Jedi Sentinel Findings

Br. John wrote: Like so many things this question requires the definition of a chicken. I'm going by DNA. If we do then a creature that almost had the DNA of what we call a chicken laid an egg with a mutation that allowed it to develop and hatch the first chicken.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1652

People didn't get that the ABC's of ecology was the current discussion so I'll post it again.

The ABC's of Ecology

The following are lessons that I learned from the work of Daniel Quinn.

First I have to apologize for sharing this info with such a small crowed in chat. I should be trying to get this message across to every one! A hundred times if I have to.

The very first thing I learned from the Story of B was that you cant get the message across if you mention it only once. You might as well not say it at all. So I'll be repeating this and other lessons as often as I can can. Again any one that reads this will hear it from me again. Its for your own good!

Ok Lets see...
I guess I'll start with "The ABC's of Ecology" since most people know this already.(or should)
The ABC's of Ecology have to work together in order for the planet to be in balance.

There are 2 ways of teaching this and I'll explain both here now.

The first is the 4th grade way of learning this.

All things in our world fall into 3 categories.

Abiotic = never living/ Biotic = living / and C = (we'll get to that later)

Abiotic: are things like soil, sun , water, and so on...

Biotic: are things like plants, bugs, meerkats, and owls. Its important to note that every single one of them needs to eat plants in some shape or form to survive.

---

The other way to teach this is the way its explained in "The Story of B"

The A: We are what we eat. (Every human on the planet is made out of food)

The B: An animals population is directly tied to the amount of food that is available to it. If you have an abundance of food the population will grow. If you reduce the amount of food the population will drop. If you keep the same amount of food the population will fluctuate but it will average out.

Since this is such an important part of the ABC's of Ecology I'll explain it further.

Remember the bugs and the meerkats? Lets talk about them. If the meerkats have lots of bugs to eat than the babies they have will have lots to eat. Once their population grows to large there wont be enough bugs for the meerkats to eat. This is when nature fixes its self. A good amount of meerkats will die and the population will drop. This give the bugs time to increase their numbers and balance is restored. Nature is wonderful

EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ON THIS PLANET IS TIED TO THIS!

Having said all that, I'll wait for my next entry before we talk about "C".

This Ecology discussion reminds me of an epidemic that im sure we're are all familiar with but really dont understand that our "good intentions" are what started the tragedy in the first place. This incident im talking about of course is the famine in Ethiopia, when most people think of that country you picture barren wasteland of a foodless Savannah desert. The thing is though that there would have never been people trying to live there if there wasnt food, they're not retarded and it isnt really holy land for them to sacrifice their lives for. It's merely a nice shady spot in the desert they call their home. So when did the famine occur? Well understand the when they got to that peice of land that it could probably only support about more than a million people (Ethiopia is huge) this is considering natural resources and their ability to make trade with tribes around them.
So what was it? A drought? War? Plague? Locust? actually all of those things happened (sometimes all at once) but they actually have nothing to do with the fact 10,000,000+ have died from starvation alone in Ethiopia. Whats the real killer? Well of course it is Us! When we saw the initial signs that their population was exploding and notice quite a few areas dont have enough food to support their level of population anymore(Starving), instead of letting nature balance itself out we opted to "help" them... The science of it all is the fact that land can ONLY hold maybe 5,000,000+ people at most and their population was growing to over twice that amount, The WORST thing we could have possibly done for them is give them more food, not just food but a HUGE abundance of it too, in fact 5,000 TONS of food was sent initially meaning they can now sustain 15,000,000+ the bad part is we didnt keep sending 5,000 tons over and over again.
So instead of just a couple hundred thousand dying from "natural" starvation and nature balancing itself out, we now doomed 5,000,000+ women children and men to a tragic fate that in the end we view ourselves as heros when we are directly responsible for a massive starvation epidemic. And believe me this isn't the first time this has happened nor will it ever be the last.
So i guess just to clarify i completely agree with the idea food is what governs population, mind you there are countless things that affect the population but it shall not continue to increase without being directly tied to the food situation in the society....

With that said now its time for C

The C of ABC's of Ecology

The C is simply...Culture.

Who's culture? Ours. Our culture is directly tied to the planet....if you haven't noticed already. Before I explain it let me tell you what I dont mean our violant, racist, greedy, shady, corrupt, technological distraction loving, hamburger eating, land conquering, nuclear weapon making culture. Those things are only the effects or by products of our one true culture.

