New earth-like planet discovered

[nwigal]

Everything is alive. A planet is no more dead because of absence of organic life than a dog is with the absence of fleas.

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Bud, I don't want to speak for Nienna, and I feel I have already made that mistake without asking for correction if I misunderstood, but what I feel was meant as a light-hearted comment seems to have hit you rather strongly.

I think you may have misunderstood the comments as a disagreement against what you wrote.

I do not believe that was the intention of Nienna's comment, not was it my intention.

What seemed ironic was, if thinking in terms of unlimited potential for the discovery of life, even just physical life, on other planets, to only search for Earth-like planets would certainly be a limitation.

Even if we forget about the possibility that gaseous planets to a 3-D observer could appear as an Earth-life paradise to a higher density observer, we have to consider that life exists in forms other than those found in Earth's environments as such a consideration is Earth-centric and does not take into considerations the myriad other possibilities of consciousness manifested in form.

You mention that thinking without limit requires a focus and I agree.

I thought the focus was the search for life on other planets. It appeared that, while on one hand discussing thinking without limits, that you were actually limiting by also only considering Earth-like planets, which is synonymous to any of us trying to think about the way we think by using the way we think.

I realize you were not looking for that in the discussion you were trying to start, and, as you know, this happens often on the forum.

We are accustomed to seeing scientists have difficulty stretching their imagination. So, it would seem fair, in attempts to think without limit, to notice the article and the research it was referencing was certainly Earth-centric, as if no other form of life exists beyond Earth's offerings.

And it would seem fair, that when a forum member tries to think without limit, but sets a boundary around what he wants to discuss, that we see the humour in that.

It is apparent now that you were selecting only one area out of many to focus on, but when the reader combines the quote you provided from the Cs about limitless thinking, your statement that, in the spirit of the quote, you were going to attempt such thinking, and the discussion limited to Earth-like planets, some could see an apparent contradiction, even if it was not your intention, and even if what you wrote was successful in stretching the conventional boundaries of thought.

Therefore the very boundary itself may have appeared like a limitation to any reader to whom your intention was not obvious and ironic in light of how you framed it.

That's all there was to it, at least for me. There was no challenge to the validity of your line of thinking whatsoever and no need to react.

Gonzo

 

[Nienna]

That is interesting. Since the C's advise to learn to think in unlimited possibilities, I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere.

To really think in unlimited possibilities, why would you limit life being on only earth-like planets? Could there not be life on planets that would not support humans? That are not in the "Goldilock's zone"?

Why would other life have to be like us? Look at all the life around thermal vents in the oceans. Places where scientists thought nothing would ever be able to live. So, too, could there be other entities that can live in environments that would not sustain us. Or so I think.

Sorry Nienna, but I'm a bit confused. What is it about my statement that suggests I "limit life being on only earth-like planets?"

After reading through the responses, it seems that you are taking this in a rather hard way. Gonzo was correct in correlation to my thinking. Yes, you were talking about the article, and I am aware of that. Since you were talking about seeing things in an unlimited way, I didn't realize that we were putting limitations on this by only talking about what was mentioned in the article. Also, I was talking not only to you, but you, plural, as in everyone.

One doesn't just "think without limits", one has to "think without limits" with respect to something as a focus of thought.

Yes, and I was thinking without limits in respect to life on other planets. I was pointing out that there is so much more to consider than just eath-like planets. So I suppose our referencing was different.

I still find it interesting that you have responded in such an emotional way.

Is there something else that is bothering you?

 

[Buddy]

I still find it interesting that you have responded in such an emotional way.

Is there something else that is bothering you?

Not at all :). At the moment I'm just fascinated at the differences between our perceptions/understanding of that single printed sentence and my subsequent accounting of my reasoning process (which is how one exercises responsibility for what one has said).

If we look at the discussion from the perspective of 'figure and ground', the reason for the misunderstanding may become more clear.

If we take as 'ground', that all relationships exist by default, or all possibilities exist or there is no reason to assume any limits on any particular possibility (infinite possibilities), then the statement "...I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere" still leaves all possibilities intact. All possibilities, including the ones you mentioned and many, many more still exist as possibilities and are understood to be (implicit) as the ground, or context, in which the statement is made because the C's advice was explicitly stated beforehand.

