Scintillic_Atom_Marriage

================================================================================================================= In Scripture, GOD speaks to the Great Tribulation as a Time Period....the Last Half of Daniel's 70th Week or 3 1/2 Years as: "Time and Times, and a Dividing of Time": Dan 7:25, Dan 12:7, Rev 12:14; "1260 Days": Rev 11:3, Rev 12:6 ; "42 Months": Rev 11:2, Rev 13:5. So.....3.5 Years = 1260 Days or 42 Months or Times and Times and a Dividing of Time. 1260 days / 3.5 = 360 Day Years, Is GOD'S Calendar when relating to us. There are about 15 Prominent Civilizations (That I'm not gonna look up now ) that also had 360 Day Years as their Standard. It appears around 700 BC they started changing. It also appears that it had something to do with "Mars" and near Pass-By's of the Earth....but that's a Whole other Story and could be connected to The Long Day of Joshua. But a year isn't just a timekeeping convention. (Months and the seven day week and all that are.) That three hundred and sixty five and a quarter days is how long the Earth takes to make a full orbit of the Sun. Similarly a day is how long it takes for the earth to rotate around it's axis.

What you say is vaguely possible, I guess... but it takes more faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. I believe that an unconscious process may have given rise to a set of conditions that created the universe. I don't believe anything beyond a point that has not been demonstrated to be factually true and when asked about it I check to see if what I'm saying is accurate. How does that take more faith than saying that, somehow a human-like all powerful mind, was fully functional and existing without apparent rhyme or reason, spoke the universe into existence, somehow, specifically for us as a species and me in particular because it loves us and me? While also being willing to torture us/ me forever should I do things it doesn't like?

Also: Steve. Can you please just cut out the ad honinem when it's by itself like that? I don't have a problem with rewriting something but when it doesn't cost you any effort or time to do something I'd be grateful if I didn't have too. Thank you. Nope, it's not. If he was saying "Matter has always been" but not Eternal...it's just been here since the Beginning of the Universe...then ok, I guess that's fair. But where did the first matter come from....? Don't know. We might find out someday. I believe there are some theories but they all seem fairly shaky to me and I don't really have the understanding to cover it. It also doesn't matter. You'd need to demonstrate a God before you can honestly say that "God did it." No it can't....unless you take the Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science" to the Woodshed and beat them Senseless. The laws of thermodynamics cover normal conditions. They kinda break down at extremely high heats and pressures and extremely low heats and pressures. There can be no moment of higher heat and pressure than a very small space that contains all of our current universe. (And the breakdown at extremely low heats and pressures exemption is why the universe is losing energy as it expands and the extremely high pressure, extremely high heat exemption is the basis behind the whole "Zero Point energy" thing. Which I'm fairly sure is fake but I've heard about experiments trying to generate +energy and so it deserves a very salty mention.) Or an almighty anthropomorphic super-being? Factually and Logically Incorrect. For Finite (Matter...or anything else) to exist....Infinite or Eternal MUST Exist. SEE: Aristotle's: "Prime Mover"/Unmoved Mover". There has to be an Un-Caused First Cause for there to be anything Finite. Which could be the universe creating itself. We don't know yet and I certainly don't. Look in the mirror, are you Finite? If Yes, there MUST be Infinite/Eternal (SEE: Above) So what is the infinite/ eternal? I will ask. If everything except God requires a cause. What makes God exempt from requiring a cause? And wouldn't God also be "a number of billions of years that I don't feel like looking up" old if time has only existed from the moment it created time? Begging The Question Fallacy. You're again, well outside "science's" purview here. Or, you can go ahead and Validate via the Scientific Method.....? Nope. Begging the question is taking a conclusion as one of your premises. This is merely one of my premises as the age of the universe is evidently finite. It is one of your premises as well. If your talking about age... Also nope. I refuse to talk to you about your beliefs about experimental viability and/ or "historical science." (Needs more sarcastic quotes.) """""historical science.""""" I admit that it's hypocritical of me. Take it as a win if you want. I just can't bring myself to care.

