Are you absolutely sure "everyone knows they will die"? By some counts, over half the people that have ever lived on this earth are still alive...

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you decide to start a thread, I will contribute whatever I can..................in a positive way.

Hi

I seem to be missing something here, very similar to an insider joke. Everybody seems to talk to you and so will I. Everyone else seems to know who you are, maybe a banned CR4rer? Not sure, haven't been here long enough. Just communicating with an AP, in a civil way, is something that doesn't happen very often.

Look, I don't care who you are, really, just wanted to mention that what you are writing and how you are writing, just the style, tells me that you know what you are talking about. I know, because what you write is what I would have written if I were not tri-linguistically challenged.

What I have also found is that to know one you have to be one. Roger pink is not one of those and he has no idea that we know (us few) because if he knew then he would moderate, especially amongst friends, in a more wise, accommodating way. He is so close and still so far away from communicating.

Experience can not be transplanted. Not from books and not like an organ. It comes when it comes and most don't even recognize it if it stared in their faces. How do I know? Well, by having the intuition that what you are writing could be what I could have written. It's from the same source.

This happens and has happened ever since lizard brain and earlier. Certain conclusions will have a feel to them. Something that is final, perfect, in existence and at the same time as vague as..... now let me think......LOVE, that's it LOVE.

Most of you guys will be familiar with the chaos theory. When enough of nothing gets together something uncontrollable happens. No, not the 1 million monkeys given a type writer, no, not that. (?). It is the natural tendency of all matter (and thought) to form out of chaos. It is the seed and flower of the universe, all at the same time.

If one just sits there and doesn't enter the mix then nothing can be gained. There are a lot of humans in the mix but they contribute little to the "All" but confusion and pollution of many kinds. Matters not much because again, it's always been that way.

Only recently I saw a documentary on the subject and taking it in was like reading what you, AG, are writing. I can identify myself with what is communicated and react in a positive way forming a relationship with some one or an idea and using the written word as the tool. This program had visual input as well so even more inspiring for me.

Whatever is forming, if it is not beautiful and perfect and doesn't result in an euphoric spine tingling experience, it was for Eff all. M********* the brains will conclude in expected results. Letting it do its own thing and find a "real" partner to do it with can have an ecstatic out come. It actually creates life!

Playing music together, like singing in a Choir, or just on your own can give you this experience. Or being in a Mississippi church. (sorry Eskimos, you don't count you have penguins as pets). These are mass phenomenons and initiating them is following a mechanical formula. Bring a lot of people together and let them aim at the same point of interest and mass delusion is the out come. Hence extremism in all religions, the "master" playing the crowds.

Philosophy is like gun powder and the people in the know treat it accordingly. The resulting loneliness of the philosopher is a sacrifice he has to bare, for the good of all.

Reden ist Silber, Schweigen ist Gold.

The ever elitist, Ky.

sorry Eskimos, you don't count you have penguins as pets

Hey, wait a minute......Eskimos and penguins are in opposite hemispheres, aren't they?

Having stripes can help when in a jungle. Once in the open one can not hide. I seem to understand. Fear is not part of my mental makeup. If it does show up I treat it like smoke which only hides the real enemy and that is denial of reality.

I'd better stop digging now, just noticed I'm responding to my own post, Ky.

kramarat,

If you'll introspect a little, I think you might reappraise, and/or qualify that viewpoint.

It is true that the world is full of "sellers." But the Western mind -- especially the Western scientific mind -- doesn't deal in simplicity. Almost any subject requires some explanation. I think you would agree that conflicts do arise from all the different religious perspectives. Trying to sort out why requires explanation. "Just because" is what had me searching in the first place. My mind certainly demanded it as a seeker. This is part of the smokescreen which is part of the play. That's why this world is referred to as an Illusion.

I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to sell something. I've just placed a certain perspective out for readers consideration. If I come knocking on your door with some literature, then you MIGHT think I'm selling wares. But most that do that are entirely sincere. I only intended to help nudge some to actually seek the inner experience rather than just read, think, or talk about it. Most won't give it a second thought and others really won't care. It's all about finding and drinking the water.

