MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

[Guest guest]

Spider, Spider, on the wall..........

 

 

Master, how did it all start?

 

It didn't.

 

I know I am asking, 'how did the impossible happen', but

*something* seems to have happened. How do I begin to See or

Know Truth?

 

Shall we begin by beginning?

 

That seems to be a good place to begin, in the beginning.

 

Just so. In the beginning there was nothing, no thing at all.

 

So how did *it* , whatever *it* is, begin?

 

It didn't. )

 

 

If you are sitting in space, deep space with nothing else

around you and a spider drops down in front of you on a strand

of

web, what is that spider to you?

 

It is everything. And it is also nothing.

 

Explain.

 

If there is nothing at all then whatever appears is everything.

And if it is the *only* thing then it is nothing because it has

nothing to relate to and things can only *be* when in relation to

something else.

 

Explain more.

 

That's all.

 

But you still have two things.

 

I don't see this.

 

You still have *you* who sees the spider, unless you *are* the

spider.

 

?

 

Without you would there be a spider?

 

No. I give the spider existence by saying the spider is not me.

 

Just so. So everything is dependent upon you. No you, no spider.

 

But doesn't the spider have independent existence regardless

of me. Doesn't my brother have independent existence from me?

When I die he doesn't die does he? Am I the Cause of it all?

 

Let's begin again. In the beginning there is nothing, no thing at

all, and then a spider shows up. Let's call the spider a thought

this

time and say, 'In the beginning a thought showed up. "

 

Okay. I can see that. A spider is a thought but it seems that the

spider, which has form, is different from a thought.

 

In the beginning there was nothing, no thing at all, and then a

thought showed up. Now, who did this thought show up for?

 

For me obviously.

 

In the beginning there was nothing, no thing at all, *including

you*, a thought showed up, now who did this thought show up

for?

 

I'm beginning to see something. I have been assuming that I

exist. When we began and you asked me about the spider I

assumed

a " me " , an " I " . This has been a given for me and I don't question

it.

But as you keep pointing out, in the beginning there was nothing,

nothing at all, not even me. I continually don't *Hear* this. I

assume myself. Now what I hear you saying is that there *really*

was no thing at all. Really! And if there Really is nothing, no thing

at all then none of this is happening. Nothing *can* happen! I

keep insisting something can come from nothing.

 

You are now listening to me. If there was nothing, no thing at all,

and something showed up, is that possible?

 

I guess not but Master it *must* be possible because

*something*, some *thing*, showed up.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because I am saying it and I would not be saying something if

nothing was happening. It would be impossible. How can the

impossible happen?

 

It didn't.

 

But Master, I am no further along toward the Truth than I was

when we started. No matter what we say I see us as saying

something and given that, something is happening. I hear the

birds. I

see the sky. I see you.

 

Of course you do. Of course you do. But do you think that I see

you? Am I here?

 

Of course you are. You are speaking with me, at least I assume

you are. I assume you are sitting here speaking with me. If you

aren't, what's happening?

 

In the beginning there was nothing, no thing at all. And then a

thought appeared.

 

And all of this is the thought???

 

This is the thought. This is the illusion.

 

My God! Every thing is happening now. My birth, death and

middle are all happening now.

 

This thought does not move. It is " hanging " in the void like a

spider on a strand and you cannot take your eyes from it. The

strand is projected from you like a fishing line and on the end of

it is the spider and everything else. You don't see that the strand

is

connected to you. You are dazzled by your own thought. It is

everything to you. It is the Present Moment. It is hanging,

pristine-like in Nothing, like a drop of dew in the morning sun

and you eternally give it movement and life by seeing your own

reflection in it. You are doing it all. And each strand you project

has a jewel like image which reflects all the other strands. I too

am your projected thought. Reel me in and be home. )

 

????!!!!!

 

You have separated yourself from your own reflection. You are

the void, the Nothing at All upon which you write your creations.

You

are the blank slate, the Awareness upon which creation is writ.