I'm talking about totalitarian agriculture. This is the act of plotting out land in order to farm food and not allowing any other living thing to live there. No locust, no foxes, no wolves, no crows, NOTHING that would eat our food is ALLOWED TO LIVE....there. The food is then kept under lock and key. This creates "WORK"! If you want food for the winter or your starving family you'll have to pay for it. How do you pay for it? With work. This forces others to be a part of this culture. Soon other people want to be the rich farmer with all the food and "currency".

This is the culture we live in today. Most of us believe that we've lived in this culture since the beginning of time. That humans came into existence already being able to farm. Think about it. Did humans really start out as farmers? Is that how we made our living? Or was there another way?

No one talks about it because its been so long since we've lived this way. No one would dare go back to the "savage" way of life. To live as tribal community would be the end of us. There are 2 points that need to be made clear here. First the "savages" of our past didn't think of them selves as savages. The second is tribalism is still a way of life today. It hasn't gone anywhere and it hasn't failed. Tribals success is obvious or it wouldn't exist today.

"But Master Daniel are you asking us to drop our Ipods, cell phones, and flat screens just to go live in the woods? :dry: "

Nope. The point of this lesson is to show you that there are cultures that, are directly tied to the A and the B of ecology, dont lead to disaster. They dont kill off other animals, they dont put food under lock and key, and they dont prevent others from getting to that food.

Now what can we do? I'm not to sure about it. I NEED the rest of you for that part. Only when i change your minds about this can we begin to talk about how to fix the problem. "If the world is saved, it will not be by old minds with new programs but by new minds with no programs at all!" -Daniel Quinn

All i know is that our current culture isn't working. If what we're doing isn't working dont you think we should try something else? :dry:

Totalitarian Agriculture


Totalitarian Agriculture was a method of living that likely occurred in the Fertile Crescent about 10,000 years ago. In school we learn that Mesopotamia was the first known agricultural civilization. Mesopotamians were very unique because unlike their tribal neighbors the didn't forage or migrate when food became scarce. What they did that was unlike any other culture, was plot out a large sections of land and farm all the food they would ever need. This type of life style gave them so many advantages!

1) They always had food ready.

2) It allowed expansion since there is always a permanent settlement to expand from.

3) It created a pecking order. Land owners (farmers of the food), guards for the food, sellers of the food, workers of the farm, other tribes outside of the land that is owned.

to name a few...

By adding a wall around this settlement you have the makings of what we like to call "civilization".

Now lets follow Totalitarian Agriculture through out the ages.

We learned from the ABC's of Ecology that if the Mesopotamians have food that is always readily available there population would increase. There for they would have to expand. Where to? Both east and west. Why not? They have the resources to sustain that kind of expansion; unlike the neighboring tribes that would have to convert or submit to this ever expansive culture.

Speaking of converting or submitting lets take a look at the 11th, 12th and 13th century. During this time there was a "little" event called the Crusades. This even pushed not only religion on to the door steps of many other cultures but it also forced people to become a part of the farming culture. The only way the Crusaders could have possibly marched on during the 11th, 12th and 13th century is if they had enough food to foil such a campaign. People dont war with each other if they are starving. In order to found such and expansion you have to have the resources. The most important resource is food!

This continues but lets skip to 1492. This is apparently when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. His goal was to trade with the people of the far east by going west(by this time most people already knew the earth was round). He didn't want to enslave them and take their land he wanted to trade with them. How ever he never made it to the east because there was just a big chunk of land in his way and it was filled with savages.(Savages dont think of them selves as savages) Well this is nothing new. Civilized people have always claimed savage land so they can build settlements. Again this is all possible by food that is readily available. If it wasn't available Columbus wouldn't be able to sail the seas...he would starve and die.

Now we take a look at the Industrial Revolution that took place from 1750 to 1850.( Again remember that if people are starving than they dont invent) The Industrial Revolutions was a huge change for the planet. Not only did this allow for more expansion but faster expansion. Everything was growing! From farm land to technology. MORE MORE MORE! GROW GROW GROW! BUT! what else was growing?

Now lets take a look at our present day. We are the most blessed people on the planet. If your borne in a first world country you have nothing to worry about. This is how people were meant to live. This is how "CIVILIZED" people live. We have everything you could ever need! From Food to iPhones.

