Thread: We can prove dream sharing is real

Originally Posted by OutlawPig

Saying it's from an unknown part of the brain bugs me.

Yeah, that's what i got stuck on here too. It sounds kinda stupid to me.

I think the guy only thought this out to be able to put the origin of dream sharing on something that is impossible to prove.

Also it really doesn't help when people come up with half arse theories that include trans-dimensional connections between brains. Beyond being completely unbelievable it makes the whole thing seem uncredible.

Also it really doesn't help when people come up with half arse theories that include trans-dimensional connections between brains. Beyond being completely unbelievable it makes the whole thing seem uncredible.

As with all branches of science, and indeed, of life. The mouth speaks for the whole body, that is, the loudest of us have greater representation. It's the same with political parties, the faiths(or those with a lack thereof), etc.

So let us have true scientific discussion. Not that creativity isn't allowed. It is encouraged. Creative solutions within the realm of possibility.

How about we compose a list of possible ways in which Dream sharing could be possible, discard logic for a second and lets face the possibilities after words we can assess them. Here are a few.

1) We can connect to each other through using an organ in the brain which can emit low frequency waves (limited to short unobstructed distances).

2) Our brain is capable of sending messages through an unknown dimension.

3) Our brains can use qauntum entanglement to communicate over an infintely long distance.

That is all I can think of, time to discuss.

1) The brain itself is an organ but I'm splitting hairs. So, a part of the brain emits low-- or high, or anything-- frequency waves. It depends what you mean by waves. If you mean the electromagnetic spectrum, we could easily pick them up with current equipment. If you mean sound waves, through the medium of air, there are some animals that should be able to hear them that would aid in detection. A whole other side to this idea is that another receiving brain must be able to recognize and decrypt the signals from the other. Is it a hidden function of the ear? All I can do is speculate for now. Here's a thought-- synthesized dreams emitted from a computer and received by a dreamer.

2)What do people even mean by "other dimensions"? Spacial dimensions, like X Y Z? If not, then another unheard of temporal dimension such as time? Keep in mind that time assigned as the 4th dimensions is an arbitrary designation-- it could be any number, it isn't a real physical dimension, just a device used by astrophysicists for dealing with space-time intuitively. Temporal dimensions could be uncomprehendable. They're in your head, temporal, as in they exist only in how your mind works. That's a muddy area. There's no real test that I know of to detect other abstract dimensions. If a physicist has another opinion, let them share.

3) I've heard this one, but I simply don't know how to deal with it. I suppose it is within possibility. But there's a whole load of shit that goes along with it; how was the evolution of this ability achieved through natural selection, why does it seem like only a gifted few can do it, can other apes/mammals/animals with sufficient brain power achieve this temporal connection. This simply isn't my area, yet. I will eventually go to college for physics but I'm ignorant presently.

All of them are sort of kinda possible. But obviously, evidence needs collected and tests need devised.

Any other ideas?

EDIT: I have made a fool of myself by claiming I understand anything related to temporal dimensions. I was ignorant of the fact that the word temporal itself means relating to time, and misused it. In this post, I mean something having to do with perception by the mind. That shows how much I know.
And shadowofwind just hates this post altogether, so pretty much ignore it.

Originally Posted by OutlawPig

I have yet to hear any speculations that are somewhat scientifically sound as to what medium the dreams are shared by.

I remember being shown on this forum a few months ago a video of a lecture by a highly-regarded neuroscience or psychology professor on our brains being connected. He said something along the lines of our brains using brainwaves of certain frequencies (yada yada yada) that resonate with the frequency of the Earth's magnetic field, creating a huge 'shared memory' or something. Please understand, this isn't me explaining it, this is me trying to remember what I saw! I watched the whole thing, and seem to remember it making good enough logical sense, and he had done various experiments using people that had some 'natural affinity' in telepathy or remote viewing or whatever. This, if anything, would be what I'd test to be the mechanism for shared dreaming, but I am currently a skeptic.

However, I would of course love it to be real. This is the only relatively scientific attempt at explaining it, and I can only hope this is what scientists continue with in the future.

I don't think there's any room for us to say anything more than what we believe, as negative, unproductive comments only create problems and never help the cause. I think we can safely say everyone here is on the side of scientific discovery so we may as well all work together as well as humanly possible in order to come to the answer sooner. I think skepticism definitely has it's place in science, but too much of it can restrict progression.