Yeah. OK. That was out of line. Enoch: I apologize without reservation. Enoch: Saying that "Matter has always been" equals "The Universe is Eternal." Is a strawman. The universe could very well be eternal as the cosmos could encompass an inter-dimensional causal chain, looping back in on itself or there could be come causal dead zone with an intelligence residing in it (God) or something or something else that I don't know but near as we can tell matter and this universe made from it has been around for a finite time. Matter, or the energetic components that make up matter, came into existence at the same point or as close to the same point that we cannot currently differentiate them as time. A number of billions of years ago that I don't feel like looking up. To say that something existed before a "First Event" is nonsensical. And I'm fairly certain that we don't have evidence to support there being anything before that.

I'd like to go over this point by point to keep things simple and clear. 1. What are the needs of the soul? Is there an experience analogous to hunger? Does it expend energy by existing? 2. What is meant when people say "The Soul is Dead until it joins again with Christ?" (Or some variation on the term. "Dead in our souls" I believe is the exact phrase.) 3. Is a soul a blank slate at birth or does it have a "nature?" Does the soul prescribe behavior? Does it prescribe the same behavior as our DNA does? 4. If man is limited by his perspective. Is the soul likewise limited? If so: How? 5. Is it accurate to say that I am a soul. I have a body? 6. Does my soul have all my experiences? 7. Do I currently have a soul? I understand that some christian sects believe that people are dead, truly and entirely dead, until revelation. When they're revived and their "sins made plain for all to see." (Or a variation on the term.) Which I understand to mean that a soul, an immaterial version of me, isn't 8. (This is tied to the abortion issue so ignore this question if you think it'll start an argument ) When 9. Does heaven occupy space or does it have spacial dimensions? How would a soul interact with that space? 10. Does a soul interact with our space? 11. Can a soul be killed? Or made to cease processing information? 12. What is the relationship between our soul and what we learn? Does a soul know how to talk? Can soul do math? 13. What is the relationship between a soul and brain chemistry? If I get drunk does what the soul experience change? If I get brain damaged and drop 40 IQ points is my soul now a moron? 14. How is my soul different of a religious person? How is it different to another atheists? How is it different to that of somebody who was born retarded? Is the retarded persons soul also retarded? 15. What does a soul experience after death? 16. Does a soul have sensation now? Would it have sensation when I'm dead? 17. What makes a soul happy? Is that different now to what would make a soul happy in heaven? Hell? 18. Is a soul a 1:1 copy of me now? Is that different when I'm dead? Is that different when I'm alive and when my soul is also alive? 19. Is a soul analogous to whatever God is? Is the difference that of ability if we were "made in his image?" 20. How does a soul communicate with another soul? 21. How does a soul communicate with God? 22. How does a soul communicate with my body? 23. Is my mind my soul? That's all I can think of right now. Thanking you very much.

<<<Removed insult/debating the person>>> Please remember to debate the subject, not the person (per the Terms of Service). If you are getting frustrated with someone it may be best to step away from the thread for a time.

It doesn't follow that hundreds of changes across thousands of generations will pile together to equal thousands of changes across millions of generations? Quite simply, No... on several counts. Where are you getting your numbers from btw? Then demonstrate it in a manner that isn't stupid and doesn't lie. These ones? My butt. They're to illustrate a point not be exact. I understand you point, there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the terms "macro" and "micro" evolution. Which is why they're seldom used in a scientific context. The only time I've seen the terms used is in debates against evolution. Pretty much. I wonder what could have caused such a confluence of displayed genes and phenotype. Yes. Evolution happens at a greatly increased rate when population sizes shrink. Demonstrating that you do accept evolution. Yes. Again. Only when reduced to tiny interbreeding populations. Which is why internationalization is one of the criteria by which we mark (de-mark?) a species. You have agreed with established scientific fact on every-point here. What's the problem? And now you're off the deep end. Relative complexity of DNA is relatively unimportant. (Once the DNA has been established that is.) What matters is which genes express themselves across a lifeforms life. Is torso size or limb structure about "complexity?" How about the ability to better digest some substances over others? If I had vampire fangs, three fingers and a tail would my DNA be more "complex" than yours? (I've always wanted a tail.) What evolutionary timeframes? Are the ~four hundred million years of reproducing life not enough? And we have them both. And you just referenced our observations of evolution in action. And we (Which I'm including you in because these discoveries were made as much on my behalf as yours.) also have the fossil record, taxonomic observations that preceded Darwin, comparative biology, and philogenetics. All seven of which cross confirm each other and support the principle. We (Including you remember.) have everything. Edit: I included an absolute statement. Dumb of me.