Since the statement, itself, does not limit or disallow any possibilities, then I was surprised ( ) that you asked:

That is interesting. Since the C's advise to learn to think in unlimited possibilities, I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere.

To really think in unlimited possibilities, why would you limit life being on only earth-like planets?

...because it suggested to me that you did not understand that all possibilities still exist as possibilities and that you must have interpreted my statement against a background that assumes 'dis-allowance' since you felt it necessary to assert some possibilities and to ask "...why would you limit life...?".

That seems to be the crux of the matter, nothing more. :)

It thrills me to no end to be able to discuss something in depth, including underlying assumptions and such and I would even like to do it more often, so I would like to make it clear that I am not emotional or anything of the sort with respect to this discussion, nor do I wish it to be seen as "a big deal" or "making a mountain out of a molehill" or any of the other various ways that people in our everyday life attempt to shut down discussion when they become uncomfortable, so I appreciate the opportunity to explain myself as deeply as I can and to ask the same thing in return from others (if I can figure out how to do it without ticking them off :D).

 

[Buddy]

when the reader combines the quote you provided from the Cs about limitless thinking, your statement that, in the spirit of the quote, you were going to attempt such thinking, and the discussion limited to Earth-like planets, some could see an apparent contradiction...

OK, fair enough. I see it. For the record, I failed to foresee the possibility that someone would think I was "going to attempt such thinking". Rather, I figured the C's idea would be understood as being placed as the background of assumptions "ground" against which my statement "figure" would be distinguished. My bad. :D Thanks for your input. :)

 

[Gonzo]

I am still left wondering if you understand what occurred though, Bud.

I was a little surprised by your responses. The amount of energy you invested in explaining yourself, as if you were misunderstood, when in fact, I believe you misunderstood.

Now one could say that Nienna's comment, followed by mine, could demonstrate that we misunderstood you, but that wasn't necessarily the case.

The irony still stands. Even if you were expressing an awareness of all possibilities and expressed that you would like to focus on Earth-like planets existing beyond the area considered by the article, there is a degree of humour in that, when using such a framing as the Cs direction to think without limit, it seems like we still find ourselves taking baby steps in the grand scheme of things.

This was not, however, a joke at your expense, rather an acknowledgment of how hard it truly is to think in such limitless ways and why a network is essential to continue building upon each other's envisioning, thereby pushing the bounds of thought from minds inexperienced in such an exercise.
It reminds me of Laura's thread on creating the ideal world. There are so many pages now that it would require a newcomer great effort to read through them only to discover we have yet to come up with a model that will work. We've gotten far, in terms of realizing our limitations in thinking and pushing those boundaries as well. Once we figure out how to deal with psychopathy in a way that respects universal laws and protects humans, we will be able to push even farther along.

This discussion was a case of apples and oranges being discussed as the same fruit. It seemed you didn't understand the intent or context of the comments and seemed to have felt that, if you better explained yourself, we would understand you.

Since I too felt your reaction out of character and yet you didn't sense anything going on internally, perhaps you've happened upon a very subtle program.

Not knowing you well enough, the nest I can offer is how I personally might have felt.

I might have felt misunderstood, which happened enough in my youth to have become a tender point.

I might have felt that my prized intellect was being questioned, which relates also to my youth, growing up with a genius older brother and an intellectual father who's approval I constantly sought.

I might have felt somewhat slighted for taking a chance on thinking without limitation only to be met with criticism and possibly ridicule.

Those are some of the areas I have identified in myself and I offer them and the line of thinking as something for you to consider.

Interesting... Not to sidetrack, but I had a situation last night with my partner where I felt my emotions starting to cloud my attempts at objectivity. I tried so hard to trace the feelings backward through time but, since I was engaged in the conversation, I couldn't multi-task. The best I could do was listen and pay attention to my body and mind, postponing analysis. When I tried to think about them today, I couldn't access much information as the emotions were gone and the slight connections I made the night before slipped away like a fading memory of a dream.

You may have to replay the entire situation perhaps by re-reading and see if it conjures/triggers anything. That is, unless you already did so.

By the way, I was quite interested in what you were saying vis a vis the initial topic but, since we are here to also learn about ourselves, share, help and grow, I think this portion of the dialogue important. I don't think this is making mountains out of mole hills. Growth, sharing and trust will most likely be the result and I think that worthy enough to put the thinking stuff to the side for a moment longer. You, and not just your mind, are worth it.
Yeuch, that sounded a tad flakey, but I hope you get the gist.

