Rational vs. Irrational thought

[CloseTheBlastDo]

[edit]

As this thread has progressed, we have managed to develop a fairly solid definition of rational thinking.

I would like to summarise the points made throughout this thread and list them in clear, bullet form for easy reference.

 

To debate rationally, you:

* CANNOT say 'I believe X and Y ... and NOTHING you can say - and no evidence you can provide - will EVER persuade me otherwise'

 

* Cannot consider faith to be a subset of rationality, or a valid substitute for rationality. At best, it is used to 'complement' rational thinking.

 

* Cannot 'pick and choose' which valid evidence you will consider. It's all or none.

 

* Cannot use arguments based on 'emotion'. They may have a place in a debate, but they do not count as reasoned arguments, as the emotions are outside of reason. Do not argue them as if they should be seen with the same perspective as rational points.

Also note that:

* Rational thought is only effective when trying to determine EXTERNAL, or LITERAL truth - as opposed to individuals emotions or feelings (this can be considered INTERNAL or PERSONAL truth)

[/edit]

 

See also:The Line Between Science and Theology

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

 

 

It seems several individuals (very notably one ) want clarification as to what I consider to be 'rational' thinking as opposed to 'irrational'.

 

First of all, to make it VERY clear this is isn't just more Christian 'bashing', I have started a seperate thread.

THis isn't just about religious thinking - this is important for all areas of knowledge...

 

I would like to keep this thread free from specific beliefs as much as possible. This thread is to discuss the basic activity of knowledge 'seeking'. i.e. what is the correct method to determine what is true and what is false. Or does it even matter - is 'knowledge' just our own viewpoint - end of story...?

 

Anyway, let me continue with my ideas on 'rational' thought.

 

Here is an example of an irrational viewpoint:

 

'I believe in Santa Claus. And I don't care what anybody else says, I will always believe in Santa Claus, no matter what 'evidence' or argument is presented to oppose such a belief.'

 

Now, I hope no-one here wants to argue that that is a rational viewpoint. If you do then, well, this is going to be a TOUGH thread!!

 

But now, here's another exmple:

 

'I believe in evolution, and no matter what evidence is presented or found in the future, I will always believe in evolution - period. No-one will EVER convince me otherwise.'

 

Now, since evolution is a more 'rational' concept than Santa Claus, does that make the above statement 'rational'?

 

To me, NOT AT ALL. The second statement is JUST as irrational as the first one.

It doesn't matter that as far as I'm concerned, evolution IS the truth. This is irrelavent.

The fact is if you are not willing to accept rational arguments and evidence which even 'possibly' could refute your ideas, you are fundementally not willing to think rationally.

 

It's the intellectial equivalent of 'sticking your head in the sand'.

 

Please note, I have not mentioned the validity of ANY of the evidence yet. This is not relavent until evidence is actually presented.

What I'm talking about is the viewpoint you have before you even CONSIDER any evidence.

 

If you have already decided that you will never change you mind - or you mind is 'closed' - then evidence or rational arguments are already NULL and void -you may as well not bother even considering other people's viewpoints -no matter how 'correct' or 'incorrect' those viewpoints may be.

 

If you start out with an irrational viewpoint, you will come to an irrational conclusion - irrespective of any arguments or evidence.

 

Another important point - the CONCEPT of FAITH is diagramtically opposite to rational thinking. This is not a statement meant to offend - this is simply an accurate definition of 'faith'.

Faith is beliving in something which either 'cannot' be proven, or where 'proof' is not considered nessesary.

 

Now - I don't want to go back into other threads and start arguing about 'Yeah, all well and good, but what makes you think the evidence YOU presented was correct etc. etc.' - that's not the point of this thread.

 

The point of this thread is to ask a more theorietical question which is not specific to any religion or any specific scientific 'fact'.

 

WHat I'm asking is - how is it that we as human beings can determine the differece between 'truth' and 'falsehood' -whether that be the truthfulness of the Bible, or the truthfulness of quantum physics...

 

If ANYBODY posts 'The truth is whatever the Bible says...', I WILL ask SkinWalker to delete it. That is NOT an appropaite reply, for reasons I hope would be obvious...