If dream sharing is real then Emma Watson and I already have a very meaningful and intimate relationship. That means it's totally cool to stalk her now, right?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If dream sharing is real then Emma Watson and I already have a very meaningful and intimate relationship. That means it's totally cool to stalk her now, right?

Emma Watson? Reeaaaallly?

She doesn't need to consent if you're soul mates.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

She doesn't need to consent if you're soul mates.

She'll always be 14 years old to me though.

Meh I'm younger than her current BF (may he rest in peace after I find him)

You? But you seem far to wise to be so young!


Apologies by the way for straying off topic..

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

1) We can connect to each other through using an organ in the brain which can emit low frequency waves (limited to short unobstructed distances).

No it doesn't work that way. All of my dream telepathy experiences are over hundreds or thousands of miles.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

2) Our brain is capable of sending messages through an unknown dimension.

Yes it requires new physics. Since the words 'unknown dimension' are in common usage as "physics we don't understand", beyond that the statement almost seems to me to be a tautology.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Our brains can use qauntum entanglement to communicate over an infintely long distance.

To use quantum entanglement for communication, first you have to physically send the particles from one party to the other. If you can do that, in the context of shared dreaming, then there's no need for the entanglement. Also its not necessary for two people to meet prior to telepathically sharing information.

Can we stop now with debunking physics conjectures made by people who are unfamiliar with physics? Likewise, the "if shared dreaming is real, then it should be easily provable by [....]" ground has been gone over many times also. Nobody we know has that much control over shared dreaming. Sivason repeated that point as recently as a week ago. The shared dreaming opponents keep pronouncing that shared dreaming should behave in a certain way, as if they would somehow know, then saying that its unreal if it doesn't behave in that way. It doesn't behave that way. Its not easily controllable, and there are no mechanisms within the realm of existing physics theory that can account for it. Once we're clear about these two points, whether we call it 'natural' or 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' is just labels, it doesn't matter.

Excuse me, shadowofwind. Dutchraptor and I were just spitballing within the realm of known physics. Is that okay to do? I already responded to him. I am under the strong persuasion that those speculations are incorrect. I'm sure dutchraptor feels similarly. Please do not repeat my earlier mistake of popping in without being up to date in the conversation. I get that you have special brain links over great distances, that's splendid. Please read my earlier response to you. I'm tempted to say mean things to you but I know that doesn't work on the internet. Please allow us to have a little fun throwing ideas around while you do your big-boy transcendental spirit-sharing. Be content that we don't agree with you.

OutlawPig,

I was in this thread before you were, and I've been discussing this topic here for over a year now, so I can respond to who I want to.

You also can of course talk to whoever you want to about whatever you want to. But if your "scientific" skepticism is honest, you won't pick the arguments made by the poster who has the weakest physics background and base your position around an engagement with him. That goes for you too Sageous.

I would have phrased my last post differently had I written it after yours went up (OutlawPig), but I did read yours before I posted. Your response to his first point suggests a lack of familiarity with shared dreaming. Your response to his third point strongly suggests you don't really understand what quantum entanglement is and why its studied. Your second point invites further comment by a physicist. So do you mean that or not? I have an MS degree only, but a lot of professional experience, and I'm sitting within a few feet of several physics PhDs that I can ask questions of.

This same pattern has been going on for the year and a half that I've been posting here, and undoubtedly for years before that. People have spirited discussions criticizing the same fallacies over and over, while ignoring the real arguments that they don't have answers to. You claim a scientific mindset. I know more about physics than anyone else here by a wide margin, and have direct experience with something like shared dreaming. So bring it on. Otherwise, all your posting is just posturing. Carry on though, if that's what you want to do.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

You also can of course talk to whoever you want to about whatever you want to. But if your "scientific" skepticism is honest, you won't pick the arguments made by the poster who has the weakest physics background and base your position around an engagement with him. That goes for you too Sageous.

This same pattern has been going on for the year and a half that I've been posting here, and undoubtedly for years before that. People have spirited discussions criticizing the same fallacies over and over, while ignoring the real arguments that they don't have answers to. You claim a scientific mindset. I know more about physics than anyone else here by a wide margin, and have direct experience with something like shared dreaming. So bring it on. Otherwise, all your posting is just posturing. Carry on though, if that's what you want to do.