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. Not your world perhaps. In mine God is everything.Jerry just posited a senario where God is in everything without devaluing observations made that do not exclude it's existence. In what way do you read that to disagree with him?

It doesn't follow that hundreds of changes across thousands of generations will pile together to equal thousands of changes across millions of generations?

We can observe gravity We do it by measuring the relative state of matter. Ok, show us a Pic.....? Would you also like a picture of speed, eight or temperature? Gravity is an attribute of matter and it's relationship with other matter. I can't show you a picture of if. That's not how that works. And, are you saying Gravity affects Time? That's a consequence of special and general relativity You're gonna need another "Theory". First of all "Time" is Immaterial. What is Time? Stephen Hawking writes a 200 page book: "A Brief History of Time"...look in the glossary, what's Missing? You guessed it...."TIME" (doh!) Can you put some in a jar and paint it red? It's a concept and a convention. Time = a conceptual relationship between 2 motions. Can you travel "through" a Conceptual Relationship? Time can be Dilated? Please show how you can dilate a conceptual relationship? Time "Moves", We can Travel "Through" Time, Time can be "Dilated". Hmmm, Concepts are Physical?? The Whole Nightmare is a Logical Fallacy: Reification. Professionalism in State Government is a Concept...can we "move through" it ? How about "Dilating" Freedom? Lets conduct a Thought Experiment: According to General Relativity, "Time" will move slower the the closer and you are to Earth or a Body due to Gravity. Ok, Lets use a Gravitational Clock... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were. We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top. We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster? Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again. Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped! Because there's no Sand entering the bulb. Which "Clock" is moving slower? Define Falsified? Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation. You're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention". You're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity. This is not something I'm familiar with I keep getting caught up on it and I'd always thought of it as being axiomatic. You may be right. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. I'm going to do some reading on the subject and come back to the point. Force in formal terms is just momentum. Along with velocity it's a component of how we describe energy in a particle. So a "Force" is how you "describe" Energy? .... Of course not. Would you call lettuce a sandwich? "It is important to realize in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is". Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics) Quote mine. Again. He then elaborates on what he means: There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call “energy,” that does not change in the manifold changes that nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy “is.” We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas. We can model it. We know what it does and how it does it. We don't know what it is. The same is true for all of the fundamental forces. Give us time and then you can say the same thing about Quartle. (Quartle being the mechanism via which energy functions.) And now you're being pedantic. Again. Illustrating: serve as an example of. Explain: make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts. Describe: give a detailed account in words of. (Will talk about how your wrong about the scientific method when I get to that.)

To put it as simply as possible. Evolution: Reproduction with variation. Creature A is born and is slightly different to it's parents. (Creatures 0) Creature A's spawn are again, slightly different. Until after thousands of generations Creature X is dissimilar enough to Creatures 0 that they can no longer be considered the same species. Micro-Evolution: An extremely small amount of evolution. Mutation on the scale where Creature X is still similar to Creature 0 but they can still interbreed. Creature X may have a differently shaped head, retractable claws and is better at digesting berries but it is still the same species as Creature 0. Macro-Evolution: Large amounts of evolution. Creature X has entirely different proportions, a different diet, it's bigger and sleeps in trees rather than burrows. It is a different species to Creature 0 and a different species again to Creature's Y and Z. But they're all still related to Creature 0. Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place. To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