You

step back, separate, and admire and are in awe of your own

Power.

At the moment of separation you create two. You split like a cell

into two and relationship is formed. You play with your own

creation/image by separating yourself from it and become a part

of

your own creation. And then you stop.

 

And then.......

 

In the beginning there is nothing, no thing at all. And then a

thought appears and you say, " What is that? " . And it

begins...........again...........and again......

 

How can I stop it forever?

 

Know that there is no " how " . You cannot stop that which never

started. You cannot change the impossible and make it real. You

do

not believe or know that your reality is only an illusion. When you

know that you will Know Peace. The Peace that never went

anywhere.

 

Who will know this?

 

Who's asking? )

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Elizabeth Wells

<elwells8@e...> " <elwells8@e...> wrote:

 

<<< STudent>>>>

My God! Every thing is happening now. My birth, death and

middle are all happening now.

<<<Master>>>>.

This thought does not move. It is " hanging " in the void like a

spider on a strand and you cannot take your eyes from it. The

strand is projected from you like a fishing line and on the end of

it is the spider and everything else. You don't see that the strand

is

connected to you. You are dazzled by your own thought. It is

everything to you. It is the Present Moment. It is hanging,

pristine-like in Nothing, like a drop of dew in the morning sun

and you eternally give it movement and life by seeing your own

reflection in it. You are doing it all. And each strand you project

has a jewel like image which reflects all the other strands. I too

am your projected thought. Reel me in and be home. )

<<<<Student>>>>

????!!!!!

<<<Master>>>>

You have separated yourself from your own reflection. You are

the void, the Nothing at All upon which you write your creations.

You

are the blank slate, the Awareness upon which creation is writ.

You

step back, separate, and admire and are in awe of your own

Power.

At the moment of separation you create two. You split like a cell

into two and relationship is formed. You play with your own

creation/image by separating yourself from it and become a part

of

your own creation. And then you stop.

 

And then.......

 

In the beginning there is nothing, no thing at all. And then a

thought appears and you say, " What is that? " . And it

begins...........again...........and again......

 

How can I stop it forever?

 

Know that there is no " how " . You cannot stop that which never

started. You cannot change the impossible and make it real. You

do

not believe or know that your reality is only an illusion. When you

know that you will Know Peace. The Peace that never went

anywhere.

 

Who will know this?

 

Who's asking? )

 

*************************************************

 

These dialogues are the attractions of/in the effort to

understand " the philosophy " .

Nonetheless I remain as befuddled as the one in the <<student>> role.

 

A huffy rebuff that I've been fond of is that this dialogue is

another play at the " Advaita Shuffle " .

 

But I'll try to understand, maybe it isn't a Dance and maybe I am " a

blank slate upon which creation writ. "

 

(Hey, what the Hell does that mean?)

 

If I understand whatever it is the Master is proclaiming how does it

make a difference?

 

Answer: As the Master says " you will know Peace. The Peace that never

went anywhere. "

 

Okay, if Peace is a by-product of the understanding that may have

previously eluded the <<student>>> that understanding is something

worth posssessing, right?

 

Back to the understanding. Does not the student wish to know 'Who he

is (aka " Reality) " and the Teacher/Master repeats something

about " nothing... " ( " something about nothing " ...hahahhaha, yeah

right!!).

 

I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that we

are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

 

For example, I see a Radio before me. It is that due to its function

and according to consensus, i.e., you too will agree that that Radio

is a radio. Eventually it will no longer be a Radio. Eventually,

there will no longer be Radios.

With this reasoning, there is no thing.

 

Nonetheless, in our Becoming (the continuum of being Human) there is

meaning.

 

The dialogues, while intriguing, seem to make mockery of meaning.

 

Perhaps I have it backwards and upside down: maybe all the effort to

make Meaning (of human affairs) makes mockery of the understanding

that there is Nothing.