Huh?

Shadowofwind, why the hell are you including me in that statement? I don't remember being in a pissing contest about logic or knowledge, or even science, much less the true reality of shared dreaming. I certainly never did something like "pick the arguments made by the poster who has the weakest physics background and base your position around an engagement with him." Where did you come up with that? When was I siding with anyone, right or wrong? Why do I keep letting myself be dragged into these shared-dreaming conversations in the first place?

Also, as you know, I profess pretty much zero scientific expertise, and do my best not to imply that I have any. At all. I have also respected your knowledge and experience since day one, as you also know; I would never dare argue shared-dreaming with you on a scientific basis. Nor will I ever claim a scientific mindset, or offer up or defend logic fallacies about shared-dreaming -- where did you even come up with that? I will, however, raise questions when they seem obvious to me: For instance my entire post was basically a single question -- one which, by the way, seems to have been passed by unanswered, again, by you knowledgeable sorts (I assumed also, Shadowofwind, that you would understand why I included that parenthetic note to you about DARPA et al. Apparently you did not; sorry). I was not claiming any knowledge, skills, experience, or allegiances. My confusion was sincere, and has still not been addressed, much less assuaged in any way.

That single question was also simple, as clear as I could get it, and meant utterly nothing more than what is there. Please do not put words into my mouth, don't interpret my words, and please don't align me anyone -- I tend to work alone, and if I choose to "side" with anyone, I'll make that decision very clear ... don't help.

So please leave me out of this pissing contest; I simply do not care enough about shared dreaming (not in this context, anyway), and I can see that you guys don't care at all, in spite of your scientific brilliance or who is working in the next cubicle, that the phenomenon of shared dreaming ought to be extremely easy to prove -- regardless of whether or not we understand its nature.

Sageous,

Shared dreaming is not easy to prove. That assertion is what I was referring to. If you missed our explanations about why its not easy, or if we missed your clarifying rebuttals, then I apologize. I don't like trying to respond to more than one person in a single post, its confusing. But I'm short of time and the mods have been consolidating my posts whether I want that or not. I didn't mean what I said to you as a personal attack. I like you and generally consider us to be on the same side. But I do mean what I say besides that, it really seems to me that there have been answers to your "shared dreaming is easy to prove" assertion, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up without addressing those points. Maybe its just a miscommunication.

I don't mean to suggest that people ought to defer to or respect me in any way because of knowledge which I may or may not have. I welcome anyone, irrespective of their background or knowledge, to challenge me on any point of misunderstanding or disagreement. My point is that when confronted with a selection of strong and weak arguments, if a person takes on the weak arguments and ignores the strong ones, then that person is not serious with their skepticism. As an example, that other thread about whether or not demons cause lucid dreams got a ton of posts. Not coincidentally, the arguments being made by the central poster were very weak. If me or someone else takes his same position and makes better arguments, will we get much response? Based on history I doubt it, though I'm willing to test this. If the skeptics won't step up and face anything but the weakest strawmen, then they are pretend skeptics. To say simply that they disagree, without addressing the points that have been made, and then continuing with arguments that have already been refuted, isn't a scientific position. That's how young earth creationists argue, its the same mindset with a different prop. So now I'm talking to Pig again. You were upset yesterday because your God of science was blasphemed, an emotional reaction which I endorsed. And now you're saying to just leave you alone and don't trouble you with what we have experienced about shared dreaming, so that you can debate and speculate exclusively with someone who doesn't shared dream and doesn't do science either one. What the hell is that? Of course you can do whatever you want to. But of course 'skeptics' aren't going to be welcomed to a scientific study if their skepticism is phoney. If its not phoney, then step up.

Sageous, I think you must know what I'm talking about, you have observed this sort of thing also.

More on the "easy to prove" issue in a few minutes.

It's pointless to argue about telepathy here to some people who don't experience them It's best to just say "Ok you think this, but i know this, what you say about that, because i experience it." then they will be quiet. If not then they are in doubt.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

No it doesn't work that way. All of my dream telepathy experiences are over hundreds or thousands of miles.