[Master_Keralys]

Thank you, CTBD. I probably seem like one of those "the Bible is true because it is" people; I'm not. I believe it because I find it to be rational and a great deal of evidence for it, etc.

 

I appreciate in particular your point that it doesn't matter what topic you're on when you do that type of thing. If there's two things I hate, it's Creationists and Evolutionists both claiming that their side is right regardless of the evidence presented agaisnt it. We've seen a ton of that in the Senate. Which is why such debates always fail in the long run: neither side is willing to think rationally. That's the problem, I think CTBD. Reason can only take a human so far; we are inherently emotional in many ways. And that means that around particular issues, especially our origins and on the topic of religion, few people can think rationally. Overcoming that is critical. Whatever you believe, I think you should come to that by a rational considered decision, not blind belief. Now I may disagree with whay you believe and you may be wrong but at least you're being rational then.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Reason can only take a human so far; we are inherently emotional in many ways.

 

This may be true. Maybe human beings only have so much capacity for reason.

 

But, since I don't believe ACTUAL TRUTH can be reached any other way, this would imply that there is a limit to what we can and can't know.

 

...you've just descibed Agnostism. Are you sure your not Agnostic?! (j/k)

 

Now I may disagree with whay you believe and you may be wrong but at least you're being rational then.

 

I fully and freely admit that every single thing I hold to be true could actually be false...

...that's the Agnostic motto!!

[Master_Keralys]

No, I'm certainly not agnostic. It's entirely possible to be a fundamental Christian through reason. Galileo and Newton both were...

 

As far as reason goes, think on this: there is a definite line between science and theology. One explains that which can be understood by reason, the other that which can only be understood by faith, but can be validated by reason. For example, the uestion of our ultimate origin: I think it was Feynman who asked why there is something instead of nothing. It's a good question, but one that science frankly cannot answer. It's not possible to answer how something came to be, or why there is something.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

there is a definite line between science and theology. One explains that which can be understood by reason, the other that which can only be understood by faith, but can be validated by reason.

 

There are two important points I want to pick up from what you've said.

 

First of all, you say that matters of 'theology' can only be UNDERSTOOD by faith, but then validated by reason.

 

Are you sure you mean to use the word 'understood'?

...this would imply that if I do not have 'faith' in a given theological subject, I literally won't be able to even UNDERSTAND it?!

 

...maybe you just made a bad choice of words, so I'll let you reply first before I carry on down that road.

 

 

The other point is this:

 

Do you imply that there are two kinds of 'truth'?

...because I would actually agree, but I'm not sure we would agree on the individual definitions.

 

One kind of truth, I would call LITERAL, or EXTERNAL truth.

 

This includes obvious things like:

 

* Is the earth flat?

* Is the speed of light finite?

* How tall is the empire state building?

 

...etc. etc.

 

EXTERNAL truths have a definate answer, IRRESPECTIVE af any disagreements you and I, or anybody else may have.

 

The other kind of truth, I would call INTERNAL, or PERSONAL truth.

 

This includes things like:

 

* Is fox hunting wrong?

* Do I love my family?

* Do I find the Empire State Building asthetically pleasing to look at?

 

INTERNAL truth is very much uiquely personal to you, it does not actually exist outside of individuals minds.

 

 

THe EXTERNAL truth of fox-hunting is WHAT it is. What actions are involved. WHat is the result etc. etc.

THe INTERNAL truth of fox-hunting is - is it morally justified to you?

 

I have a feeling you may agree about these definitions I have just described - in princpile - although you are free to disagree of course. But assuming you are for the moment...

 

...where I feel you and I may disagree here is which catagory theology comes under.

 

As far as I'm concerned, different parts of theology fit into either catagory.

 

Examples:

 

EXTERNAL TRUTH:

 

* Did Jesus medically die and then though the power of 'God', come back to life?

* Does re-incarnation literally happen?

* Did a 'supreme being' create the world and/or the universe?

 

INTERNAL TRUTH:

 

* Does living a Christian lifestyle make me happy?

* What belief system most fits the type of God I believe exists?

* Does 'hell' scare me?

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

No, I'm certainly not agnostic. It's entirely possible to be a fundamental Christian through reason. Galileo and Newton both were...