I do remember that even thinking of "seeking" is a little frightening exactly because of the "sellers" you are referring to. And, as an orthodox Christian, my seeking was the "work of the Devil" to family and some of my friends. That creates resistance, too. But when one goes into the subject, one finds that there is good evidence, that Jesus taught an inner way to a select few -- the rest in parables. Besides, who wants to waste their time or life on a mirage? I certainly didn't. A sincere heart should not be afraid of being cheated. Truly speaking, it is more a case of "being found" than "finding." Don't forget, I really wasn't going to post anymore, but your interest in your NDE prompted me to post. Without your post, I intended to leave it as is. Searching -- or not -- is up to each person. When seeking, any perspective of "Truth" I came across had to satisfy my questioning AND be based on experience, not just beliefs. And finally, it had to be FREE, as in no collection plates (not that tithing is bad, it just shouldn't be "coerced").

O.K. I think I'm done. I apologize to any readers if my posts struck you as negative in some way. It was not my intent.

I had actually slipped back completely on topic, and was referring to Roger's blogs as an example of the overuse of words and concepts to attempt to make a point.

After reading and digesting the fictional super collider story, I was able to reduce it, (I think), down to about 4-5 key points/sentences, which I posted. My post was deleted within minutes. Roger was kind enough to confirm that his blog was purely political, via PM.

I don't think you are trying to sell anything. I took your posts at face value, in that there is some subject matter that you would like to see discussed on here that doesn't neatly fit into any of the given categories.

Sorry, kramarat. I guess I mistook the comments because of their position in the thread.

It's not so much me wanting to see the subject discussed. I just wanted readers to be exposed to the concept of exploring "Reality" via their own consciousness, as a repeatable "experiment," rather than some vague, haphazard event. As in any experiment there are variables that need to be controlled. But it is doable. One doesn't have to sit and wait for a whole lifetime wondering why "those things never happen to me." (That is a typical thought for many when reading about "paranormal" events, such as UFO sightings, NDE, etc.) You'll at least have a chance at finding gold by panning or digging for it rather than sitting in the living room reading about it -- or worse watching TV.

The subject can lead to almost unending discussion because of questions that arise. Discussion is fine to a point, but the other point I was trying to make is: reading and discussing can never replace doing.

I'm pretty content that I've presented these two points. Too bad, though, that the thread title wouldn't lead someone to this subject. Maybe a future thread.

Keep your eyes open. Maybe I'll start a thread this weekend about the premonition that I had that probably saved my life. This is not the thread for it.

People on here are interested in talking about this stuff, and I believe the moderators will allow it if it's done tactfully. Anything that sounds overtly religious or preachy will not last long. To examine these phenomena objectively and in a civil manner should not be a problem. Bear in mind, that people that post anonymously may not be taken very seriously.

ky,

Am I an AG... a typo... BOTH! ... or none to the left?

I appreciate your sentiments.

If you knew the full extent (details) of my "perspective" you would understand better why I prefer to post anonymously and why I already know before posting that only a few will find it resonating with them -- take it seriously. All part of the "play." But as there is a play there is a performance.

Isn't it ironic that you can mention the word LOVE without the slightest fear of repercussions. But post the word *** and you'll almost certainly have storm clouds gathering. Love in it's deepest and purest expression is the reason for Everything.

Oh, regardless of your "AG" or your "typo" or your "BOTH!" I suspect ky knows the "full extent (details) of" your '"perspective"' as do the rest of us, be we intellectual or impaired.

Emperor, you are NAKED!

So, now, get off your horse; proclaim yourself liberated by identification; join humanity. Enjoy philosophy AND theology, science AND religion, history AND expectation, GA's AND knock-downs.

In short - lay off the delete button on YOUR blog, and trust that true intellectualism will do your editing for you by allowing your participants to sort it out. After all, trust is not a unidirectional concept, and truth will always be absolute and needs no defense.

"Love in it's [sic, actually, no apostrophe is required] deepest and purest expression is the reason for..."

For what? Censorship? Guided concern for the fragile state of naive minds?

I posted "the word *** " on Christianity Today but Incidentally, the "reason for Everything" (your words, not mine) is the postponement of starvation. Even "intellectuals" have to eat; "storm clouds" don't concern them, either, but the lack of them. Ghandi's death proved my contention.