Gonzo

 

[Buddy]

Growth, sharing and trust will most likely be the result and I think that worthy enough to put the thinking stuff to the side for a moment longer. You, and not just your mind, are worth it.
Yeuch, that sounded a tad flakey, but I hope you get the gist.

Gonzo

Yeah, I get what you're saying and I like it. I'll go back over everything and post any observations that seem related or otherwise worthwhile. :)

 

[WhiteBear]

What seemed ironic was, if thinking in terms of unlimited potential for the discovery of life, even just physical life, on other planets, to only search for Earth-like planets would certainly be a limitation.

Personally, I don't think they're looking for "life" so much as a place that is Earth-like enough to be more easily exploited for resources.

 

[Gonzo]

Personally, I don't think they're looking for "life" so much as a place that is Earth-like enough to be more easily exploited for resources.

Or a new home once ours is uninhabitable.

Mind you, in my experience working with government scientists, they are often more curious than one might expect. I've yet to come across one that acts or thinks in a way that is often ascribed to "they", with the exception of a few who might be looking to leave government and startup a lucrative business using their government research as the platform.

However, to have whatever project they dream up get accepted, they need to express a significant need that would be satisfied by the research so that the policy makers and bean counters are appeased, especially in this era of dwindling dollars.

And there certainly are some who climb the ladder and become a high level decision maker and therefore a target for backroom political interference, also know as "guidance".

So, it is entirely possible that someone high up decided to invest in searching for Earth-like planets that fit a specific profile to increase the odds of finding precious resources and disguising it as a search for E.T. The scientists though, would have to be kept in the dark as to the true purpose as they are generally committed to loftier goals than planetary rape (in my experience anyway).

Gonzo

 

[truth seeker]

Growth, sharing and trust will most likely be the result and I think that worthy enough to put the thinking stuff to the side for a moment longer. You, and not just your mind, are worth it.
Yeuch, that sounded a tad flakey, but I hope you get the gist.

Gonzo

Yeah, I get what you're saying and I like it. I'll go back over everything and post any observations that seem related or otherwise worthwhile. :)

I just want to add that I think Gonzo brings up some valid points in his last post to you. It can feel scary to be seen but know that we really have your best interests at heart. If you feel up to it, please try and take the time to use this as an opportunity to push past any fears you may have. Know that we will not react in the way you may have become accustomed to with those you grew up with. There is no blame here, no judgement of you as a person. Behaviors and ways of thinking are not the individuals themselves.

Don't beat up on yourself or think there is something wrong with you (if that's what's going on). We care very much for you and want to see you thrive and not just simply exist.

I too am sensitive to criticism whether actual or perceived and would do everything possible to avoid getting into such situations. I notice this tendency in your posts.

If you want, feel free when your comfortable to post about it in the swamp. I think it will be of great use. As Gonzo said, you're worth it!

 

[Windmill knight]

In view of all the recent talk about 'disclosure', I find this "remarkable coincidence" very interesting.

Does ET live on Goldilocks planet? How scientists spotted 'mysterious pulse of light' from direction of newly-discovered '2nd Earth' two years ago

By Niall Firth
Last updated at 8:03 AM on 1st October 2010

An astronomer picked up a mysterious pulse of light coming from the direction of the newly discovered Earth-like planet almost two years ago, it has emerged.

Dr Ragbir Bhathal, a scientist at the University of Western Sydney, picked up the odd signal in December 2008, long before it was announced that the star Gliese 581 has habitable planets in orbit around it.

A member of the Australian chapter of SETI, the organisation that looks for communication from distant planets, Dr Bhathal had been sweeping the skies when he discovered a 'suspicious' signal from an area of the galaxy that holds the newly-discovered Gliese 581g.

The remarkable coincidence adds another layer of mystery to the announcement last night that scientists had discovered another planet in the system: Gliese 581g - the most Earth-like planet ever found.

Dr Bhathal's discovery had come just months before astronomers announced that they had found a similar, slightly less habitable planet around the same star 20 light years away. This planet was called Gliese 581e.

When asked about his discovery at the time Dr Bhathal admitted he had been really excited about what he had possibly stumbled across.

