Dave Moore

If accepting posit of subjective reality------------- future observation + present observation x energy = reality Belief x Energy = Observation. Belief x 75% resistive energy = 25% observation. Much like 75 units of resistance allows only 25 lbs to be lifted some height while 25 units of resistance allows 75 lbs to be lifted the same height. I am a crummy mathematician. I have never used numbers like this. 1) That which can be subjectively understood. I said that. 2) Belief is a certainty spread. 3) Levels of belief can only be subjectively felt, like pain or happiness. Can you quantize wave positions? Yet you can deal with probabilities. Between disbelief (diffraction pattern) and absolute belief (position, but zero diffraction) lie the levels of belief. 4) Energy can only be measured by subjective means. Insisting on quantization is not allowed, but read answer to #8. Energy to resist disbelief or to manifest belief in another or group. Bigfoot is seen. But the witness hasn't the energy to prove it. He has video information but it suddenly goes missing. He can't cause the public to manifest his proof. He is unable to come up with enough energy to overcome the level of energy resisting his claim. the missing video is no accident. 5) Energy to manifest one's beliefs. To cause agreement. To cause an outcome to manifest in physics 6) It is measured subjectively. It is entirely personal. Absolute belief is measurable as 0% energy. Absolute denial is 100%. There is a probability spread between 0% and 100%. 7) Belief x energy = Observation, as shown. 8) Measurements are subjective but close approximations can be made using larger groups of people. This is done with placebo group trials, which are conducted by science all the time. Yes, that is a great beginning. Thanks, Strange. I appreciate it. Thus placebo trials would be influenced by disbelief of researchers. Or, conversely, believing strongly (as an average of all witnesses from now and the future), the placeboes would do better against real drugs. That is why placeboes are getting better. Researchers believe more (less resistance to their energy to manifest) so the placeboes are observed to a higher level of manifestation of efficacy.

I understand why virtually everyone here can't understand what I've been saying. I can't discuss this any more. Everybody wants links. Links and links and more links. None of you ever consider there are some things that can be figured out alone in a cave on a mountain. I provided my own formula, but nobody said a damn thing about it. Attack it! Fairly, mind you. Use common sense. Use your own brain! Are you all just recording devises? Make me look stupid. Not by aggravating me but by taking that formula apart, piece by piece. At the bottom of comment #92, read the formula. I say things but the subject gets changed and later, I am blamed for not making any solid claim. Bullshit. My claim is at the bottom of comment #92. Read it or quit asking for something to get your teeth into. It is axiomatic. Look up what that means. AXIOMATIC is the spelling. I am amazed nobody here can understand the claim and work it out without supporting links. I don't mind being eviscerated and having my work destroyed if it's done fairly. Don't attack me, but attack my work. Attack the formula BOTTOM OF COMMENT #92. I doubt anyone here can do it. That's why nobody will try. Mod, I suggest you try it yourself instead of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. Strange, I can explain the observer's effect. I mean the act of observation of detector information by a human being which causes actual physical changes in the past. I don't care what telekinesis means, of if you have no proof of it. How can you argue that pain both isn't and is organic in origin? Anyway, my explanation is at the bottom of #92. From now on, I will simply refer everyone to that formula. An intelligent person who knows what axiomatic means will use their God given (no I'm not religious) brain to make that claim, that formula, look stupid.

If you really read my last post, you would see that your knee jerk reaction (you should have seen yourself, hahaha!). the word caused you to jump out of your skin! "Why that word is Heresy! Heresy I say! Just the use of the word on a science forum? Burn the witch, I say!" hahahahahaha! Oh come now. I'm being more scientific than you. I can see, low velocity boy, that you are not reading what I'm saying--- sorry, that was so precious, I have to stop laughing before I continue... Okay. Sorry. You are proving my very point. IF you paid attention, AND you saw what I wrote, you would have seen that The amusing Randi is perfectly safe in keeping his money. IF the Observer Effect is real, then one theory about why has been presented to you in English at the bottom of the comment. It explains in a simple formula that anyone who could show Randi anything beyond hard science would always fail due to energetic limitations to observe success. This happened to Luc Montagnier when his experiment failed to produce results for what was supposed to be a team of honest researchers, who actually brought along the Amazing Randi. Nobel Prize winner, too. I would have kicked him out on principle alone. Montagnier identifies the AIDS virus. Then one day he went "mad" and began research on structured water. Hell, Randi was probably saved from AIDs by Montagnier. Telekinesis is what I used to describe something in a way it could be understood. If I said Observer effect, that would be okay because it wouldn't cause you to go home and get your pitch fork. But you have (hopefully) heard of the Observer Effect and you know it's real. So that word is okay. I'm sorry. I am laughing again. it was just like a scene from Frankenstein when the village folk gathered to hunt down and kill the monster. I don't believe in telekinesis. It's just a word that I thought would help you a little bit. I believe in the Observer Effect, son.