This is what is "ironic" about your post: which of your operative words didn't I mention above? What fears over "repercussions" were evident in my post? And yes, I posted "***" and the heavens did not gather in opposition and sadly we got no storms; perhaps you'd send some our way, out west USA. We need the rain, "repercussions" or not!

Oh, I didn't mention "LOVE" so I'll save you the trouble of searching. Love isn't lacking in the Middle East, or Afghanistan, or Gaza, or anywhere else in Africa or even (might this be a stretch?) in Washington DC. LOVE OF WHAT - now that's the question, non-intellectually presented of course. Some do "take it seriously" but not as "part of the 'play'" because that sentiment would be callous.

Emperor, you are not just naked, but DEPOSED.

You seem to be thinking AG3 is Roger - I suggest you re-read and reassess, before you jump into total ranting folly.

34point5 -

This is somewhat semantics. There is a "Reality" we perceive via our senses and process with our consciousness. If one is going to make a statement that this Reality also has a non-material side, then it has no meaning without a reference to some kind of experience. I understand what you are saying about "their" Truth. And by definition, inner experience is subjective. But if a group of people having these experiences discuss them and find they are having the same or similar experiences, then it becomes more objective. This is where philosophical discussions are also meaningless in this arena. Which is allied to my next comment on another one of your comments.

You just don't know it but you are limiting your own self by portraying this type of knowledge as an "imponderable." How do you know if you've never tried. Additionally, I maybe didn't flesh that part of the process out, but thinking is exactly what has to be stopped to have such experiences. And this is where my reference to philosophical discussions above is relevant. If one limits oneself to using intellect and thinking to try to perceive non-material Reality that is like using a hammer for a screwdriver. The underlying foundation of philosophical discussion is Thought... Logical Thought. This is beyond philosophy in that regard. The mind is to be controlled and stilled. Thinking will only keep one from having such an experience.

As far as your comment on death. I said earlier, that one can judge the reality of the experience as it is happening. Whether or not it is truly synonymous with the experience of Death can be judged as one goes further within.

I've actually been thinking on that, and maybe the difference is, not anticipating dieing.

But it occurred to me, as a result of what you said: It could be, if you are 'expecting to die' this stuff happens, but if not ... well maybe, one just doesn't think of it? or is not 'sensitive' to it? or 'open' to it?

Seeking the experience (i.e.; actually doing meditation) is what makes it more likely. In that sense, yes, you are "expecting" to have a death-type experience. But just thinking about death doesn't bring an experience like this on. The only people who "expect" death are usually terminally ill patients. And most people do know when they are really dying -- maybe not weeks ahead, but many times within days; almost certainly hours. It's not their "expectation" of death that might bring on paranormal experiences, it's that they really are approaching death and non-material events are more likely to happen as one approaches final death. (For instance, people looking as if looking into an invisible portal in front of them and talking to relatives that are already dead, etc.) But the process of the soul leaving the body is the same in both cases. Is no one interested enough in the process of death to investigate it before the final version occurs?

"But the process of the soul leaving the body is the same in both cases. Is no one interested enough in the process of death to investigate it before the final version occurs?"

Well - I don't think I have one in the 'separate entity' interpretation, or trade-able commodity concept.

I think I'm sentient: As such, I have a 'conscience', or have been conditioned to appreciate 'cause and effect' of a range of behaviours.

So to me it's just "you are alive - or your not".

Much like all the other flora and fauna on the planet, and/or aliens.

So for me to undertake the investigation, I'd first need measurable parameters established.

Well, ky... I drafted quite a long response to this but in the end decided not to post because I think most readers get weary of my lengthy posts.

There are parts I wanted to qualify and differentiate, because "Bliss" is too vague and used in a cavalier manner by many to lump together, what are experiences of many different levels of consciousness. It is incorrect to lump these different levels of higher consciousness together. They are not all the same "bliss." But, I think, most are not interested. Besides unless one is actually doing some practice, it is irrelevant and academic.

The only part I will definitely comment on is that sexual energy is in no way compatible with experiencing the highest level of consciousness. It is very powerful. But in comparison to what lies within it is like a cheap sideshow. As a matter of fact, it is a positive hindrance (read "trap") to going within. Many teachers would agree with that. Sorry. (See Matthew 19:12 as a starter)

Also, the part about being lonely... yes, considering that very, very few people are even interested in seeking higher consciousness, most interactions with people in the world are only on a superficial level.