I'm on my phone and as so I'm just answering a little of this spiel now. This balooned out faster than I thought it would. Would you mind if I used that as my sig? ================================================================== First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words. And "Charges"? Where'd you get them....Atoms? That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. You're either not paying attention or I'm failing to explain. Possibly both. OK. An analogy. Space time is a large sheet stretched taut over a frame. I take a cricket ball and it creates an impression on the fabric. It pushes down and warps the sheet. I take a marble and put it on the sheet. It rolls down to meet the cricket ball and the cricket ball rolls, ever so slightly towards it. The masses have been drawn to each other by the force of gravity. The impression in the fabric is there wether or not the a second mass is there. Gravity is mass acting on the fabric of space time. Ignore the electromagnetism example. It just complicates the issue. Huh? Special Relativity was postulated in 1905. General Relativity was postulated in 1916. How can something be a "Correction" for another thing that didn't exist for over 10 years? Huh? Where are you getting your information from? Einstein didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics...he tried to Debunk It lol: Einstein proposed a thought experiment to debunk Quantum Mechanics: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 Ironically, it "Debunked" Him. Does Special Relativity ("one of The best supported theories in the history of the world") postulate that nothing can go faster than the Speed of Light? If so, it's in BIG Trouble! The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics were set by: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, et al. I mispoke: General relativity is one of the most supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects special relativity blah, blah, blah. What I said before with the terms reversed. And in that: "Blah, blah, blah" lies the answer to your response. It's an exception. We're replacing reletivity with something that looks just like it ty except that can account for quantum entanglement. We didn't say that Newtonian mechanics was invalid because it failed to accurately model Mercury's orbit. Because it applies so well in every other case. It's the same thing here. Now we just need to explain why quantum entanglement works the way it does. (It will take a long time and I'm glad I'm not the one doing it.) Why would Eienstein objecting to Quantum Mechanic's matter more than any other dude? He was evidently wrong. Science is a self correcting process. I'm getting my information from 2/3'ds remembered science lessons and agamenting that with the internet when I'm not sure or don't understand something. Why do you ask? Edit: I mixed terms again. Reletivity. Not Quantum Mechanics.

The forum didn't let me post the entire response (Too many blocks of quoted text.) so I broke it in half. Thirds actually. This is word salad. You haven't constructed a point. You seem passionate about this. Please calm down and start with your first premise. A quote by itself means nothing- S_A_M (Australia. Spare Office at home. The Comfortable Chair. 22/10/14) It's an appeal to authority and that's fallacious. (It worked too. I spent an hour reading up on Crichton and Venter.) You still haven't demonstrated your point and I'm not going to look up the specific context of that quote this time because you reference the specific example right after. I'm not sure what you mean by "The Red Shift Fiasco." I assume that it refers to the phenomina that light appears to be blue shifted when calculated using special relativity and red shifted when calculated using general relativity. That's actually quite simple horribly complicated. It's just not intuitive. (I know how this works but I've never quite wrapped my head around it.) Special relativity means, in it's simplest possible form, Physics as applied to very fast things. General relativity covers all other cases. (Gross oversimplification but it works for this instance.) So when observing light from an object traveling at the speed of light, the light would appear blue shifted. You're meeting the light as it comes to you. "Pushing it back." That's the Doppler effect in action. So if light is emitted from an object that is traveling at the speed of light and is observed by an object that is also traveling at the speed of light. We can intuit that they would appear to be traveling at the same rate. If we pull to cars up against each other when they're traveling at the same speed they appear to cross ground with each other. However what happens is that light emitted by both light speed objects still appears blue shifted. In order to appear that way light would have to be traveling faster than itself. (This is also where time dilation comes from. That's not relevant but I think you'll bring it up so I'm just getting ahead of the game and say that it's not relevant to this specific instance of this conversation.) So rather than using the general case for calculating red or blue shift using special relativism needs to use an exception that accounts for that. An equation we have. (There is also the "Red Shift Fiasco" that applies to light as bent by gravity but this is the version I'm more familiar with.) Am I making sense? Oh honey: I can do this all night. But I won't as I'm tired. Goodnight everybody.