This is what we're taught in school. That the way we live is the one right way to live. Why should we ever disagree with that. In fact! lets get other countries to do the same because if they aren't like us they aren't happy, how can they be happy if they aren't like us?

We're happy because we never have to worry about food. That gives us more time to invent new cars and rocket ships and flat screens. Now that we dont have to spend all day hunting and gathering we have so much time to invent stuff....

:blink: BUT WHAT IF THE FOOD RAN OUT!? :dry:

This post is in response to what was discussed last night in chat.
A few of you really want to learn what we have to teach so here we go.

My apprentice SikikSoulja will be helping me with this. If all goes well and you all like what we have to teach we'll bring you more...as a good teacher should. :laugh:


We're trying to generate more discussions towards better questions.

Big question.... Why haven't we figured out a proper way to live? With our marvelous inventions, quantum theories, and massive cites we failed to figure out something as fundamental as how to live on Earth as a species. For thousands of years we felt that we were living on this planet how man was supposed to live. Now that we've used up a lot of our resources and killed off so many other species we're starting to look around.... We're realizing that our lifestyle is not whats best for our planet our people our future. As Jedi we should be sensitive enough to notice the signs that our planet has giving us.


So I suppose we should first figure out why our lifestyle is hindering us from being a better culture. As well as possibilities leading us towards a more positive perspective with our planet and ourselves.

i believe as humans we havent found a proper way to live because we are a greedy race. all we do is take from one another and never want to give anything back. and as a race of beings we need to become aware of the harmful effects of what we are doing. progress is a good thing until we have too much progress which leads us to a progress trap. lets use cavemen to describe what i mean. the cavemen hunting mammoths the one who figures out how to kill 2 at a time to feed the village or cave is progress from only killing 1. but a progress trap what is this? lets use cavemen again. when the cavemen realized hey i can kill a herd of mammoths by chasing them off a cliff leads to a decreased population of mammoths which causes a progress trap because its killing them off at a fast rate and then there is nothing left. we are trapped then. we progressed too far. so in the past lets say 3000 years we havent really changed yes we are smarter, but our way of thinking hasnt changed that much. we were hunters and gatherers. still are but progress has it to were we dont need to do those things anymore. populations grew to fast to where now we used up almost everything we have on this planet. now as a people we need to come together and help one another to grow more food to save our planet as it should. use the resources that are in abundance like solar power, ect, ect

I'm really glad master that you finally agreed on sharing these ideas on TOTJO's forum! I would happily follow these topics and comment on any of them that I think I can!

here is my 'response' to SikikSoulja's big question:

The answer is really simple that we can not see it. I remember in book of 'The Alchemist', that old man said something wise to main character:

"In past, recipe of philosopher stone was simply wrote on a diamond, it was so simple but man didn't liked it, because they wanted something more complicated, ..." (I read the translated version, and I re-translated it, so this is not the exact word)

And also in 'Follow your heart!' Andrew Matthews said ...

"... he search for a job. There are 2 jobs available, one say:

-Bad payment, 12 working hours, ....

and the other say:

-Flexible hours, good payment, one week vacation per year...

and he chose first one, you know why? because he think life is hard, he go to interview,

-are you mad? our employes are angry, we are not in a good financial state, ..... do you still want to work here?
+when can I start?"

The answer is too simple that man kind doesn't want to know it.... It's as simple as 2+2, all you have to do is follow the rule of life, all you have to do is go back to your nature.

There was a TV show in my country, that some alien had came to earth, and in one of their report they said :

"The intelligent race in this plant is this (Dolphin photo) but these (man photo) claim to be the intelligent one, and they are destroying their environment, to prove it"

I so agree. We are in a progress trap. Here are some key points to the problem.

The term gained attention following the historian and novelist Ronald Wright's 2004 non-fiction book and Massey Lecture series A Short History of Progress, in which he sketches world history so far as a succession of progress traps. Daniel B. O'Leary's book Escaping the Progress Trap appeared in 2006, having begun life in 1990 as a presentation at Montreal's Concordia University entitled "The Progress Trap - Science, Humanity and Environment".

Overview

While the idea is not new, Wright identifies the central problem as being one of scale and political will. According to him, the error is often to extrapolate from what appears to work well on a small scale to a larger scale, which depletes natural resources and causes environmental degradation. Large-scale implementation also tends to be subject to diminishing returns. As overpopulation, erosion, greenhouse gas emissions or other consequences become apparent, society is destabilized.