I am out of pocket until next week.

AP #3

If you don't have the intestinal fortitude to post as yourself then step out of the game. You obviously have no faith in anything that you are proud of.

If I was interested in playing games, there are many threads to go to.

Stop being a punk and start a thread if this is so important to you.

I already told you that I would contribute.

In this new system you know you are talking to "a person" not an amorphous collection of 'guests'. I think that's the big plus of the 'upgrade'.

Try to put the "anonymous guest coward" mantra in the past - where it belongs.

Obviously several know who AP3 is, but respect the implicit wish in this "AP choice", by a registered member, of not publishing that knowledge.

Or; settle down AP3 is a good enough ID in the circumstances - so how about you just regard it like any other 'person specific' ID on the thread?

No one on here will ever be harder on me than myself. I will always post as kramarat...aka Mark

If someone wants to inject a topic that may be controversial, post as yourself....................or whatever your handle is.

Anonymous doesn't cut it. Life is too short.

kramarat, I'm sorry to have made you angry, to the point of name-calling. And you are right... life is too short... to make such a big deal over posting anonymously... for me to care much that you are upset over it... to NOT investigate the process of death. Which, as I said, is one of the points I wanted people to consider.

I also did post (#128) that I was content at having brought up the 2 main points I wanted to and was trying not to keep posting. I said, "Maybe a future thread."

The administrators (or whomever has final power/say on CR4) have chosen to allow for anonymous posting. I have my reason for posting anonymously. PLEASE just trust a little that it is valid (meaning important enough to me). If I had hurt someone I could understand your anger and would probably agree. But I try never to become personal in discussions of this nature or hurt anyone's feelings. Watergate may never have happened without Deepthroat. And it really didn't matter, beyond curiosity, who he really was. It was the information he provided.

Is this topic controversial? Yes and no. Yes, in the context of CR4 discussions; but no, in the context of philosophical tenets of major world religions. All the elements put forward can be found in most religious traditions. I was just trying to shed a little light to show that there is an inner tradition, even in Christianity. It is up to each person to research this further. Mysticism is hardly so esoteric that no information can be found. A quick search of the university library where I work brings up ~400 volumes under the subject heading "Mysticism." My only comment, to reiterate, is: reading is one thing, and may be helpful, but, ultimately, experience is necessary. This is just common sense.

Also (and maybe I can't see the forest for the trees), I don't think I would say "I'm proud of" whatever information I've posted. To me, it's just information that I've have partially proven in my own experience, and want others to consider, because "life IS too short" not to.

I note that you said you may start a thread over the weekend. Having just gotten back to work I haven't had a chance to see if you did. I will look around later. I do have work to do to keep my job. ;) It would be interesting for all to know about your experience. That is one of the reasons I have brought this subject up... to get others to, at least, discuss the part of life that gets trampled over, by the overwhelmingly mundane level of life, where we spend SO much of our time. I won't guarantee that I will post. But if I think I can provide information that would be helpful I will.

So let's just leave it where it is in this thread.

You didn't make me angry, nor am I angry at you........I was just venting.

No problems.

I'm going to be taking a hiatus from this entire site for a while. I've got some soul searching of my own to do. Take care.

And don't be nervous about starting a thread about anything..........or posting as yourself.

Thanks, kramarat. Venting is allowed. But I precipitated it, no doubt. I know times when I've felt like calling someone a punk -- or worse -- I was angry at the person I had in my sights. Anger precedes the thought. I understand.

As far as being nervous, that isn't the issue. Even if I verbalized why I post anonymously or wrote it here, it most likely couldn't be appreciated by most readers. Sometimes words can't really express... well, you know. I don't anticipate starting thread(s) for this kind of discussion. I just hope I've planted a seed for others to do so... always in a respectful way. I think that would be tolerated by all.

I hope your soul searching is fruitful. You take care, also. Maybe we'll meet again in another CR4 "incarnation." (... or somewhere)

"But I precipitated it, no doubt."

No - Roger did

Hiatus? Saw your posts in other threads today. Glad you're back.