Yes it requires new physics. Since the words 'unknown dimension' are in common usage as "physics we don't understand", beyond that the statement almost seems to me to be a tautology.



To use quantum entanglement for communication, first you have to physically send the particles from one party to the other. If you can do that, in the context of shared dreaming, then there's no need for the entanglement. Also its not necessary for two people to meet prior to telepathically sharing information.

Can we stop now with debunking physics conjectures made by people who are unfamiliar with physics? Likewise, the "if shared dreaming is real, then it should be easily provable by [....]" ground has been gone over many times also. Nobody we know has that much control over shared dreaming. Sivason repeated that point as recently as a week ago. The shared dreaming opponents keep pronouncing that shared dreaming should behave in a certain way, as if they would somehow know, then saying that its unreal if it doesn't behave in that way. It doesn't behave that way. Its not easily controllable, and there are no mechanisms within the realm of existing physics theory that can account for it. Once we're clear about these two points, whether we call it 'natural' or 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' is just labels, it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Sageous,

Shared dreaming is not easy to prove. That assertion is what I was referring to. If you missed our explanations about why its not easy, or if we missed your clarifying rebuttals, then I apologize. I don't like trying to respond to more than one person in a single post, its confusing. But I'm short of time and the mods have been consolidating my posts whether I want that or not. I didn't mean what I said to you as a personal attack. I like you and generally consider us to be on the same side. But I do mean what I say besides that, it really seems to me that there have been answers to your "shared dreaming is easy to prove" assertion, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up without addressing those points. Maybe its just a miscommunication.

I made no assertion, not even by implication (not on this thread, anyway ); I simply asked a question that fit the thread well. And yes, I ask this question a lot, because it never answered -- aside from a brief nod from dutchraptor, my fairly simple query was categorically ignored on this thread. On this thread I made no rebuttals, and semantically never even said that "shared dreaming is easy to prove," I simply outlined an obvious and simple experiment that ought to prove that shared dreaming -- as defined on this site -- exits. I'm in no way explaining, rebutting, or questioning its nature, physics, or metaphysics ... I am simply asking why this experiment is never done (or rather reported).

You've had a solid taste of my take on metaphysics, Shadowofwind[ do you really feel I believe shared-dreaming does not exist? Can I not assume a thing exists and still ask honestly why the simplest tests to verify its existence are never done or fully ignored?

And, as long as I'm here, is it fair to announce that shared-dreaming is not easy to prove without answering my question? I don't think so.

...That's ll I got. I meant no more, and asked no more.

Originally Posted by Sageous

And, as long as I'm here, is it fair to announce that shared-dreaming is not easy to prove without answering my question? I don't think so.

I said I'm getting to it. Pig already dismissed my earlier post largely on the grounds that it wasn't timely enough. So now I'm trying to dribble my thought out in bits to keep up with the flow of discussion, while juggling my work on the side (I'm still at the office). My next post might be up in 20 minutes or so, or look for it tomorrow if you want to.

^^ What the hell are you doing still in the office?! Go home!

That said, I never cared much about timing (odd thing to care about, OutlawPig -- aren't the thoughts what matter, and not their position on the thread?), so tomorrow's just fine. I'm going to bed right now myself.

I promise to respect your thoughts on this subject, Shadowofwind -- everyone should. I may disagree, but I'll still respect!

Excuse me, "pick the arguments"? He was the only person on this thread. I responded to him. I know that his questions were piss poor but, heck, why not answer him? He was being honest. Even if he didn't know better. May as well be friendly (which I understand I have not been. I've been a douchebag.)

I'm the first to claim ignorance about quantum mechanics. Actually, I beat you to saying I don't know anything about it. I stated that I was ignorant. I respect your education, please understand that the tiny bit I offered is still a legitimate question. I am uninformed and wonder how "quantum entanglement" might be passed through biological inheritance or other methods.

As far as being unfamiliar with shared dreaming-- of course! I'm anything but familiar, I haven't experienced anything like it and I've said and said again I have not experienced what you have and this is why it is difficult for me to pass judgement. My little thing with dutchraptor-- that didn't even have to do with you. It was a silly little thing that was buried in the thread by a conversation about the sexual nature of Emma Watson. I don't know how I wound up in this circle jerk about shared dreams with you. I stepped out of that on the first page of this thread. But when you came in here to tell me off, my reaction was confrontational. That's a poor attitude on my part.