 

merry met,

 

cornelius

[Guest guest]

-

<d_agenda2000

<Nisargadatta >

Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:52 PM

Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF THE

WORLD

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Elizabeth Wells

<elwells8@e...> " <elwells8@e...> wrote:

 

 

Okay, if Peace is a by-product of the understanding that may have

previously eluded the <<student>>> that understanding is something

worth posssessing, right?

 

WRong !! This I Can not Even read, cos' this sounds So bad, it 'must' be

non-Real.

 

sorry student

apologize, master

 

I AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Back to the understanding. Does not the student wish to know 'Who he

is (aka " Reality) " and the Teacher/Master repeats something

about " nothing... " ( " something about nothing " ...hahahhaha, yeah

right!!).

 

I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that we

are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

 

For example, I see a Radio before me. It is that due to its function

and according to consensus, i.e., you too will agree that that Radio

is a radio. Eventually it will no longer be a Radio. Eventually,

there will no longer be Radios.

With this reasoning, there is no thing.

 

Nonetheless, in our Becoming (the continuum of being Human) there is

meaning.

 

The dialogues, while intriguing, seem to make mockery of meaning.

 

Perhaps I have it backwards and upside down: maybe all the effort to

make Meaning (of human affairs) makes mockery of the understanding

that there is Nothing.

 

merry met,

 

cornelius

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that we

> are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

Simpler to say " we are change " if the constancy of change is what

your basis is. And simpler yet to say, " Change is. "

 

As for " becoming " , is there a trajectory to change that you

are alluding to? Is there a direction to change?

 

Becoming *what*, in other words.

 

Regarding your premise, " change is constant " , that itself is a

constancy. I suggest that change is not real, that there may be

a " sense of change " , and freedom from such sense of change

is liberation from the " wheel of birth and death " .

 

In other words, when one is indifferent to change than what?

It's not really change then is it?

 

It's all just elevator music.

 

 

 

-Bill

 

 

 

 

 

shantiprod [shantiprod]

Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:28 AM

Nisargadatta

Re: Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF

THE WORLD

 

 

 

-

<d_agenda2000

<Nisargadatta >

Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:52 PM

Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF THE

WORLD

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Elizabeth Wells

<elwells8@e...> " <elwells8@e...> wrote:

 

 

Okay, if Peace is a by-product of the understanding that may have

previously eluded the <<student>>> that understanding is something

worth posssessing, right?

 

WRong !! This I Can not Even read, cos' this sounds So bad, it 'must' be

non-Real.

 

sorry student

apologize, master

 

I AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Back to the understanding. Does not the student wish to know 'Who he

is (aka " Reality) " and the Teacher/Master repeats something

about " nothing... " ( " something about nothing " ...hahahhaha, yeah

right!!).

 

I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that we

are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

 

For example, I see a Radio before me. It is that due to its function

and according to consensus, i.e., you too will agree that that Radio

is a radio. Eventually it will no longer be a Radio. Eventually,

there will no longer be Radios.

With this reasoning, there is no thing.

 

Nonetheless, in our Becoming (the continuum of being Human) there is

meaning.

 

The dialogues, while intriguing, seem to make mockery of meaning.

 

Perhaps I have it backwards and upside down: maybe all the effort to

make Meaning (of human affairs) makes mockery of the understanding

that there is Nothing.

 

merry met,

 

cornelius

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that

we

> > are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

> Simpler to say " we are change " if the constancy of change is what

> your basis is. And simpler yet to say, " Change is. "

>

> As for " becoming " , is there a trajectory to change that you

> are alluding to? Is there a direction to change?

>

> Becoming *what*, in other words.

>

> Regarding your premise, " change is constant " , that itself is a

> constancy. I suggest that change is not real, that there may be

> a " sense of change " , and freedom from such sense of change

> is liberation from the " wheel of birth and death " .

>

> In other words, when one is indifferent to change than what?

> It's not really change then is it?

>

> It's all just elevator music.