Galileo was excommunicated for his discoveries, imprisoned, and was one a few astronomers to not be executed; though, he almost was. The Catholic Church just recently forgave him and unexcommunicated him. What horrid thing to say the Earth revolved around the sun...

 

http://www.soulforce.org/romecritique.html

 

Galileo may have been a christian, but he was rational. The people of the day believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo among other early astronomers saw evidence that this wasn't so. The Church feeling threatened punished many such idealists. Galileo saw with his own eyes the truth about the solar system we live in and reasoned that what had been taught was wrong.

 

For me to except anything to be true. I must see or experience it in some way. Much like Galileo looking through his telescope. Faith doesn't work for me I have to know. If there is more evidence for one ideal then for another I choose the one with the most rational evidence. That is just the way it is..

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I think it was Feynman who asked why there is something instead of nothing. It's a good question, but one that science frankly cannot answer. It's not possible to answer how something came to be, or why there is something.

 

THis is a VERY good point.

 

I absolutely agree. I find it very difficult to even begin to rationally THEORISE concerning how it is anything exists in the first place - it hurts my brain quite frankly.

 

..creation of something out of nothing - backwards infinite time - argghhhhh!!

 

 

Here's another VERY important point - religion is ALSO just as ineffectial at determining the answers to these kinds of questions.

 

Who made the universe -> God.

Who made God -> ?

 

If God has always existed, again, you still have to rationaise backwards infinite time paradoxes...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Here is another IMPERATIVE point about rational thinking:

 

It is not enough to consider SOME valid evidence (rationally) to come to your conclusion, you MUST consider ALL valid evidence available or presented.

 

In laymans terms, you cannot 'pick and choose' which 'valid' evidence you will take into consideration, you must consider all.

 

And the source of the evidence is only relavent as far as it affects the basic authenticity of the evidence.

For example, you cannot dismiss evidence SOLELY because it was presented by someone on the 'opposite side' of the argument. This is fundementally irrational.

 

If you don't consider ALL valid evidence, you may as well not bother considering evidence in the first place...

[Master_Keralys]

Well said, CTBD. What I was trying to say up above was similar to what you got to later, about the external and internal truth. However, I feel that there is absolute truth. What you're calling internal truth, is, IMO, more along the lines of emotion. Along with what I was saying at the top of the thread, emotion is not true. In fact, it is neither right nor wrong, since we can't really control it. We can choose to respond to it in rational or irrational ways, but those emotional components themselves are beyond our control.

 

Perfect last post. I agree with you on every point. That's been the problem with the big debates over origins and abortion and the like. I have watched them dissolve into "I'm in my box and I'm going to stay here" arguments on both sides. Now, regardless of which side is right, that kind of "box" thinking doesn't help anyone.

 

The only way that arguments can be won is if both sides are willing to think rationally. Then, whichever side is actually true will eventually "win". As in, the other side will simply see that it is true and agree. That rarely happens in real life.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I'm glad that we are seeing eye to eye on matters of rationality. We now have a firm basis on which to discuss any topic.

 

I would actually hope this thread could become sticky - if possible. (Skin?)

 

...the fact is I am not willing to discuss any matter concerning any EXTERNAL or LITERAL truth if it is NOT according to the rules we are defining within this thread.

 

...and note, these rules are being agreed by both CHRISTIAN and NON-CHRISTIAN alike. These are not rules to give either of us advantage over the other...

...these are the rules you HAVE to follow if you hope to reach a rational conclusion on ANY LITERAL TRUTH.

 

And if I am discussing something, and the person I am debating with is quite obviously not debating in a rational manner, I'd rather just point them to this thread, than have to explain this stuff all over again...

 

 

Anyway, Master_Keralys, could you confirm what you meant by needing faith to 'understand' theology?

[Master_Keralys]

I did. Just not very well. By understanding it, I meant truly having it affect your life; and I also meant quantifying it in a way that science can't do. Science may someday be able to validate many of the things in the Bible, but it can't prove God. That's the point I was trying to make. Also, you can rationally understand the idea of a faith, but you can't truly understand how a faith/religion affects your life unless you participate in it.