He said: 'Whenever there’s a clear night, I go up to the observatory and do a run on some of the celestial objects. Looking at one of these objects, we found this signal.

'And you know, I got really excited with it. So next I had to analyse it. We have special software to analyse these signals, because when you look at celestial objects through the equipment we have, you also pick up a lot of noise.'

He went on: 'We found this very sharp signal, sort of a laser lookalike thing which is the sort of thing we’re looking for - a very sharp spike. And that is what we found. So that was the excitement about the whole thing.'

For months after his discovery Dr Bhathal scanned the skies for a second signal to see whether it was just a glitch in his instrumentation but his search came to nothing.

But the discovery of Earth-like planets around Gliese 581 - both 581e and 581d, which was in the habitable zone - has also caught the public imagination.

Documentary-maker RDF and social-networking site Bebo used a radio telescope in Ukraine to send a powerful focused beam of information - 500 messages from the public in the form of radiowaves - to Gliese 581.

And the Australian science minister at the time organised 20,000 users of Twitter to send messages towards the distant solar system in the wake of the discoveries.


And Dr Steven Vogt who led the study at the University of California, Santa Cruz, today said that he was '100 per cent sure ' that there was life on the planet.

The planet lies in the star's 'Goldilocks zone' - the region in space where conditions are neither too hot or too cold for liquid water to form oceans, lakes and rivers.

The planet also appears to have an atmosphere, a gravity like our own and could well be capable of life. Researchers say the findings suggest the universe is teeming with world like our own.

'If these are rare, we shouldn't have found one so quickly and so nearby,'

'The number of systems with potentially habitable planets is probably on the order of 10 or 20 per cent, and when you multiply that by the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, that's a large number. There could be tens of billions of these systems in our galaxy.'

He told Discovery News: 'Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it'.

The planet is so far away, spaceships travelling close to the speed of light would take 20 years to make the journey. If a rocket was one day able to travel at a tenth of the speed of light, it would take 200 years to make the journey.

Planets orbiting distant stars are too small to be seen by telescopes. Instead, astronomers look for tell-tale gravitational wobbles in the stars that show a planet is in orbit.

The findings come from 11 years of observations at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii.

The planet orbits a small red star called Gliese 581 in the constellation of Libra. The planet, named Glieseg, is 118,000,000,000,000 miles away - so far away that light from its start takes 20 years to reach the Earth.

It takes just 37 days to orbit its sun which means its seasons last for just a few days. One side of the planet always faces its star and basks in perpetual daylight, while the other is in perpetual darkness.

The most suitable place for life or future human colonists would be in the 'grey' zone - the band between darkness and light that circles the planet.

'Any emerging life forms would have a wide range of stable climates to choose from and to evolve around, depending on their longitude,' said Dr Vogt who reports the find in the Astrophysical Journal.

If Gliese 581g has a rocky composition similar to the Earth's, its diameter would be about 1.2 to 1.4 times that of the Earth. It's gravity is likely to be similar - allowing a human astronaut to walk on the surface upright without difficulty.

'This planet doesn't have days and nights. Wherever you are on this planet, the sun is in the same position all the time. You have very stable zones where the ecosystem stays the same temperature... basically forever,' Vogt said.

'If life can evolve, it's going to have billions and billions of years to adapt to the surface. Given the ubiquity of water, it seems probable that this thing actually has liquid water. On the surface of the Earth, everywhere you have liquid water you have life,' Vogt added.

Astronomers have now found six planets in orbit around Gliese 581 - the most discovered in a planetary system other than our own solar system.

Like the solar system, the planets orbiting Gliese 581 have mostly circular orbits.

Two of its detected planets have previously been proposed as habitable planets. However they lie at the extremes of the Goldilocks Zone - one on the hot side, the other on the cold side.

Gliese 581g, in contrast, lies right in the middle.

The star has not been given a proper name. It appears in a catalogue of stars compiled by the German astronomer William Gliese where it has been given the reference number 581.

Astronomers name planets found orbiting stars with a letter.

The previous five planets found around Gliese 581 were named b to f, making the latest discovery Gliese 581g.

Its star is a red giant - a massive star near the end of its life. It is too dim to see in the night sky from Earth without a telescope.

Astronomers have found nearly 500 exoplanets - or planets outside our own solar system.