In a progress trap, those in positions of authority are unwilling to make changes necessary for future survival. To do so they would need to sacrifice their current status and political power at the top of a hierarchy. They may also be unable to raise public support and the necessary economic resources, even if they try. Deforestation and erosion in ancient Greece may be an example of the latter.

A new source of natural resources can provide a reprieve. The European discovery and exploitation of the "New World" is one example of this, but seem unlikely to be repeated today. Present global civilization has covered the planet to such an extent there are no new resources in sight. Wright concludes that if not averted by some other means, collapse will be on a global scale, if or when it comes. Current economic crises, population problems and global climate change are symptoms that highlight the interdependence of current national economies and ecologies.

The problem has deep historical roots. In the early stone age, improved hunting techniques in vulnerable areas caused the extinction of many prey species, leaving the enlarged populace without an adequate food supply. The only apparent alternative, agriculture, also proved to be a progress trap. Salination, deforestation, erosion and urban sprawl led to disease, malnutrition and so forth, hence shorter lives.

Almost any sphere of technology can prove to be a progress trap, as in the example of medicine and its possibly inadequate response to the drawbacks of the high-density agricultural practices (e.g. factory farming) it has enabled. Wright uses weapon technology gradually reaching the threat of total nuclear destruction to illustrate this point. Ultimately, Wright strives to counter at least the Victorian notion of "modernity" as unconditionally a good thing.

@ RedKing: We've already talked about this in chat but let me repeat it here too. Its not our race that is greedy and selfish. We only represent our culture. Its good that you called us takers therefore your culture is the taker culture. This is actually good news. That means we dont have to change humanity we just have to change our culture.

@ Sajjad: Good points all around my friend. The people of our culture are the hardest working people on the planet by choice. You could give them the answer to life the universe and everything! The answer would be 42. But instead of being happy that we have the answers the first thing we'd do is question it. Thank you for mentioning the rule of life by the way. I already talked about it in "The ABCs of ecology" but i'll post it again at the bottom of this post.


@ Francois: You've made some very good points. I'd like to talk about just a few of them. Indeed we have become disharmonic but its not because of our early cave man roots. Any time that a new species appears on the planet a different species becomes extinct. Its nature, it happens all the time for 2 reasons. The New species prays on the old or the new species is faster or more efficient at getting the food it needs that the old species dies out.
Other than that your right on target. Thanks for sharing with us.


The Rule of Life
You may engage in limited competition but you may not wage war on each other. You can compete but you must not hunt down and kill off your enemy. You may not keep your enemy from food or tamper with their food.

It has always been through numbers, mechanical and intellectual aptitude that we have survived the jungle out there. This advantage means its not an even playing field, and we no longer have a place in the biosphere because we are not playing by the rules. Humanity is too far advanced for this planet with the exception of pathological vulnerabilities leading to self destruction. The most complex, say even refined, form of self destruction is when you destroy everything around you leaving yourself to last, and this is what humanity is getting better at doing.

If we were looking in from the outside and a species developed which was dominate enough to, would you let it destroy its world.... or would you destroy it, or perhaps move it somewhere else where it was not able to dominate to the point of destruction?

Is the conflict of competition the compassionate path? I would not want humans to compete for the right to survive so I dislike that the animal kingdom is limited to such barbarity... but we can do nothing about that, yet.

We are the ones destroying others, so we are still playing at that game of competition but we are playing unopposed and to a different rule book. Its just we elevate ourselves as a species to higher importance then other species. Basically humans are feeding off this planet, without competition and therefore I consider it a parasitic relationship.

We've survived this far by using our advantage, but it doesn't mean we'll keep on surviving. I think as a species we seek compassionate comfort. So how do we work, play, eat and sleep safely and productively in high order species with finite resources. We either go get more resources or learn how to use the ones we have more efficiently.

I actually believe looking backwards potentiates the very problem being discussed. Historically life was bad, not good. Its just our numbers were so small that the impacts were limited to small areas, but as population increases we need to realize those same destructive habits are amplified and now local is global. Living like we did in the past, in the numbers we now, have will just make things worse IMO.

Often times the best way to move forward is know where it is you want to end up, and then just join the dots to find a direction.... so I think each planet does have a maximum number of humans it can support. Lifeless rocks could have more, compared to delicate complex ecosystems which might have very few or even none.