You question whether I'm truly "skeptical", whether I have honest interest in science. I suppose, from what I have written, science looks like my ace in the hole to say whatever the hell I want and get away with it. It shouldn't be that way and I definitely do not want it to be that way. You have physicist friends to offer an opinion? Of course, if they're willing, of COURSE I'd love to hear! I love physicists! I idolize physicists! I'm a stupid little fuck who's going to be one some day. It's gotten personal, and that's my own damn fault. I don't have any beef with you. You stand up for yourself and have a good defense and I respect that. My words are only a challenge to your expressed opinions and beliefs, and though these arguably define who you are, it is not my intent to attack you for who you are.

I've come in here trying to talk like I know shit, and I obviously don't know shit. I am sorry for intruding into your little community where you're respected and everyone here seems to have a set of experiences and prerequisite knowledge that I do not share- it wasn't my place to take up this argument in the first place.

When I said "please read my earlier response to you", I meant my response from our conversation earlier. I got the feeling you didn't read it, maybe you did. For reference:

shadowofwind: I respect you. You have experienced something I have not, and which there is little documentation on, and so it is difficult for me to pass judgement. I'm interested. You say that you dream metaphorically, okay, that's cool. In an abstract dream environment, what visual or emotional cues lead you to believe you are sharing your consciousness, and how can they be considered valid in that sort of environment? You dream metaphors, which are(in my experience) subjective to the interpreter. And you believe that you can share these sort of dreams with another sort of conscious entity. Through metaphors. I don't know what you experience, but is one possibility that your brain(which believes in shared dreams) designs metaphors which point you to that, sort of reaffirmingyour belief and entertaining your idle sleep-brain at the same time?
I love Carl Sagain. Have Contact on audiobook.

I will do my best to keep my personal bias out of science. It has no place there. I love science. Please experiment, please collect data, please grow your pool of knowledge. I support that. It is my opinion that the outcome will be a negative, but science doesn't(or should not) have opinions. Good luck to you."

That's all I have to say.

hathor: You are incomprehensible. Nobody is going to be shut up by that statement. And when they keep talking, of course they are in doubt. Not of themselves. Of you, of what you believe in and why you believe it. Don't even mix your telepathy stories with shadow, he does't deserve to be attached to your poor arguments.

Sageous,

For myself in a dream, an apple and the orange are for most part interchangeable parts. To get one or another reliably, the distinction between them has to be connected in a definite way to the metaphorical content of the dream. How to build that into the experiment? I'm not saying its impossible, but for me it completely defeats your apple/orange suggestion unless its addressed successfully. Its true that the shared dreaming demonstration will "fail" if the two fruits don't match. But a significant, and possibly crucial, part of the "me" that creates my part of the dream doesn't care about proving shared dreaming to skeptics. And that part of me can't be forced. He/she either sees the demonstration as desirable, in a way that has meaning in her world, or doesn't. And that part of my/our mind won't be tricked by somehow linking the fruit outcome to something that is of interest, the shared dreaming proof has to be understood in a way that is of interest. For instance, suppose you try to link it to the sharing of an interesting Adam/Eve metaphor. The fruit readings could come up all random, then both participants could go home, turn on the TV, and see the same metaphor acted out in a sitcom. And then to really screw with you, one of you could open the fridge and all of your apples will have turned to oranges, still in the apple bag. And the other won't believe you. I realize that I've just given the skeptics an out here, a point to ridicule me on rather than addressing the substance of what I'm saying. But that's how this works. They/we won't deny them the out if they want it. This is one reason why motive matters. Skepticism is fine, criticism is fine, but for a real result the underlying drive has to be for the discovery of what's real. The dream matron of apples and oranges isn't fooled by what a person pretends to be interested in. I understand that what I'm saying here can logically be be used as a pretext for why a shared dreaming proof fails, if it fails because shared dreaming is impossible. A person can accuse the would-be shared dreaming demonstrator of escaping through that pretext, and there is no available refutation. That's why it comes down to sincerity, not to the puppet arguments waved around on the surface. If you want to know about shared dreaming, and you don't have some other need or agenda that precludes it, I think you can know about shared dreaming. You can have however much objective evidence you honestly need. If you want the knowledge to be public, then the desires of all the theists who want a monopoly on experience matter also, because its a part of their world also. Of course the aspect of reality that is captured by the Standard Model does not work like that, but shared dreaming as I experience it does work like that, so to test it that has to be taken into account. If the Michael Shermers of the world find it more fun to ridicule that kind of perspective than to find out if its real or not, that's their choice. The point I tried to make in my earlier post, that you got caught in the middle of and that I didn't make clearly, is this: Its a cop-out for people to dismiss this motive-matters perspective as the ramblings of misty-eyed New Age flakes. I'm one example of someone who does science as well or better than my 'scientific' critics, who has respected scientific principles when developing this perspective on dream phenomena, and who is willing and able to engage with scientific criticisms. In other words, the rationality vs superstition story doesn't really fly.