>

>

>

> -Bill

 

Hi Bill --

 

The impression of change and movement doesn't

involve or require anything existing separately which undergoes

changes, or moves from one state to another.

 

What is unreal isn't change, it is any sense of

an ongoing or permanent being existing apart,

which goes through changes.

 

Change and unchangingness go hand in hand, so

how could one be more real than the other,

or one be indifferent to the other?

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

> What is unreal isn't change, it is any sense of

> an ongoing or permanent being existing apart,

> which goes through changes.

Of course the notion of " someone behind it all "

is the ultimate foolishness.

 

> Change and unchangingness go hand in hand, so

> how could one be more real than the other,

Yes. Unreal here, unreal there, unreal all around.

 

> The impression of change and movement doesn't

> involve or require anything existing separately which undergoes

> changes, or moves from one state to another.

Certainly. And impression of change and movement are

part of the " whirling around " of appearance. No harm here.

 

To me the statement, " Change is not real, " equates to

the statement, " Change is mere appearance. "

 

Anything that appears within Appearance is " mere appearance " ,

is *unreal*.

 

But then I seem to be saying that *everything* is unreal,

everything is mere appearance. Which seems extreme. But that

*is* what I am saying. To me it equates to: " All Dharmas are

empty. "

 

But then the same schema you applied to " change and unchangingness "

should apply here:

" Unrealness and not unrealness go hand in hand. "

This schema, which I am inclined to call " The Law of Contraries " ,

seems quite sound.

 

So what is not unreal in this case, and is requisite for the

appearance of change/changelessness. Is it not the no-thing

Appearance itself? Isn't it interesting? Appearance itself

doesn't appear. Appearance just is.

 

And while it can be said that Appearance is not unreal

(is not mere appearance), it cannot be said that Appearance

is real. Appearance itself is of a " different logical type "

than any appearance (phenomenon), and with respect to which

none of the attributes of appearances/pheonomena/entities

apply.

 

This Appearance. How marvelous. It is Phenomenality.

Is is Noumenality. It is All rolled into One.

 

I love it.

 

No hooks. No strings.

Just...

 

This Appearance.

 

 

So nice to hear from you, Dan!

It warms my heart.

 

-Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

dan330033 <dan330033 [dan330033]

Sunday, December 29, 2002 3:53 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF THE

WORLD

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that

we

> > are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

> Simpler to say " we are change " if the constancy of change is what

> your basis is. And simpler yet to say, " Change is. "

>

> As for " becoming " , is there a trajectory to change that you

> are alluding to? Is there a direction to change?

>

> Becoming *what*, in other words.

>

> Regarding your premise, " change is constant " , that itself is a

> constancy. I suggest that change is not real, that there may be

> a " sense of change " , and freedom from such sense of change

> is liberation from the " wheel of birth and death " .

>

> In other words, when one is indifferent to change than what?

> It's not really change then is it?

>

> It's all just elevator music.

>

>

>

> -Bill

 

Hi Bill --

 

The impression of change and movement doesn't

involve or require anything existing separately which undergoes

changes, or moves from one state to another.

 

What is unreal isn't change, it is any sense of

an ongoing or permanent being existing apart,

which goes through changes.

 

Change and unchangingness go hand in hand, so

how could one be more real than the other,

or one be indifferent to the other?

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > I conclude that we are Becoming. To be something would mean that

we

> > are unchanging, and since change is constant there is no thing.

> Simpler to say " we are change " if the constancy of change is what

> your basis is. And simpler yet to say, " Change is. "

>

> As for " becoming " , is there a trajectory to change that you

> are alluding to? Is there a direction to change?

 

My use of " change " is unclear. Our beingness is chockful of

changeableness. But we speak in terms of constants, i.e.,

" I am a homeowner " .

To call my being a homeowner an illusion is silly...right? That

beingness has significance (to me).

So where does my notion of " becoming " fit in?

Well, we are not homeowners (solely or essentially), what we are

is ?...and we function in various roles!