However, almost all are too big, made of gas instead of rock, too hot or too cold for life as we know it.

 

[Nienna]

In view of all the recent talk about 'disclosure', I find this "remarkable coincidence" very interesting.

And these remarkable coincidences seem to be popping up everywhere. Looking at Sott's Our Haunted Planet, you will find military people coming forward to tell us of alien intervention, pilots being interviewed by msm news about ufo sitings, and it seems that there are some more sci-fi movies coming out depicting aliens as the "bad guys" which is all to the benefit of disclosure eventually being able to be put forth as us earthlings needing to put more money into defense to be able to defend ourselves from them. Which is not going to help us in the hyper-dimensional feeding that is taking place, because nothing will ever go there to let people know the real truth of the situation.

Very interesting times.

 

[Nienna]

Growth, sharing and trust will most likely be the result and I think that worthy enough to put the thinking stuff to the side for a moment longer. You, and not just your mind, are worth it.
Yeuch, that sounded a tad flakey, but I hope you get the gist.

Gonzo

Yeah, I get what you're saying and I like it. I'll go back over everything and post any observations that seem related or otherwise worthwhile. :)

Bud, along with what Gonzo so elegantly wrote, I would like to say that the flavor I got from your post to me was that of a superior intellect being totally upset that he was being questioned by a more normal intellect.

This could just be me because I know how intellectual you and many others on this forum are. I also know that I am not an intellectual, never have been and never will be and I'm sure that you have picked up on this in my many posts. :) I am not ashamed of this because it takes many to make an orchestra and I am just of a different makeup. But the fact that someone who is not an intellectual questioning you may have also triggered something in you. This is just a fwiw.

And, as truth seeker said, we care very much about you.

 

[Buddy]

I would like to offer an observation or two. First, I went back and re-read the article linked in the first post on this thread. Strictly speaking, the point of the article was to report the following:

New Earth-like planet discovered
Astronomers have discovered a potentially habitable planet (Gliese 581g) of similar size to Earth in orbit around a nearby star. Gliese 581g lies squarely in the region of space were life can thrive.

As everything else in the article was essentially fill-in for context, my brain simply optimized it away until only the central fact remained:

New Earth-like planet discovered

In my mind, that is the 'stand-in' that represents the article and the only item of significance I took away from it, though I did note the concept and potential implications of the 'Goldilocks Zone".

I will grant the possibility that other people reading the same article were practically reeling with all kinds of possibilities and whatnot, so when they read my comment, it must have seemed quite sparse by comparison and therefore "limiting".

The C's comment about thinking in unlimited terms ultimately refers to the reality itself, and not just 'exercises' in trying to think in a certain way, so I thought that by mentioning it, it would then be obvious that my comment about "an Earth-like" planet was the only one that could be made that relates to the point of the article. After all, considering the article's point, as I understood it, anything else I could have said (and all those other possibilities were understood to be already there) would have literally been 'beside the point'.

It looks to me as if the differences in the interpretation of my post was related first, to the fact that it was viewed by me only in terms of what was relevant (to the point of the article) but it was viewed by others in terms of what all might be possible (in an absolute sense?), thus the seeming irony, as I understand it.

I don't see anything else.

When I read this:

That is interesting. Since the C's advise to learn to think in unlimited possibilities, I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere.

To really think in unlimited possibilities, why would you limit life being on only earth-like planets? Could there not be life on planets that would not support humans? That are not in the "Goldilock's zone"?

Why would other life have to be like us? Look at all the life around thermal vents in the oceans. Places where scientists thought nothing would ever be able to live. So, too, could there be other entities that can live in environments that would not sustain us. Or so I think.

Sorry Nienna, but I'm a bit confused. What is it about my statement that suggests I "limit life being on only earth-like planets?"

I see a simple misunderstanding of what I have described above, that's all. I don't see any point in further dissecting it bit by bit unless I'm asked to do so. I will use it as a lesson in making sure that my future meanings are as clear as I can possibly make them.

----------------------------------

I am still left wondering if you understand what occurred though, Bud.

I was a little surprised by your responses. The amount of energy you invested in explaining yourself, as if you were misunderstood, when in fact, I believe you misunderstood.