I've had weak shared dreams with several people from this site. Sageous, I haven't had any with you, perhaps with one very marginal, partial exception. If shared dreaming is easily controllable, then you and I ought to be able to do one unambiguously. Clearly, there are enough barriers that we can't. I think those barriers are probably easier to surmount with someone like you who I know, then in a clinical study run by someone who I don't know and who seems to be hiding something, for whatever valid reason. OK, you're not asserting that shared dreaming, if real, should be easy to demonstrate, you're asking. Did I finally answer your question then, communicating why I don't think I can identify fruit in a dream? Does it make sense that other people might have a similar difficulty? If someone else thinks they can identify fruit, then I agree they should try your experiment. For myself, a higher probability experiment would be to see if you and I can share something mentally, anything, and recognize that we are doing that. If we can't, we could try to examine what the barriers might be, and address those. Or if its not a good time we could just let it go.

Sorry I've been a bit pissy lately. Its kind of a difficult situation I'm in, not seeing my spouse and kids for months at a time, though that's not really a good excuse.

OutlawPig,

My post that you reacted negatively to wasn't aimed at you, if you look at it again there's nothing addressed to you at all, except a possible implication in one sentence towards the end, and that's not an implication that I intended. I responded to dutchraptor also, and couldn't fault you for doing the same thing. And I have no problem with dutchraptor either, and should have been more respectful. Maybe one lesson here is I shouldn't try to post and work at the same time. In any case, now its my turn again to apologize for being an asshole.

For most of that post I was just trying to answer the questions as succinctly as possible. At the end, I was appealing to the 'dreamviews' community in general, because we keep going around and around with the same ideas and don't seem to be addressing some of the real sticking points. I shouldn't have implied that we should stop that repetition entirely, since there's obviously a significant need for it also. It just seemed to me that we fixate on it at the near exclusion of other fruitful discussion.

Identity for me is a subtle and multifaceted thing. This has a significant upside in terms of my intuition. But sometimes I speak to someone as if they are a representative of a larger collective school of thought, and sometimes I presume to speak as that also. If another person's thought about that isn't exactly in step with mine, which it almost inevitably can't be, their natural reaction to my comments is "what the f#$@?", because they can't see what I'm getting at. That's a failure on my end, though another person can ameliorate it a little bit by trying harder to read my mind.

In regards to Hathor, to a significant extent I do not agree with her on interpretation of dream experience. However, her perspective that she's been arguing for the past several weeks does have an element of truth to it, and I think she's right to stand up for that. Yeah I'm all pompous and scientific and intellectually rigorous, and that's not her schtick. She can take your abuse without me defending her, and you can take ours, apparently, so that's all good. My point here is to not let what you said to her go as if I agree, as if I wish not to be associated with her. Also, I understand what she communicates, at least to a significant extent, to me she is not incomprehensible. As willing as I am to take insults, a part of me would be hurt by that statement.

I've really got to go home and go to bed, then I've got to work, then I can post more. And I'll probably have more time Wednesday, though I'll work Wednesday also. (I'm tentatively planning another insanely long hike this coming weekend, so I've got to get my work done.) You asked a couple of questions that I haven't responded to. I'm not blowing you off, I'll definitely get back to you. And no, this isn't really 'my' community, I'm just another bozo on the bus, with a particular set of tools that I'm trying to wield the best I can. You're right I did not read your first post, but like I said my post was for the most part not directed at you anyway.