That's actually really nice. Thank you. Enoch: I'm guessing you just skimmed my first post here. That second instance of sloppy editing I mentioned and apologized for wasn't entirely my fault. Sentences following from a initial statement generally have something to do with the thought that preceded it. F'sure. I also missed some context which I'll fill in now. The larger context this comes from is from an interview about the difficulties of curing the common cold and why the ongoing research to vaccinate people is a stop gap measure. In the question before this one it is one that asks why the various companies and universities that are funding the research are funding research that is profitable, not necessarily the research that would best benefit people or would most greatly advance the total knowledge of the human race. (Perfect example with the current ebola plague. Six months ago our (The Australian) Prime Minister's office shut down many of our government funded medical research facilities. Including one that was working on the ebola vaccine that is currently undergoing trials in Africa. [snip]A brief tirade against politicians in general and the Abbot government in particular.[/snip]) This is not an indictment on "Peer Review" in the form of circulating research and getting it checked by others. (Which is what you implied.) It's an indictment of the larger context under which research is financed and the results published. As a result the "Imprisoned Scientists" who are trapped by the peer review system are running the prison because when put into a position of power they choose to focus on the more profitable research rather than that which best serves people as a whole. Despite that being what they presumably want to do. It's anti-capitalism. Not pro-ludite. And I was also wrong, at least in part, about the Michael Crichton quote. It's from a lecture he gave in 2003 called "Aliens Cause Global Warming" The point you left out here is the underlined section. (The "emboldened" section being what you quoted.) It hasn't been demonstrated that the Theories of Relativity are inaccurate or that the positions you have supported are factually true. (Not all the positions you may hold. It would be disengenious of me to say that. Just the one's you've mentioned so far that have been debunked. [see below for continuation.]) Special relativity is one of the best supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects general relativity and is a foundation of quantum mechanics. It supports our current models of the nature of time and space. Every prediction it has made has proven to be accurate. (With the possible exception of "Field equations for two or more masses" I think that may be a variation on the two and three body problem, which have been solved but I'm keeping an open mind for when you get back to me on that.) Even if it were shown to be inaccurate on some points it would be replaced by something that is exactly like it except for those exceptions. That's what we did with Newtonian mechanics. Because it works. So yes. Quote mine on both points. I'm honestly not sure what you mean. There's some confusing syntax here. I get that your going to demonstrate your point about the bancrupcy of the scientific method but I'm not sure what thought of mine you're responding too or if this is more than a slightly convoluted segue that I just don't understand. Not sure if the introduction to point #1 is important so if it is, please inform me. Not really. Science in it's application is a prediction of phenomena. The "Scientific Method" is just a formalized way of doing it that has been proven to produce results. (You're using an extremely impressive result right now.) Same with other thought tools like formal reason or various mathematical proofs. It's simpler applications are still science, just less formal. "If I input energy to this sharpened stick and propel it towards that animal I will get meat." Is a predictive model of the universe that may produce meat. "This hunk of meat is larger than that hunk of meat. I will receive more calories from it." Is an application of reason and displays a learnt understanding of how a part of the universe functions. It's just raw-er. Like the meat. You're going to need really good proof to convince me anybody that these are "Pretend science." (Though badly done anthropology is quite close. It's still science it's just... Intuitive and inelegant.) Paleontology is applied evolutionary biology, which is applied comparative anatomy, which is applied biology. Anthropology is the application of history, sociology, psychology, biology, Or to put it another way. Anthropology is the application of applied, applied, applied biology, applied, applied biology, applied biology and biology. Geology is applied chemistry, physics and tectonics. Evolutionary Biology is applied comparative biology, genetics and biochemistry. Theoretical Physics is applied mathmatics. Cosmology is applied quantum physics and a touch of chemistry. (Like a tablespoons worth of sugar in the sea.) And you can absolutely repeat cosmological experiments. I'm just going to reference the most famous as I'm fairly sure you're familiar with it. A prediction made by the big bang theory was that the amount of radiation observable in the apparent universe would be approximately 160gigahertz. (I believe that it was a prediction of 158-163Ghz but ti's late and I don't feel like looking it up.) When they put the hypothesis to the test and measured the Universal Background Radiation they found that it was 160.2GHz. The experiment is repeatable in that whenever somebody else measures the UBR they will find it to be 160.2GHz and any alternate cosmological model they put forward would need to account for a level of microwave radiation equivalent to that. You walk into a room and see an overturned table, broken glass on the floor, a dead goldfish in the middle of the glass and a pool of warm water. You couldn't test how that happened could you? You can't observe evidence and construct a scenario that would produce those four things in parallel could you? It's in the past and beyond our reach forever. Just flush the fish and let it go. Of course not. Observation is a single component of a test. Would you say that bread is a sandwich? Of course not. Would you say that sliced deli meat is a sandwich? Of course not. Would you call a sandwich; butter? True statements. How are they relevant?