The beingness is chockful of Intention....which is the " trajectory " ,

in which we are becoming.

 

 

 

> Becoming *what*, in other words.

>

> Regarding your premise, " change is constant " , that itself is a

> constancy. I suggest that change is not real, that there may be

> a " sense of change " , and freedom from such sense of change

> is liberation from the " wheel of birth and death " .

 

I agree with the notion of liberation. And that change is not real.

But it's a violation to mix philosophy and " good neighborliness " ...

For example, your neighbor announces the birth of his child...do you

say " change is not real " ?

 

> In other words, when one is indifferent to change than what?

> It's not really change then is it?

>

> It's all just elevator music.

>

Right, indifference to change is a good practice: Detachment.

But it has to be practiced, otherwise, when the " light turns Green,

you don't want to sit there and block traffic " .....

 

> -Bill

>

cornelius

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

This is very scary. I'm in agreement with you again.

I must've gone daft!

Oh my God, Nooo! ))

 

Just kidding,

 

Pete

 

> Hi Bill --

>

> The impression of change and movement doesn't

> involve or require anything existing separately

> which undergoes

> changes, or moves from one state to another.

>

> What is unreal isn't change, it is any sense of

> an ongoing or permanent being existing apart,

> which goes through changes.

>

> Change and unchangingness go hand in hand, so

> how could one be more real than the other,

> or one be indifferent to the other?

>

> Love,

> Dan

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> So nice to hear from you, Dan!

> It warms my heart.

>

> -Bill

 

I could say what heart? What Dan?

It's all appearance! But I won't say

it. I just appear to be saying it. )

 

Pete

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Pete, you're snoring kinda loud!

 

-Bill

 

 

pete seesaw [seesaw1us]

Monday, December 30, 2002 8:53 AM

Nisargadatta

RE: Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF

THE WORLD

 

 

 

> So nice to hear from you, Dan!

> It warms my heart.

>

> -Bill

 

I could say what heart? What Dan?

It's all appearance! But I won't say

it. I just appear to be saying it. )

 

Pete

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry, buddy, I did I awake you? JUst teasing.

 

Pete

--- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:

> Pete, you're snoring kinda loud!

>

> -Bill

>

>

> pete seesaw [seesaw1us]

> Monday, December 30, 2002 8:53 AM

> Nisargadatta

> RE: Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER

> TURN ON THE LIGHT OF

> THE WORLD

>

>

>

> > So nice to hear from you, Dan!

> > It warms my heart.

> >

> > -Bill

>

> I could say what heart? What Dan?

> It's all appearance! But I won't say

> it. I just appear to be saying it. )

>

> Pete

>

>

>

> Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up

> now.

> http://mailplus.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes You Will !!

by the sake of God yes !

That's It, just a Joke :-)

 

kid.

-

" pete seesaw " <seesaw1us

<Nisargadatta >

Monday, December 30, 2002 5:45 PM

Re: Re: MAY WE ALL TOGETHER TURN ON THE LIGHT OF THE

WORLD

 

 

 

Hi Dan,

 

This is very scary. I'm in agreement with you again.

I must've gone daft!

Oh my God, Nooo! ))

 

Just kidding,

 

Pete

 

> Hi Bill --

>

> The impression of change and movement doesn't

> involve or require anything existing separately

> which undergoes

> changes, or moves from one state to another.

>

> What is unreal isn't change, it is any sense of

> an ongoing or permanent being existing apart,

> which goes through changes.

>

> Change and unchangingness go hand in hand, so

> how could one be more real than the other,

> or one be indifferent to the other?

>

> Love,

> Dan

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill --

 

Happy new year!

 

In part, you wrote:

 

> But then I seem to be saying that *everything* is unreal,

> everything is mere appearance. Which seems extreme. But that

> *is* what I am saying. To me it equates to: " All Dharmas are

> empty. "

 

Emptiness isn't the same as unreality.

It has more to do with relativity and interdependence

than unreality.