Well, I thought it obvious that I was misunderstood. After all, I was the first reply and the reply that followed mine and that quoted mine appeared to contain the first misunderstanding (from my point of view). And yes I do tend to put whatever energy into explaining myself that seems necessary in order to expand things so that you can see every little detail that I see and the way that I see it in the hopes that it might not only help understanding but will give me that deep down satisfying feeling of having been "seen" (and understood, of course), psychologically speaking. Not too many people enjoy being seen that deeply, you know?

Since I too felt your reaction out of character and yet you didn't sense anything going on internally, perhaps you've happened upon a very subtle program.

See above. The "reaction out of character" was just an earnest effort to help someone who appeared to be trying to understand what I was saying.

Not knowing you well enough, the nest I can offer is how I personally might have felt.

I might have felt misunderstood, which happened enough in my youth to have become a tender point.

I might have felt that my prized intellect was being questioned, which relates also to my youth, growing up with a genius older brother and an intellectual father who's approval I constantly sought.

I might have felt somewhat slighted for taking a chance on thinking without limitation only to be met with criticism and possibly ridicule.

Those are some of the areas I have identified in myself and I offer them and the line of thinking as something for you to consider.

Thanks for sharing those. All those areas have applied to me at one time or another in my life, but after what I've been through since starting this Work (what I have shared and what I have not), I really couldn't care less about 'approval' or even 'acceptance' as they relate to 'need'. All I want to know is "what is the truth...and what is collinear with the truth? That's what drives me right now.

I too am sensitive to criticism whether actual or perceived and would do everything possible to avoid getting into such situations. I notice this tendency in your posts.

I suppose 'sensitivity' is simply a part of my nature, but I can deal with that. As far as what I am more or less receptive to...I am very receptive to constructive criticism, even if it delivered callously, as long as I can see the sense in it and the applicability of it. :)

Bud, along with what Gonzo so elegantly wrote, I would like to say that the flavor I got from your post to me was that of a superior intellect being totally upset that he was being questioned by a more normal intellect.

This could just be me because I know how intellectual you and many others on this forum are. I also know that I am not an intellectual, never have been and never will be and I'm sure that you have picked up on this in my many posts. :) I am not ashamed of this because it takes many to make an orchestra and I am just of a different makeup. But the fact that someone who is not an intellectual questioning you may have also triggered something in you. This is just a fwiw.

I don't believe in the generality of "superior intellect" and I understand FRV certainly is not dependent on one's intellect. In fact, the idea that someone would look at me through such a filter makes me feel a little sick to my stomach, but I understand your point.

The fact that I find it useful to have the option to choose the words and phrases that seem to more precisely say what I want to say at certain times and in certain contexts doesn't have to be interpreted as "putting on airs" or "being superior", if that is what is going on. I can certainly see your humanity and your intelligence and that is what counts towards STO candidacy, OSIT. Never say never, Nienna. Leave all possibilities open. It's an exciting way to live! :)

 

[Nienna]

Bud, along with what Gonzo so elegantly wrote, I would like to say that the flavor I got from your post to me was that of a superior intellect being totally upset that he was being questioned by a more normal intellect.

This could just be me because I know how intellectual you and many others on this forum are. I also know that I am not an intellectual, never have been and never will be and I'm sure that you have picked up on this in my many posts. :) I am not ashamed of this because it takes many to make an orchestra and I am just of a different makeup. But the fact that someone who is not an intellectual questioning you may have also triggered something in you. This is just a fwiw.

I don't believe in the generality of "superior intellect" and I understand FRV certainly is not dependent on one's intellect. In fact, the idea that someone would look at me through such a filter makes me feel a little sick to my stomach, but I understand your point.

The fact that I find it useful to have the option to choose the words and phrases that seem to more precisely say what I want to say at certain times and in certain contexts doesn't have to be interpreted as "putting on airs" or "being superior", if that is what is going on. I can certainly see your humanity and your intelligence and that is what counts towards STO candidacy, OSIT. Never say never, Nienna. Leave all possibilities open. It's an exciting way to live! :)

Bud, I apologize. As I said above, this could just be me and it seems that this is the case. It was a program running which makes me feel inferior to those more intelligent and I was letting myself see things in a colored way. This is something I thank you for enabling me to see and something that I can now work on. Thank you for the opportunity to find, yet, another program.

And about the never say never - touche!