That is a clearer, more concise version of exactly what I was trying to say. Bro: You're a legend. That's a Common Misconception?? For that to be a "Common Misconception" you would have to show ONE Solution to Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more Masses.....? Or are you saying you can have Gravity without any Matter or just one "body" of Matter? If so, Well that was a poorly formatted response in my part. I was referring to the second of your quoted statements. I left the sentence there that referred to general relativity rather than gravity specifically only through sloppy editing. Though I'll happily have a look at the "Field Equation for 2 or more masses" for/ with you. (Though I'll have to take a moment to work out what you mean. I'm an absolute layman.) OK. So I've spent ~20 mins googling and I'm starting to get a handle on this. (I think.) I'm going to deffer to a future post though. I'm meeting up with friends in ~30 mins and I wanna post as complete a response as I can before I go. As for this bit: That's a common misconception. We are able to observe gravity by looking at it's effects (affects?) on matter and for non-scientific purposes that is an adequate explanation. But gravity is best described as a force exerted by matter on space/time. There needn't be carrier packets like with an electromagnetic field. Or are you saying you can have Gravity without any Matter or just one "body" of Matter? If so, That's exactly what I'm saying. Alpha expressed it in a far superior way to myself so I'm just going to refer you to his post. We can observe gravity We do it by measuring the relative state of matter. That's how we observe most things. We use Gradiometers. (Though I'll admit I'm not sure how they work.) That's a consequence of special and general relativity yes but apart from gravity effecting (affecting?) time and it being described by Force in formal terms is just momentum. Along with velocity it's a component of how we describe energy in a particle. So I can't show you a picture. It's an attribute of a non-visual thing. Force in matter on a scale we can visualize is the description of how much kinetic energy an object in motion carries. So again. I can't show you a picture. If you choose to call force a Q instead you either have an awesome supporting character or the exact same thing that I just described. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." It doesn't matter what you call something, it doesn't change what it is. A triangle is a two dimensional shape with three sides. A flurblequatran is a two dimensional shape with three sides. And this may be a trap to get me to imply that I'm smarter than you or something but I'll play. I'm more accurate in my description. Really? #3. Did I "Quote Mine" Myself.... since I wrote it? "Oh. Pleasure to meet you Mr Crichton. How'd you get past that whole death thing? Doesn't matter. Sorry. Just a little flustered. I loved Next so much and Prey was a big part of my early teenager hood. It's so cool to meet you." This was sloppy editing on my part again. I was referring to the two quotes you have as point one and two. I'm out of time again. Will get to the rest of this when I get home. Edit: Fixed a tiny typo.