 

To teach that everything is unreal, would itself be unreal,

therefore hardly worth the effort of ennunciating :-)

 

Noticing I am transitory and relative opens me to

nonindependent being, acausal truth that includes

causal understandings of events.

 

And what is not transitory and beyond relativity will never

be said, experienced, or ennunciated in a true way.

 

So, sticking to what can be observed, I say experience is

transitory, is changing.

 

> But then the same schema you applied to " change and unchangingness "

> should apply here:

> " Unrealness and not unrealness go hand in hand. "

> This schema, which I am inclined to call " The Law of Contraries " ,

> seems quite sound.

 

Yes. I would view it as relativity and interdepencence.

To know what is unreal as unreal, requires knowing what is

real as real -- and vice versa.

 

Rather than a law, I see it as the way of manifestation,

the way of phenomena, the way of thought.

 

A law seems to be a predetermined formulation, as if

an ongoing identity to that formulation could

be preserved, whereas in

relativity, any formulation is given meaning in contrast

with contrary formulations, all arising mutually, although

one may be preferred in a situation to another (e.g.,

preferring the formulation " gravity effects motion " to

" there is no such thing as gravity to effect motion, "

yet no absolute law has ever been the case, as in one dream

this so-called law may not apply, yet in another is regarded

as always the case) ...

 

> So what is not unreal in this case, and is requisite for the

> appearance of change/changelessness. Is it not the no-thing

> Appearance itself? Isn't it interesting? Appearance itself

> doesn't appear. Appearance just is.

 

The phenomenal doesn't occur outside of the nonphenomenal,

as change isn't outside changelessness, nor appearance

other than nonappearance.

 

Truth is not the ability to define or express what is so,

truth is not trying to stand apart from what is, so as to be

able to define, conceptualize, or discuss its nature.

 

> And while it can be said that Appearance is not unreal

> (is not mere appearance),

 

You mean as one can say that Capitalization is not unreal,

is not mere capitalization?

 

> it cannot be said that Appearance

> is real. Appearance itself is of a " different logical type "

> than any appearance (phenomenon), and with respect to which

> none of the attributes of appearances/pheonomena/entities

> apply.

 

If no appearances or phenomena apply, then why apply the

appearance of logical types, or the phenomenal quality

of appearance with a capital letter?

 

> This Appearance. How marvelous. It is Phenomenality.

> Is is Noumenality. It is All rolled into One.

>

> I love it.

 

Well, how is it when there is no division from which to

love it or not love it?

 

How is it when you aren't there as a being apart to give

it a description, to behold it, or to comment about

how it appears or doesn't?

 

To answer my own questions, I'd say that it's not

something that is going to be provided by any approach

or nonapproach, not by describing it accurately,

nor by knowing what it is or isn't.

 

To give a positive answer, it is only that truth that you are,

which allows you to know yourself as experience, as change

and changelessness, as relativity and conceptuality.

As if you ever could have a sensation of yourself!

 

> No hooks. No strings.

> Just...

>

> This Appearance.

 

Ah, you're just trying to trick me, as usual.

 

There isn't any Appearance, just someone talking about

appearance with capital letters,

as if something ever appears! :-)

 

And if by appearance you mean sensation,

yes, you're quite remarkable in your ability to generate

a sensate experience of what has never occurred!

 

Put yourself on display for all to see, from whatever

angle they think they are experiencing you from!

 

> So nice to hear from you, Dan!

> It warms my heart.

 

A toast for the toasty one,

Dan :-)

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us>

wrote:

>

> Hi Dan,

>

> This is very scary. I'm in agreement with you again.

> I must've gone daft!

> Oh my God, Nooo! ))

>

> Just kidding,

>

> Pete

 

I know what you mean, Pete.

 

Let's just dissolve ourselves, and call it a day.

 

Otherwise, you'll next be agreeing with me that you are me

and I am you!

 

Eerily laughing,

Danscare