 

Another point of clarification: religion and faith are not the same thing. Religion is man-made; faith is God-made, if you will. That's my take on the difference. For clarification, religion is the human infrastructure: the church, be it protestant or catholic or mormon or muslim, whatever. The faith itself, though, is a personal interaction. It's not limited to being inside a chruch building. Thus, religion is corrupted all the time. All you have to do is look at the organized church. So there's a distinction between faith and religion, in the way I use it (just for clarification).

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I am updating my first post at the top of this thread with solid 'rules' for rational discussion.

 

If you feel I've missed out important ones, or if there are any there that you feel shoudn't be there, please let me know.

 

LOL - it goes without saying irrational suggestions will be ignored! LOL

[Master_Keralys]

You missed only one as far as I can tell.

 

Emotional arguments are not rational. They may have a place in a debate, but they do not count as reasoned arguments, as the emotions are outside of reason. Do not argue them as if they should be seen with the same perspective as rational points.

 

Otherwise an excellent set of points.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Yeap - good point.

 

I guess I was trying to cover that with the fourth point, but probably isn't specific enough.

 

...I will add it to the list.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

THis is a VERY good point.

 

I absolutely agree. I find it very difficult to even begin to rationally THEORISE concerning how it is anything exists in the first place - it hurts my brain quite frankly.

 

..creation of something out of nothing - backwards infinite time - argghhhhh!!

 

I think our perception of the world and the universe we live in is hindered by our preconceptions of human existences. I don't think it is right to look at the universe the way we do. Everyone believes it has a beginning and a end like everything else in our lives. In human terms "someone had to created it, it has to have a ending, and a edge." When I think about the universe I keep in mined the word "infinite." "Infinite Size" and "Infinite Existence." The universe may be the one thing that has never began, doesn't have a end, and has no boundary. "It's not a fenced in back yard.."

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

Here's another VERY important point - religion is ALSO just as ineffectial at determining the answers to these kinds of questions.

 

Who made the universe -> God.

Who made God -> ?

I have said this.. It seems I'm just getting ignored "even though I'm behaving myself." So this is between the 2 of you I guess...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I have said this.. It seems I'm just getting ignored "even though I'm behaving myself." So this is between the 2 of you I guess...

 

Sorry man, if you had said this before I either didn't see it, or I was intent on discussion on another topic!

 

I'm not ignoring you - honest! I think it's just that I haven't disagreed with anything you've said thus far. Or at least nothing I've noticed...

 

I think our perception of the world and the universe we live in is hindered by our preconceptions of human existences. I don't think it is right to look at the universe the way we do. Everyone believes it has a beginning and a end like everything else in our lives.

 

I accept these points, but in fairness to myself, I do fully consider the possibilities of infinity, or at least I try my best - it's the consequences of infinity which cause problems though...

 

...for example, I don't have a problem with the idea that FORWARDS time can be infinite. But BACKWARD time I have a real hard time getting my head around, because to me, this causes the following paradox:

 

If there is an infinite amount of time before any given event, then it would take an infinite amount of time for that event to happen.

 

Now maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to realise why this ISN'T a paradox. Or maybe I'm making more of the problem than is warranted. Maybe a bit of both...

 

...but anyway, that's where I'm at now. And I'm willing to listen to others a bit more enlightened than me concerning this!!

 

I will say one thing though - to think that the answer to the origin of everything should be obvious is a mistake.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

Sorry man, if you had said this before I either didn't see it, or I was intent on discussion on another topic!

Well I said it in the christianity thread not here.

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

I'm not ignoring you - honest! I think it's just that I haven't disagreed with anything you've said thus far. Or at least nothing I've noticed...

I don't mined a thread getting enveloped around two peoples ideas. That happens allot with me; except, I'm usually gripping with someone.

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

I accept these points, but in fairness to myself, I do fully consider the possibilities of intifinty, it's the consequences of infinity which cause problems...

 

...for example, I don't have a problem with the idea that FORWARDS time can be infinite. But BACKWARD time I have a real hard time getting my head around, because to me, this causes the following paradox:

 

If there is an infinite amount of time before any given event, then it would take an infinite amount of time for that event to happen.

I will try to explain my idea of time in words I can understand myself. My idea is slightly bigger than my own head and it is hard for me to make sound right.

 

I rely on some basic proven observations of Einstein's theory of relativity "not all of it." Time "for anything" is directly effected by it's motion through the universe. The faster you travel the slower time becomes. "This has been proven by astronauts orbiting there Earth with an atomic clock." Our perception of time is that it is in itself a dimension. "Where all the nonsense about time travel comes from." What if it is just a byproduct a "consequence of motion."

 

Motion effects time for a space as small as a shuttle separating it from our own time in a billionth of a second. If you could travel faster say "the edge of light speed" that area of time would become unto itself. The universe around you would continue moving slowly and time for it would move faster; however, the object just under light speed time would be perceived the same, but would be moving much much slower.

 

Hmm what does this have to do with "infinity?" All matter that has ever existed has always existed. Combined into one form or another. Time isn't the measure of creation "begging and end," but of change from one compound to another. The universe as it is now may not have always been this way it could have had another form in the past "BIG Bang Theory." It also could have been very similar to how it is now before that moment.

 

Time has nothing to do with the creation of the universe only the change of the compounds of matter within it. If you think with this idea? Time can not begin or end. It is directly linked to the presance of matter. There is no paradox here just the perception of what time is.

 

Some of this isn't just my rambling, but excepted ideas.. Maybe I'm just stupid and have to much time on my hands at work. I have never read anything that "totally" contradicts what I said; though, there might very well be.

 

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

Now maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to realise why this ISN'T a paradox. Or maybe I'm making more of the problem than is warranted. Maybe a bit of both...

A bit of both it really doesn't have anything to do with IQ, but just like I said perception..

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Firstly, I do want to remind people that this thread was meant to be about the theoretical exersise of rational thought, and not to get too bogged down on any one specific topic.

 

...that said, I think both the topics that are starting to develop (the boundries of space / time & infinity, and also the boundries between 'science' and 'theology') are both valid, in the extent to which they are both good examples of how far rational thinking can be stretched and what kind of knowledge rational thinking applies to...

 

 

So anyway, first of all, to reply to Master_Keralys:

 

I am 'troubled' by this idea that you cannot approach 'theological' truth the same way you can approach 'scientific' truth. And I want more clarification as to why you think there should be some kind of dividing line between them.

 

Firstly, theology is an 'ology' - just like biology, zooology etc. I think if you said to your average theologen that their area of study is in any way less 'rational' than other areas of scientific endevour, there is a good chance they might get a little bit ofended by that idea.

...but anyway, that's just a matter of the definition of the word theology, and not really my main point.

 

My main point is this:

 

By understanding it, I meant truly having it affect your life; and I also meant quantifying it in a way that science can't do.

 

I want to know exactly what you mean by this.

I will use an analogy which I THINK might demonstrate what your trying to say. Please let me know if you think this analogy is innacurate:

 

I have never done a 'bungie jump'. Therefore, I cannot know what a bungie jump feels like.

 

I can know what a bungie jump is. I can know the statistics about the dangers of bungie jumps.

In the instance of a SPECIFIC bungie jump, I can know the length of the bungie rope, the elastic properties of the rope and given also the weight of the person performing the bungie jump, I can calculate how far they will drop, how far they will 'bounce' back up etc. etc.

 

..but this tells me NOTHING about what a bungie jump FEELS like.

 

...Would you say this is an accurate analogy of what you are trying to describe?

 

 

Cosmos Jack:

 

I don't think your explination of the 'infinities' of time and matter have cleared up anything for me I'm afraid.

 

I'm fully aware of general relativity and it's ramifications.

 

I think it's best if we both start from a point that I assume we can both agree on - the big bang.

 

At the point of the big bang, time AS WE KNOW IT started. IF anything occured before the big bang - as far as I'm aware - it is considered UNKNOWN, because the laws of physics as we know them have been 'broken down' at the 'singularity'.

 

SO if - as you say - matter has always existed, including before the big bang - has it always existed in a form which allows time AS WE KNOW IT? Or was it in some other form, where we would not recognise time?

 

If so, that hardly helps to rationalise anything. That's just an admission that we don't know what the hell happeneed before the big bang - if anything even DID happen.

 

Maybe if we start from this point, you can clarify your thoughts to me a little better...

[Master_Keralys]

Well said, CloseTheBlastDo. I've just been having trouble explaining that idea. You can analyze something all you want, but until you've actually experienced it, you can only understand it intuitively. This works perfectly for some things; physics is a perfect example. However, theology is much more involved with moral issues that are less easily quantified, and are less intuitive. (Not too say that all physics is intuitive, but, well, you get the point... )

 

Unfortunately, Cosmos, I dont' think relativity can provide for infinite time. Moreover, the whole universe existing forever seems to contradict what relativity's equations tell us about the universe. That is, it had a beginning. There was a point (and I can't say in time, you'll see why in a moment) when there was no space or time. they didn't exist. At all. Period. That's the best scientists have been able to come up with anyway.

 

CTBD is also right about what came before the BB. If there was something, it's beyond the ability of science to answer, probably forever. You can't probe pasat the singularity because you have absolutely no way of getting past that point. All of our universe would have been a zero-dimensional point, according to conventional BB theory. You can't see past that. No matter how far you can see back in time, you're still limited to the bounds of the universe. And, as a theoretical question: Can a truly infinite universe be expanding?

 

Okay, beyond that point, I'm going to open a new thread, because this is getting to focused on one topic. Let's stick to the rational/irrational thing in here while I go open a new thread on that topic.

[Darth Eggplant]

I am Insane as you see,

I am a Bane for myself

and for you and for Life;

What went Wrong?

Why so Naive?

Why so arrogantly Stubborn.

Fall into place in life,

create no waves

be a Cog.

I'll tell you something about Reality

more precisely I will leave this

for you to think over,

in plain english;

the world of grey the world of the Sane

where Lunatics are locked away

for our safety and Societies,

you hold the answers you have the key

we are all locked up

the Sane people are free.

Why then is there Travesty?

Chaos, Murder, Misery?

If Sanity is the desired state,

If Reality the sensible place

of War and Hate

if all Life is,

is a big Rat Race

and Money

then I am Insane.

nothing will change,

and the Sane will be held to blame

all over a question of Clear Thinking.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

...in the voice of Homer Simpson...

 

MMMMM - ABSTRACT!

[Cosmos Jack]

Hmm ok.. Reading your replies all I can say is this. I hit my ball of an idea to the far left of the baseball field and both of you ran to the far right.. 9/10ths of your responses had nothing to really do with what I type.

 

Thanks for telling me things I already know; though, I will add this. If you want to go with the "BIG BANG?" Yes all the matter that is in the universe was compressed to a object smaller than a proton. The big bang didn't create anything that wasn't already there. It was the begining of this universe not the begining of matter. That is excepted part of the "Big Bang theory." So like I said all matter that has existed always existed even before the big bang.

 

If you want to go with what was before the "BIG BANG?" Allot of scientist are divided on if the universe is going to continue to expand or collapse in on itself. If it does collapse all matter would be compressed to a tiny point like the one the big bang started with. With this theory the "BIG BANG" could happen again and again and again......

 

So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...

 

I will remind you the most excepted ideas in science are not always right. Scientist once believe the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around it. This was excepted as more than theory, but fact. The best observations are not always correct. Answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions.

 

If you were a little kid and someone gave you a 10X10 mile wide play ground to play in full of toys and candy? Would you tie yourself to a pole and run around in a 10 foot circle? I will just leave my out of the box thinking where it is and say no more....

 

I would try to explain, but I just did a 20 hour shift and want to go to sleep. I have to go back in 6hrs. Feel free to make fun of my idea if you want I don't really care...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Cosmos jack,

 

If possible, could you move this post over to the thread Master_Kaylays started specifically for the boundries for all existence.

 

..he did this in a effort to keep this thread solely for the discussion of the 'theoretical' implications and boundries of rational thought.

 

I have made several points already in this thread that may or may not answer some of the points you've made.

...donno, I'll let you read it before I say more.

 

Boundries of existence

[SkinWalker]

Hmmm..... where's my "sticky" tape? The two-sided kind should work......

 

Nice thread, I can't believe I've gone without reading so far. I'm coming back once I have enough time to sit and read (wonder if this cable can reach the bathroom?).

 

Meanwhile: Thread Stuck.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Thanks Skin