Often the immediate reaction to space immigration is about how going to space will make us trash space.... and yes this needs to be considered carefully and managed but in itself is not a reason not to do it. Especially when the other option is complete annihilation of the biosphere of this planet leading to inevitable space exploration anyway (if humans still exist at that point), or birth controls to limit population growth. So I discount birth control as unethical, which leaves me with two options;

1. stay on Earth longer destroying it more and going to space eventually, just later, or
2. leave Earth as soon as possible to minimize damage to Earth.

For me the answer is obviously choice 2, but if doing so destroys the Earth then it defeats the point. So I dont think we should rush it, but a real focus needs to be sought globally... a non-military space race might focus progress somewhat, perhaps commercial space mining.

Of course the very concept should seem ludicrous to starving people in the third world but the issue I'm discussing is survival of the planets biosphere including the human species, and not the individual welfare of all people. One of the problems of making more people more wealthy and healthy is that it tends to increase the birth rates and population even more dramatically which speeds up the damage to the planets biosphere. While procreation is an instinctual easy source of pleasure for at least the male gender, its occurance throughout all economic levels does not point to the increase in populations with wealth due to improved survival during childbirth and raising children due to health and medical access. Not helping the poor though is a defacto type of birth control, which I've already stated I consider unethical - not to mention that not alleviating suffering when its possible, is borderline criminal IMO. So I think my point is we seriously need to incorporate space immigration into our near term future asap.

Ignorance to these issues will be our biggest long term threat because as wealth increases, so does security; and once a human feels secure it might lose its instinctual drive to achieve progress - leading to a slump into an apathetic and insular state of wealth as self, where preservation of wealth becomes central to our existence. The capitalist system facilitates this but it is probably consumerism which causes it and where fault might lie. The third world wants what the first world has got, but what does the first world want and what should it want?

There are times when I think a complete loss of technology would benefit the world much more than anything else...without technology we would have to readapt to living with nature instead of dominating it...and it would cause natural selection to be the deciding factor in births not medicine....as a species natural selection is key to survival...it prevents genetic weaknesses from being passed on thus strengthening a species...sounds cold...but then again nature can be cold and brutal...

Is that complete removal or sudden shutdown of technology?

Awhile ago I was wondering if technology has stunted our evolutionary growth.

no. soon enough, technology will guide our evolutionary growth in the form of gene manipulation. no one can say if this will be a beneficial tech until we try it large scale tho.

It seems to me that population control is becoming a major priority if we want to solve the problem. The world’s population will likely reach 9.2 billion in 2050. Here are some possible solutions I found.

Laws

One way for a country or other ruling authoritative body to control population growth is to institute laws that prohibit high fertility. China, for instance, is well known for instituting a "one child policy" which makes it illegal for urban couples to have more than one child. Using regulations to control population in this manner is often frowned upon, and requires a governing body with supreme authority over its people, but it can be very effective.

Contraception

Another important way to limit population growth is to increase the rate of contraception among the population. Contraception, while not infallible, drastically reduces fertility rates, often with minimal expense. While contraception and education about using contraception is widely available in rich countries, people in poor countries may not have access to simple contraceptive methods like condoms, or even know what they are. Not only can poor nations in areas like Africa and southeast Asia benefit from the fertility control aspect of contraception, but condoms can also help prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS, which is an epidemic in many poor nations.

Economics

Economics plays a vital role in determining population growth. Countries that are well developed tend to have lower population growths and are more urbanized, with a higher cost of living, while poor countries are more rural with a lower cost of living. When the cost of having a child is extremely high, it deters parents from having more than a couple of kids. When the costs of raising children are low, such as they are in rural areas where they may contribute greatly to work on a farm, families have a much greater incentive to have babies. Encouraging economic development and urbanization in less developed countries may eventually lead to lower population growth.

Considerations

While not designed for population control, there are several other factors which tend to limit population growth. Wars are one factor which plays a large role in limiting population growth. Since soldiers are typically able bodied men, any combat deaths are likely to decrease population growth. Controlling population is a very controversial subject, and many consider education and making contraception available, but not forcing its use to be the only acceptable way to promote population control. Even if birth rates can be controlled to a mere replacement rate (every couple has two kids, replacing the mother and father) increasing sophistication of health care has lead to an increase in life expectancies, which has further increased the size of world populations.