Strange, If pain has physiological causes, then it is telekinesis. If one atom has moved, a physical thing has occurred. I am saying this to describe the process to you according to what I think you believe, which is all pain must involve an organic process. I am willing to use another word, of course. But I think some might turn the thing around and insist an organic outcome must be called telekinesis. John, I did say so, later. The timing was bad when first asked. However, I later said a lot about what I thought it was. Check #66, middle of page. swansont, Exercise is a common procedure, something often recommended by doctors. A placebo would replace that but yield same results. So a doctor might say you should take this pill (illegal now in many countries if not labelled so) and the placebo would cause the patient to feel as if he had exercised. Again, I see the placebo as a form of hypnosis, and the question is (to you), would you consider the possibility that hypnosis, coupled with telekinesis would cause a researcher to "create reality" (quotes for you, not me) by means of observer effect? There would then be an explanation of wave collapse through belief, or belief creating reality. This would also imply that all experience could be the result of hypnosis if subjective reality were true. Quantum wave behavior doesn't automatically do away with determinism. In a subjective reality where beliefs manifest, each new percept is only a belief manifested. Wave behavior would always appear as it does. Next question, if the first things I said were true, then why don't paradoxes arise all the time? Answer: Because of predestination, manifestation is efficiently "knitted" into the past from future "choices" (notice the quotes?). The prime requirement is that belief unconsciously draws from the future and seeds the past. This explains meaningful coincidences and precognition, for example. I have avoided these ideas so far because I have been warned by the mod that I belong in the woo-woo forum, trash cani think it's called, but this topic is gaining interest. I assume democracy is in play here? If accepting posit of subjective reality, future observation + present observation x energy (subjective level of belief) = reality. So, Belief x Energy = Observation

There isn't a difference between hypnosis and placeboes in effect. Belief has everything to do with efficacy. A placebo is, in common usage, anything that would replace accepted medications OR procedures. That could be the laying on of hands or an empathetic doctor or a sugar pill. I would personally like to see a test for reduction of pain without the patient's knowledge that anyone is doing any test. For example, a test I call the ice cream sundae test. Children (age seven, e.g.) are very suggestable. A group of them, perhaps one hundred, are seated in a room and have bogus wires connected between their wrists and a very imposing electronic looking machine in the corner of the room. They watch a monitor. Still shots of a group of perhaps twenty patients are shown on the monitor. The kids are encouraged to send healing energy through the wire as they gaze at the patients one by one. This is done for twenty minutes. The kids are told that if their group can make the patients pain go away, they will all get an ice cream sundae (they get one anyway. After all, they are just kids). The patients are soon thereafter asked if they are feeling better. Another control group of patients who weren't in the pictures are also asked. The test would show if patients could have pain relief through blind action at a distance, that is, without knowing they are the target of intent alone. This is known as telekinesis, but actually, it is belief that is the key variable. If expectation of strangers could reduce pain, then the observer's effect might be explained.

No problem, drP.

Strange, I said the real pill is no different from the placebo. I mean, go back to when the drug was formulated. Many pills don't work well against placeboes, and often nowadays, they are practically the same as placeboes. If they are better enough in tests, they can go to the market. The percentage they are better isn't often much these days. So the real pill is, say 10% better. But say the placebo, following what's already happening, will be as good as the "real" pill in five years. Both appear inert to me. You can no linger say, "real" pill. The reason "real" pills are considered real at all is because somebody thought certain ingredients could be chemically significant. They fail often against placeboes, however. They could be used as better placeboes than chalk or sugar. Why does everyone think that placeboes are effective because of belief but 'real" pills are effective because they have "real" ingredients in them?? The only reason is the belief of researchers that "real" pills are not curing by belief is skewing the results (by a small margin) to favor the "real" pills still. Every bit of it is hypnosis. We are hypnotized to believe that "real" pills are real. Placebo successes are another hypnosis, and so both are the same. Manifestation through belief is the obvious answer---- on a massive scale involving millions of people and a small scale where one person is involved. Perhaps the same reverse causality seen in delayed choice is present in real cultural situations. A drug might do better because it is later announced as effective by more believable people?? The probability spread would have to do with the people later observing against the researchers who already know, always a different mix. Results would never be easy to calculate, but tests can be done to prove this.

DrP, you never apologized as promised, after I did. Why do you think that structured water has anything to do with marketing a particular product? That is hilarious. Anyone can capitalize on any technology or idea. I could argue back, Ibuprofen? That's a laugh! $19.99 a bottle! Why did you say that it was a con at first glance. You investigate things like that, and actually post the first negative thought that comes into your head?? Your apology? Was it just a trick to get me to apologize? Come on, have honor.

Strange, the placebo effect is the same as the real drug effect. Gullibility isn't exactly the reason, but it can be. My friend is not gullible in the normally understood sense. She knows as much as I do about the power of belief. I envy her because she can shift between gullibility and hard-nosed skepticism. That is a rare gift. It is the art of character acting in real life. It lies within the realm of shamanism. One day I hope to be able to achieve the same thing. When a hypnotist on a stage has a volunteer get down on his hands and knees, barking like a dog, we all think he is only acting like a dog for a few minutes. We never could imagine that if everyone were hypnotized, all seven billions of us, we would never go back to whatever we used to be. We would be like babies, who are the most gullible creatures on the planet, having little instinctual ability compared to turtle hatchlings, for example, who know just what to do when they hatch. We would believe 100% in what we had been hypnotized to believe, just like the volunteer who thinks he is a barking dog. The obvious question is, where did the old objective universe go? We don't walk into things that used to be there before we were hypnotized. Everything makes sense. Science works. One could consider that we are not just perceiving wrong, but the exterior world is matched to our perceptions. Knowing this, one could experiment. Much of this experimentation could be subjective--- until a test could be devised. The next problem is huge. Getting anyone to even listen t me. I devised a simple and very effective experiment. It took six months of emailing my Dutch friend. I needed to show her I had some very esoteric knowledge. I used deception, a kind of hypnosis by wire. I told her, go out. There's a park nearby. you will see a very special, large tree. Go to it. Under the tree, you'll find an object. then you will know. I added that, no matter what, she must never as long as she lives tell me what she found. Two weeks later, she had the same mind shift that I had. She packed her bags, this timid woman of 55, left her husband of 35 years, and took a plane to the United States. To this day, she lives alone and is very happy. She has been abandoned by her two boys and even her grandchildren never see her. Our relationship was never romantic but for her, it did provide an initial "hook". Of course, placeboes are hypnosis. They probably work better because the belief is insinuated into their psyche rather than openly suggested into it by a hypnotist who could also make people bark. If reality were subjective, then it's very plausible that we are hypnotized into this world from the very beginning by suggestion alone. It would be unscientific to say this couldn't be true.

Okay, DrP. I'm sorry. Anyway, I absolutely agree with how mainstream science tests theories. It couldn't be any other way. The problem is that in spite of their best efforts, science has a problem dealing with the observer effect. This is also called researchers disease. In ufology, I learned a long time ago about he strange effect of researchers into UFOs who suddenly began to see UFOs for the first time only after becoming somewhat convinced by witnesses that UFOs were real. They would seem to be "followed" by UFOs no matter where they went. An interesting example of this is a recent movie (now on Netflix, but use search box). Movie is called, "Curse of the man who sees UFOs". Funny as hell, and a great example of researcher disease. Monterey, California---- spontaneous human combustion, a crop formation, very strange and quite instructional. Science has it's own observer effect. I studied these things for many years. I discovered eventually what was going on. To explain it is difficult because the root of it lies beyond the obvious idea of simple hypnosis. You have to step out on a limb, so to speak, and let go of some very powerful beliefs, and most everyone almost without exception, can't do this. For me, it took some very strange events I witnessed that 'loosened" my beliefs up enough. Call it neuroplasticity or whatever, but soon thereafter, I experienced a kind of mental shift. it was instantaneous, and I guess it parallels with the Buddhist awakening although I knew nothing of awakenings at that time. In any case, after that, I was able to imagine beyond my former limitations. I realized I could easily see what things like the observer effect were. It was real interesting to discover that the knowledge was very much like I had integrated my left and right brain hemispheres as if my mind were now supercharged (I know). I saw flaws in how science worked. I knew why the delayed choice experiments worked from observation alone. I also found out why most everyone never had the same experience. it was a Catch-22. Because it had to do with belief manifesting through force, expectation, fear and desire, no person of science would ever accept it even as a possibility. This would, for example, cause problems on a forum such as this. things would happen, believable things that would conspireto prevent in any prosaic way, my getting through to people. The energetic rejection would be overwhelming. I would come off as whatever you needed me to be---- anything to block my strange ideas from coming through. That is my purpose here, to prove that point to myself. I could easily prove that the observer effect is not just something that happens in a lab. It is how we perceive. That part is my territory, but see how it can weave into science without corrupting science. Actually, because the observer effect is now understood by me at least, I could potentially increase the means of testing things like placeboes and make them useful in testing drugs again. But what happens is that, well, look at this terrible thread. Animosity, mistakes, misunderstandings and about a paragraph dealing with actual useful conversation.

Yes and no. The researchers are human beings. They are impressed with what placeboes can do. Ninety percent are probably working from grants, maybe government grants. They have little incentive personally to make placeboes more useful, I suppose. I have a hard time, by the way, quickly working out problems on the internet/computer due to blindness. I appreciate it when I am not called a dick (not you) and so forth. I will practice tomorrow on another thread. I would guess, speculating, that it was researcher bias that began the increase in placeboes getting better, or even a mistake such as sloppy test protocols. Later, it became exponential as the effect snowballed. Now, increasing effectiveness is the expectation. Placeboes are marketed as placeboes in Europe, or at least Holland. They look official. I personally doubt I would be cured of a headache as well as ibuprofen. I doubt I could be hypnotized easily without a d5rug to make me more suggestable. But my friend is not like me. She is much more suggestable. Amazing, because she shares my knowledge of placeboes and other forms of hypnosis.

Thank you, strange. I appreciate it. And DrP, I am fdumb. But I write fbetter than fyou.

Incidentally, this YouTube video is fantastic. East meets West. The Dali Lama and quantum physicists. Buddhism isn't a religion. It is a self-evident knowledge. They are only beginning to figure out how to explain it to the West. "The Nature of Reality-Theory of Relativity, Quantum Science and Buddhist Thought" Until recently, they have kept their knowledge secret. Now, having been devastated by the Chinese, driven from their homes and temples, they have after thousands of years, decided to go out into the world and offer that knowledge to the Western culture. They will be no more after that. It was their keeping of secrets for so long that kept them safe. They see how science has become a corrupt force, only to be used by rich and powerful people to take advantage of the weak and the poor. Nuclear weapons, pollution, fear of the end of the world with Soviet rockets that can wipe out France with a single bomb. The scientific community has no sense of right and wrong. Oppenheimer knew this. The world has to change. Science has to be controlled by people who know better. It is a fantastic tool for making airplanes and computers but you can see how, when challenged to fix the results of it's "achievements", it has no compass. Yet, all of you here enlarge it's supposed value far beyond its technical virtues. You claim all day long that nothing that is unproven in a double blind study has any merit, even if that thing cold make science more humanistic or useful to mankind. I know how to make placebo study far more effective through an understanding of what corrupts test procedures. Even quantum physics could progress faster if only people like you had a capacity for listening to something outside of your comfortable paradigm.

String Junkie, You might note I have politely asked anyone at all to help me to be more clear by showing me how to drop a link here, or how to quote in a post. Not one person has come to my aid. everyone, and you too if you look back a couple of posts, has helped me at all. I've asked three times. If anyone is making things difficult, it s you. Go back two posts of mine. see how I keep asking for help. You find me unclear and I have twice asked you for help. I find the lot of you the most unfriendly group I've ever encountered. Not at all open-minded. Not scientific, but dogmatic and exclusionary of anyone or anything that you haven't been taught about or read somewhere. You are certainly not independent thinkers. Every one I've talked to has acted as if they lean against each other for support. If the others were more respectful, there you would be, treating me like them, afraid to be independent. You have read, if you are awake, that I need help with a couple of technical details that would be absolutely simple for any of you to do but instead, you prefer, and I mean every last one of you, to play burn the witch, and then blame me for being unclear? As far as understanding the placebo, if I don't it certainly wouldn't be you that coyld tell. A placebo is hypnosis. Structured water is hypnosis. Faith healing is hypnosis. But here's the part that you won't ever get until the day that you have decided to risk everything you possess, everyone you love, and all of the comforts you take for granted, here where you get shot up a few times a day. That is, that everything is hypnosis. For three thousand years, Buddhists have known this. But I'm not a Buddhist. I never knew about Buddhist knowledge until recently. I came in through the back door, independently. It isn't belief. Science is belief. You may snicker, but that's all you can do. You can't learn. Maybe, if you got cancer and you finally began to ask yourself, "Is this piece of meat going to rot away soon?". Because you know nothing. Not believe nothing, but Know with a capital K. And there won't be any more. You will fear death in the same way you fear disease or bankruptcy, or losing your place here if you say the wrong thing. You will discount the very idea that subjective knowledge has any value. You all seem to lack borders, a demarcation line that tells you where you subjectively end and the world begins. So while you think you know so much, you can't tell where that line is. Then you're just a object in an objective universe. Your idea of independent thinking is to agree about all the basic rules and never question them. This is evident in how you come up with such nonsensical theories to explain dead simple truths. Your common sense is corrupted because it excludes experience. Existence itself is a lot bigger than mere science. Yet, it must be fitted into your tiny materialist box. Placeboes are the result of beliefs, but not all the patient's beliefs. Everyone's beliefs. That is a scientific fact that can be proven but not to a person so steeped in dogma that he can't get up enough energy to listen and learn. It's nobody's fault. I don't blame any of you. I am glad I'm not like that, but at one time, I was exactly like you. It works better when you're young and confident you'll live forever. You don't fear death because it's a long ways away. It's not about death, though, but living. And I know some of you live to write on this forum. I'll be gone soon, but that's because soon I will have gotten what I wanted in the first place. I will look up somewhere how to quote or drop a link because I have zero confidence that anyone here has the decency to help me. It's so alluring to attack that you miss what I'm saying. You can't wait to get past what you want me to be saying that you forget or miss the intent of my posts. Three times I asked for help. All of you should be ashamed of your behavior. I will attribute it to youth, and God help you if you are past forty.

String Junkie. She lives in Holland. They cost less, and she says they work as well as the real thing. But I'll make sure to tell her what you said. Maybe she will smarten up and feel some pain. You really feel safe here, don't you? Team player? Lapdog. Phi for all, sit on the lap dog's lap. Where's Strange?

I've studied placeboes for many years. My Dutch friend buys placeboes and they cure her headaches. It is my guess that placeboes are getting better not because they are tested on people who expect they are getting more effective, but because of something no one here seems capable of talking about. Go ahead and ask any group of people if they ever heard that placeboes are getting better. Unless they have actually been taking them or have been a test subject, you'll have difficulty finding anyone who knows about it. And that has to be one disqualifier to testing, that a person knows too much about placeboes. The confusion on this thread has a lot to do with the fact that I don't know how to use the quote feature. You are welcome to help me to do that. I also can't drop a link. I see no way to do that. Can I pull an icon off my desk top? It appears the increase in placebo effectiveness is due to researchers desire to see placeboes being as magical as possible. I know that's how I would feel. I would be far happier if such a magical thing were happening in front of me. It would be kind of like studying dowsing. Most researchers would love to see that stick bend down and a claim of 134 feet, e.g., was found to be spot on. So, you ask yourself, how would researchers transmit their expectations to a bunch of patients who have no clue as to placeboes being so effective? I am not going to pursue that here. If no one has the imagination to figure out what other possibilities remain, it would be a complete waste of time. I got what I came here for. I now have an idea of what you folks think. I don't like assuming anything. +

No. I am not going to say what I think is the reason. I now know that nobody here has any idea why. I wanted to see what ideas were out there, and I have become more convinced than ever that it isn't sloppy test protocols such as using test subjects who have already used and hence become somewhat immune to Prozac's efficacy, and it isn't due to the public being inundated with news that placeboes are better because I've not found one citizen yet who would serve to tip the scales of the psychosomatic variable, and I don't think the drug companies or any real researcher would be so sloppy that they wouldn't ask people before testing if they had heard anything about placeboes before. I do see that certain reasons are absolutely off the table for science to even consider, and that is evidence to me that I was right, that science is failing to answer questions that could one day be answered by testing, but will never get the chance if you lot represent the pinnacle of curiosity and open-mindedness of modern science. It isn't that no proof is available. It has to do with the inability of science to approach subjects they know little about with an open mind. So many people say they couldn't imagine why science wouldn't consider fairly investigating every avenue fairly, but time and time again, I find that science is not at all curious, but instead, thinks only inside the box. I want to thank all of you for your input, especially Strange, who has been most beneficial to me in reinforcing what I have already been convinced is true. I will use this thread in the future to show people by example what happens when you ask science a question like the thread title.

Sorry, Strange. I forgot to say what I thought. I don't know. I could guess, but that wouldn't be productive, to throw you a piece of raw meat like that to knish your teeth on. I asked the question because I wanted to see others' views. So far, I know what you would like to believe, but nobody has said, 'Gee, that is a good question. By golly, I can't figure it out!" THAT would be a scientific answer, instead of, "They aren't getting better! I haven't studied placeboes but try changing my mind!" I'm sorry, Dr P, but regarding #1, I was getting the impression that everyone so far had an opinion that it had to be faulty testing going on. Should we not look back and see if I'm wrong in saying that? Dr P: How can your response to #2 make sense? Are you saying the drug companies wouldn't have screened for people who took the drug before? You assume such ridiculous sloppiness on the part of the drug companies? We might as well all go home.

Strange, the link I read that you provided was from 'Science Based Medicine" That is a typical Amazing Randi type website. Cynical as can be. Please! I asked two questions. Nobody will answer them.

I've already answered the question, Dr P. I have polled dozens of people and none of them have even heard that placeboes seem to be getting twice as good as they used to be. You could attack the researchers, but most of them work for drug companies, who would be the most apt to avoid corrupting tests. Two questions. See recent post.

1) If placeboes aren't increasing in efficacy, why have drug companies spent so much money trying to figure out why not? 2) How come older drugs such as Prozac have been found to be much worse against placeboes recently? I have provided search terms, best I can do with apologies. Respectfully, DM

Nope. My girlfriend buys placeboes in Holland for headaches and they work fine for her. But Strange, your problem is that you need to win, regardless of how you do it. What's worse, the whole lot of you seem to be like that. Nobody is responding to the actual question, when I have offered a link, if only in search terms. What is with you people? You call that science? And I expect, again, all will defend anything but their claims that I am wrong, preferring to respond instead to the ego. One study? It isn't worth talking to any of you. The drug companies claim to have spent billions to find out why placeboes are getting better. The moderator can do whatever he/she wants, but I would only ask he/she actually read the whole thread and ask if any of you are doing more than wasting time judging me and avoiding the issue. If the mod still has a problem I guess he or she can tell me why. Until then. seems to me the question is valid. I didn't say you guys were stupid, did I? And Strange, um... Science Based Medicine? The name alone implies an ax to grind. Cherry pick, but answer the simple question: Why would the drug companies spend so much money if they could just go to your link and find out what's really going on?

I have to laugh. The link works every time I try it. Are you saying I'm wrong because I don't know how to drop a link here? Are you stupid? Just use the search terms and quit insulting yourself.

Phi for all, Google the link I provided or quit guessing. You don't seem to know anything about placeboes, but you don't mind pretending you do. You might as well paint a big target on your back if you can't back up what you say..

I am having a hard time attaching a link. I still can't. I am hoping that others here would either help, or at least consider typing in the name of the link, which ought to be a simple task. The link: placeboes are getting more effective drug makers... Prozac, darling drug of the nineties, now doing terribly against placeboes. There are more, you'll see them. I can't understand what kind of science would prove that it's the easier conditions causing this. I think they wouldn't be spending billions to discover why if we could just tell them over the telephone to try placeboes against older drugs. I know it's hard to digest, but since the drug companies will already admit it ain't the drugs that are getting less effective, and big Pharma has a huge stake in the discovery of why placeboes are getting better, well, what is to be said about that? I don't mind having a target printed on my back, but given that it takes about a split second to Google that link (and many, many more), it seems your job must be winning at all costs if you are too stubborn to Google the terms I provided------- "If Dave can't add a link and I have to type, well he might as well paint a target on his back!"