@Adder: Your reply is very long but well thought out. I'm impressed. ok Man hasn't always used numbers and mechanical to survive the jungle but it has always used intellectual aptitude. Your right! Our mechanical advantage isn't fair. This is because our technology has turned off(exempt us) the negative feedback of nature.
But again its not humanity that is the problem its our one culture. There are humans out there that live well within the biosphere. Now animals dont compete for the right to survive either. The live amongst on another. Its humans that compete for the right to survive. We prove this by wagging war on each other. If we knew what animals thought I doubt they view them selves as barbaric. I wouldn't suggest leaving earth because one its our home and two; if we still haven't learned how to live on earth what makes us think we can live any place else in a less destructive way?

@RyuJin: a complete loss of technology would solve a lot of problems but it wouldn't solve the technology problem. That is our technology isn't going anywhere. Our cities will still be here even if we leave them. In stead lets "invent" a new way to live that makes our technology work for the planet.

@Francois: Now your talking my language! :woohoo:
Laws: would be a good idea if we haven't tried it already. Its already been tried but not just with over population but with all sort of things. No amount of law making ever stopped the behavior it was made to control. If the whole world used China's laws than there would be groups of people that reject this ONE WORLD RULE.

Contraception: Is once again something thats already been tried. Lots of countries have them and the population rate hasn't even slowed. The do help prevent the spread of STD though.

Considerations: Your on the right track with this one. How ever wars would only take a small chunk of the population down it wouldn't stop the rate at which it increases. Education also hasn't worked because both types of education have already been used. Parents have tried teaching kids about sex and other parents have tried keeping information about sex hidden and still the population just keeps on growing.

@All: It seems like I'm just being negative but I'm really not. This is just stuff thats already been done year after year. How about we try something that no one would dare try?

Control the amount of food we make

Thank you Master Daniel. I am learning a great deal through these educational posts. It seems that we have to start a major campaign on overpopulation. It is time we talk about the real problem impacting our environment. We've done it recently with the environment. Everyone wants to save it and do their part. It is present in daily household conversations. "Save the environment". But the real problem is overpopulation, yet no one is disscussing overpopulation. We don't want to admit the real problem or find real solutions. It is time that "Stop overpopulation" becomes the new buzz word. Thoughts like look what overpopulation is doing to our planet have to resonate in our daily consciousness.

In my opinion we have to start campaining now and start implementing real solutions before it's too late. Suzy Mchale believes that if we do not find real solutions soon, we will be forced to implement radical solutions latter.

For example we can legalize euthanasia. Will it solve the problem, not even close but it's a start. I found a site by Suzy Mchale for those interested to learn more about this very important subject.

suzymchale.com/overpop.html

I'm glad to hear it Francois. Let me expand on what you said.

Overpopulation is a REAL problem. Now if that meteor never hits, if the title waves never rise, if the earthquakes never start, if the volcanoes never erupt, if the aliens never come, if the wars dont finish us off.....Over population will!

All the other stuff i mentioned is stuff that might happen. Over population is what will happen because it already is happening and will continue to happen so long as we keep doing the same thing year after year.

My apprentice and I will be talking about stuff like this and more in a new thread.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Stories

Meet us there and we'll try to find a solution together.

Its a late night and I cant sleep so I felt I would talk a little about my meet up with Plokoon(Paul). It wont be to detailed becaue im half asleep. :S I just need to at least acknowledge this meet up before I pass out.

The meeting was between Sikik(J.R) my apprentice, Plo Koon(Paul), and my self. We met in Tucson Arizona at the Good Egg restaurant.

I cant say that I was thinking very much when I met Paul. My mind was pretty much blank until we sat down.

I must admit that I was so nervous, not because I was meeting a temple member for the first time, because Paul was so calm and ready.(From what I could tell)
It didn't take long for me to see that this person in front of me was an experienced human. I'm not to sure how to explain that but it was very different from how I currently am. I dont doubt that in time I'll be like that.
I'm grateful that Sikik was able to come with us. He's a much better conversationalist than I am. I would have made things very awkward if he wasn't there to aid the conversation. Any time that the conversation lost some steam he was right there to pick it backup again. He was also more in control than I was. The both of them made the whole thing really easy and for that I'm grateful.

Lets see...we talked about a lot of things its difficult to remember it all. What I can remember is that Paul had some really cool business cards for TOTJO.

I might talk more about it later. All in all I'm glad we did this and I can only hope that I get to meet more of you someday. :blush: