Thread: Pirates

Johnny, do you like movies about gladiators?

......Have you ever been in a cockpit before?

....Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Well my goodness, Scraps is a boy dog isn't he?

it sounds interesting. i'm so sick.

Rofl on the airplane quotes!!

is this for real or did you make this stuff up? captain jack sparrow is hetero. ha ha ha

this is a review i found of the book.

Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash has nothing to say about rum or the lash and the sodomy seems to exist only in the author’s mind. Nor does Hans Turley answer the fascinating question set out in his introduction. “How did the pirate … become the outrageously masculine anti-hero familiar to us through novels, movies, plays, and other outlets of popular culture?” (p.2). Hans Turley is a literary historian who, in this book, analyses a number of early eighteenth-century texts relating to piracy, such as trial records, Captain Charles Johnson’s General History of the Pyrates and novels by Daniel Defoe, in order to examine the sexuality and masculine identity of pirates. His argument is allusive, dense and riddled with jargon not easily accessible to the maritime historian, though no doubt clear enough to literary critics and students of gay studies. His aim seems to be to suggest by innuendo that the world of the pirate was not just homosocial but also homoerotic, but he fails to convince. Turley is honest enough to say that “the evidence for piratical sodomy is so sparse as to be almost non-existent” (p.2), but lack of evidence does not prevent him from seeing things in the pirate mind that are not apparent to other observers. He attempts to bolster his argument by drawing unconvincing parallels between pirates and the sodomites who attracted much prurient attention ashore. “Both the pirate and the sodomite are attracted to and gravitate toward other men. For the sodomite, this attraction is explicitly eroticized. For the pirate, this attraction is homosocial, but implicitly eroticized because he is culturally deviant, yet his sexuality is neither questioned nor determined.” (p.81) This last is an important point for Turley who claims (inaccurately) on several occasions that sexuality is left out of almost all depictions of piracy and that when it is implied it is ambiguous, as in Captain Johnson’s unspecific mention of the “riotous manner of living, as is the custom of pyrates” engaged in by Captain Vane and his crew while they were careening their ship. Johnson’s silence is a gift to the author. “Sodomy is tantalizingly implicit and repressed”, claims Turley. (p.85). But this is nonsense and indeed deliberate blindness on the part of the author, since Captain Johnson spells out on many other occasions what pirate custom was in these careening parties and it was certainly not homoerotic. Captain England’s crew lived “very wantonly” in West Africa for several weeks, “making free with the negro women”; Bartholomew Roberts’s men met “with handsome treatment” from local women in the Virgin Islands; Captain Taylor’s men caused havoc in the Laccadive Islands, “whose women they forced in a barbarous way to their lusts”. Is sodomy “tantalizingly implicit” in these and other descriptions which Turley must surely have read if he has read Captain Johnson? Turley also claims (again inaccurately) that “with the exception of some articles that Captain Roberts’s crew signed – in which ‘No boy or woman is to be allowed amongst them’ – the pirate’s sex life remains uncontrolled by any pirate rules.” (p.40). That “boy” is obviously useful to his argument, but again this is deliberate blindness, since several other pirate articles do mention sex but not the sort of sex that would suit Turley’s thesis. The articles signed by the crew of Captain John Phillips for instance, which are in Johnson, state that “if at any time you meet with a prudent woman, that man that offers to meddle with her, without her consent, shall suffer present death” and this is echoed in the articles of Captain Anstis which are preserved in the Admiralty records. (PRO ADM 1/4104/75) “If any … shall go on board of a prize and meet with any Gentlewoman or Lady of Honour and should force them against their will to lye with them shall suffer death.” Such articles suggest that pirates were not just heterosexual in their lusts, as most people would expect, but that they had also retained a greater sense of propriety and class-consciousness than Turley and indeed several other historians have suggested.

Hans Turley tells us in his preface that he first got interested in the theme of this book when studying Defoe’s pirate novel Captain Singleton where he was struck by the “almost explicit homoerotic desire shown by the title character for his friend and companion, Quaker William.” (p.vii). Later, he discerned a similar relationship between Robinson Crusoe and Friday and these two themes are interestingly developed in the last two (and best) chapters of the book. These readings of Defoe may or may not be correct, but it does seem rather superficial to look only for the homoerotic in relationships between men in all-male societies, whether they be pirates, sailors, cowboys or indeed rugby players. Friendship, mateship, peer competition in violence, blasphemy, showy dress and outrageous behaviour, lust for money, adventure, drink (and indeed women) are not necessarily homoerotic in motivation. Being all men together in defiance of the rest of the world was clearly an important part of pirate motivation, as indeed it is an important factor in explaining the continued attraction of the pirate in popular culture. But surely it is not realistic to suggest, on virtually no evidence, that it is the pirate’s secret homoeroticism that drew these crews together and has since provided prurient fascination for boys of all ages. Masculine identity and masculine culture are fascinating subjects for inquiry and a pirate ship makes a good laboratory, though sadly one with very little evidence, but Turley has not managed to solve the riddle of his hypermasculine anti-heroes despite his claim “that once the hatches to the pirates’ holds are opened a crack, ‘reality’ destabilizes, things unsaid may be spoken, and the homoerotic implications of elements in pirate history and fiction can be explored.”

wow thanks rock. john boy any rebuttal?

Philosophy of perception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The philosophy of perception concerns how mental processes and symbols depend on the world internal and external to the perceiver. Our perception of the external world begins with the senses, which lead us to generate empirical concepts representing the world around us, within a mental framework relating new concepts to preexisting ones. Because perception leads to an individual's impression of the world, its study may be important for those interested in better understanding communication, self, id, ego —even reality.

A major issue in the philosophy of perception is the possibility of discrepancies between the external world and the perceiver's impressions, which are sometimes referred to as qualia. While René Descartes concluded that the question "Do I exist?" can only be answered in the affirmative (cogito ergo sum), Freudian psychology suggests that self-perception is an illusion of the ego, and cannot be trusted to decide what is in fact real. Such questions are continuously reanimated, as each generation grapples with the nature of existence from within the human condition. The questions remain: Do our perceptions allow us to experience the world as it "really is?" Can we ever know another point of view in the way we know our own?

Wait - Are we talking about butt pirates or like, REAL pirates?

Well it sounds like a crock of bull to me, but they DID wear sashes...

Originally Posted by Decker

Johnny, do you like movies about gladiators?

......Have you ever been in a cockpit before?

....Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Well my goodness, Scraps is a boy dog isn't he?

Hi Decker,

Yes I have been in a cockpit before - Naval Air. And in war...

Have I seen a Grown Man naked - MANY MANY TIMES. And they me.

..............

Take Care, John H.

yes john but for most men it becomes a nessesity of circumstance, for you it is pleasurable.

Originally Posted by rockgazer69

this is a review i found of the book.

Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash has nothing to say about rum or the lash and the sodomy seems to exist only in the author’s mind. Nor does Hans Turley answer the fascinating question set out in his introduction. “How did the pirate … become the outrageously masculine anti-hero familiar to us through novels, movies, plays, and other outlets of popular culture?” (p.2). Hans Turley is a literary historian who, in this book, analyses a number of early eighteenth-century texts relating to piracy, such as trial records, Captain Charles Johnson’s General History of the Pyrates and novels by Daniel Defoe, in order to examine the sexuality and masculine identity of pirates. His argument is allusive, dense and riddled with jargon not easily accessible to the maritime historian, though no doubt clear enough to literary critics and students of gay studies. His aim seems to be to suggest by innuendo that the world of the pirate was not just homosocial but also homoerotic, but he fails to convince. Turley is honest enough to say that “the evidence for piratical sodomy is so sparse as to be almost non-existent” (p.2), but lack of evidence does not prevent him from seeing things in the pirate mind that are not apparent to other observers. He attempts to bolster his argument by drawing unconvincing parallels between pirates and the sodomites who attracted much prurient attention ashore. “Both the pirate and the sodomite are attracted to and gravitate toward other men. For the sodomite, this attraction is explicitly eroticized. For the pirate, this attraction is homosocial, but implicitly eroticized because he is culturally deviant, yet his sexuality is neither questioned nor determined.” (p.81) This last is an important point for Turley who claims (inaccurately) on several occasions that sexuality is left out of almost all depictions of piracy and that when it is implied it is ambiguous, as in Captain Johnson’s unspecific mention of the “riotous manner of living, as is the custom of pyrates” engaged in by Captain Vane and his crew while they were careening their ship. Johnson’s silence is a gift to the author. “Sodomy is tantalizingly implicit and repressed”, claims Turley. (p.85). But this is nonsense and indeed deliberate blindness on the part of the author, since Captain Johnson spells out on many other occasions what pirate custom was in these careening parties and it was certainly not homoerotic. Captain England’s crew lived “very wantonly” in West Africa for several weeks, “making free with the negro women”; Bartholomew Roberts’s men met “with handsome treatment” from local women in the Virgin Islands; Captain Taylor’s men caused havoc in the Laccadive Islands, “whose women they forced in a barbarous way to their lusts”. Is sodomy “tantalizingly implicit” in these and other descriptions which Turley must surely have read if he has read Captain Johnson? Turley also claims (again inaccurately) that “with the exception of some articles that Captain Roberts’s crew signed – in which ‘No boy or woman is to be allowed amongst them’ – the pirate’s sex life remains uncontrolled by any pirate rules.” (p.40). That “boy” is obviously useful to his argument, but again this is deliberate blindness, since several other pirate articles do mention sex but not the sort of sex that would suit Turley’s thesis. The articles signed by the crew of Captain John Phillips for instance, which are in Johnson, state that “if at any time you meet with a prudent woman, that man that offers to meddle with her, without her consent, shall suffer present death” and this is echoed in the articles of Captain Anstis which are preserved in the Admiralty records. (PRO ADM 1/4104/75) “If any … shall go on board of a prize and meet with any Gentlewoman or Lady of Honour and should force them against their will to lye with them shall suffer death.” Such articles suggest that pirates were not just heterosexual in their lusts, as most people would expect, but that they had also retained a greater sense of propriety and class-consciousness than Turley and indeed several other historians have suggested.

Hans Turley tells us in his preface that he first got interested in the theme of this book when studying Defoe’s pirate novel Captain Singleton where he was struck by the “almost explicit homoerotic desire shown by the title character for his friend and companion, Quaker William.” (p.vii). Later, he discerned a similar relationship between Robinson Crusoe and Friday and these two themes are interestingly developed in the last two (and best) chapters of the book. These readings of Defoe may or may not be correct, but it does seem rather superficial to look only for the homoerotic in relationships between men in all-male societies, whether they be pirates, sailors, cowboys or indeed rugby players. Friendship, mateship, peer competition in violence, blasphemy, showy dress and outrageous behaviour, lust for money, adventure, drink (and indeed women) are not necessarily homoerotic in motivation. Being all men together in defiance of the rest of the world was clearly an important part of pirate motivation, as indeed it is an important factor in explaining the continued attraction of the pirate in popular culture. But surely it is not realistic to suggest, on virtually no evidence, that it is the pirate’s secret homoeroticism that drew these crews together and has since provided prurient fascination for boys of all ages. Masculine identity and masculine culture are fascinating subjects for inquiry and a pirate ship makes a good laboratory, though sadly one with very little evidence, but Turley has not managed to solve the riddle of his hypermasculine anti-heroes despite his claim “that once the hatches to the pirates’ holds are opened a crack, ‘reality’ destabilizes, things unsaid may be spoken, and the homoerotic implications of elements in pirate history and fiction can be explored.”

Hi Rock,

A good way to see what is written in any book is to go to the "Bibliography" and "Notes" sections of any book and see where they got their information. Never just "accept" what is written by always question it and to help you do that is to see what sources were used to write the book - a good place to start.

Here is other titles that bear on this subject:

BURG, B. R.: GAY WARRIORS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY FROMM THE ANCIENT WORLD TO THE PRESENT (New York University Press)

BURG, B. R.: SODOMY AND THE PIRATE TRADITION: ENGLISH SEA ROVERS IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CARIBBEAN (New York University Press)

Searching FIRSTSEARCH (WorldCat) (through your library if they have this service which most larger libraries do have) and/or THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS on-line catalog (at www.loc.gov) helps. Checking with www.amazon.com and entering the subject will also show what is available at the present time and also sometimes lists out-of-print titles. You can also go to www.abe.com or www.bookfinder.com and enter what you are looking for and the results will appear.

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

wow thanks rock. john boy any rebuttal?

Bio,

The best book I have seen that comes to mind immediately on the subject of Male Sexuality is that of FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, By Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press). It is extremely well written and documented and uses source materials that have survived to back up what is said in the book. It received wide positive critical acclaim. Other books, while not on the subject of Pirates would be those of Gilbert Herdt. I'll have to get back to you on the titles. They discuss what happened (s) in Malenasia and the surrounding territory and list sources used.

There is also books on American Indian Male Sexuality as well. I'll have to get back to you on those titles as well.

And then there is Greece, Rome... Africa...

Throughout the world and throughout time there has been BiSexuality and Homosexuality as well as Heterosexuality. And in the Natural World as well. In Nature.

John H.

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wait - Are we talking about butt pirates or like, REAL pirates?

Well it sounds like a crock of bull to me, but they DID wear sashes...

Hi Thatguy,

PIRATES - as in REAL Pirates - as in REAL MEN. REAL MEN do have sex with each other too. And always have. Throughout time and throughout history.
It has been documented and more is coming out about it all the time as research into the subject is published. Even in primitive societies.

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

yes john but for most men it becomes a nessesity of circumstance, for you it is pleasurable.

Bio,

Something that seems to pass you by is that Human Beings can and do "find pleasure" in BOTH Sexes. Men and/or Women. "Nessesity" ( spelled Necessity - not being a smart ass here, just helpful) of circumstance" has always been one avenue Men have accepted as a way to find pleasure - and care from other Human Beings. And BE cared for.

Anyone - ANYONE - I am with Sexually speaking are always those that agree completely and no one is ever just "used". I NEVER do this to others and they NEVER do this to me. It is disrespectful to both involved. YOU (meaning anyone here) MUST CARE about those you are with. At least that is how I conduct myself and my life.

John H.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

yes john but for most men it becomes a nessesity of circumstance, for you it is pleasurable.

Bio,

In addition, something you bring up - "nessesity of circumstance" - ANY MAN that masturbates himself IS TECHNICALLY having sex with a MAN even though that Man is one and the same Man. And HE IS ALWAYS A MAN - NO ONE can EVER take away from a Man his Manhood. It is God given. Technically ALL MEN have Sex with Men - whether with OTHER MEN or WITH THEMSELVES. Truthfully speaking, there is no way around that FACT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Probably the majority of all Men - and maybe even Females too - are actually BiSexual. You also have those that are at either of the extreme of "the scale" - completely Heterosexual and completely Homosexual - but if the truth is ever really known I think science will find most people are actually BiSexual.



John H.

Originally Posted by John H.

Bio,

The best book I have seen that comes to mind immediately on the subject of Male Sexuality is that of FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, By Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press). It is extremely well written and documented and uses source materials that have survived to back up what is said in the book. It received wide positive critical acclaim. Other books, while not on the subject of Pirates would be those of Gilbert Herdt. I'll have to get back to you on the titles. They discuss what happened (s) in Malenasia and the surrounding territory and list sources used.

There is also books on American Indian Male Sexuality as well. I'll have to get back to you on those titles as well.

And then there is Greece, Rome... Africa...

Throughout the world and throughout time there has been BiSexuality and Homosexuality as well as Heterosexuality. And in the Natural World as well. In Nature.

John H.

when i asked for a rebuttal i meant to the fact rock had shown that the book you were talking about came to faulty conclusions. how is talkin about homosexuality in other cultures a rebuttal to the fact your pirate boook is believed to be a load of horse poop? never mind ive come to expect you to not address direct questions and for you to ramble on in a tangeant that has nothing to do with the topic at hand

Originally Posted by John H.

Bio,

In addition, something you bring up - "nessesity of circumstance" - ANY MAN that masturbates himself IS TECHNICALLY having sex with a MAN even though that Man is one and the same Man. And HE IS ALWAYS A MAN - NO ONE can EVER take away from a Man his Manhood. It is God given. Technically ALL MEN have Sex with Men - whether with OTHER MEN or WITH THEMSELVES. Truthfully speaking, there is no way around that FACT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Probably the majority of all Men - and maybe even Females too - are actually BiSexual. You also have those that are at either of the extreme of "the scale" - completely Heterosexual and completely Homosexual - but if the truth is ever really known I think science will find most people are actually BiSexual.



John H.

being a scientist where you are not, i find your conclusions baseless and your methods faulty. by no stretch of the amagination can self stimulation be considered to make one bi-sexual.

ive got a tattoo of an anchor on my arm

Originally Posted by Decker

Johnny, do you like movies about gladiators?

......Have you ever been in a cockpit before?

....Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Well my goodness, Scraps is a boy dog isn't he?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

http://larry.teamoverkill.com/jive/opening.wav

Originally Posted by bio-chem

yes john but for most men it becomes a nessesity of circumstance, for you it is pleasurable.

Bio,

You like seeing things ONLY YOUR WAY. Mostly because THAT IS WHAT AND HOW YOU WERE TAUGHT AND YOU LEARNED or "just accepted" - because of your desire to ONLY "see things" ONLY from YOUR WAY. I am VERY OBJECTIVE AND OPEN MINDED and see everything from ALL sides ALL the time - the sum of what I learn is based on my best efforts - which are always continuing - to SEE ALL SIDES OF EVERYTHING with as much ABSENCE of bias, prejudice, bigotry, and certainly hatred. Those things BLIND people to LIFE itself.

When I am with someone especially when it comes to anything Sexual and CARE about them, their being Male or Female has absolutely nothing to do with it at all - that I CARE about them - and they me - DOES - as a fellow Human Being, who is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely.

Let me ask you - when you are with someone, is it because you CARE about them? Honestly?

When you are with someone, is it just to "get off"?

When you are with someone, is it "pleasurable"?

When you are with someone, WHY are you? Honestly?

Speaking FOR MYSELF - I NEVER am with someone - Man and/or Woman - that I do not care about HONESTLY. That I Have REAL FEELINGS FOR. I NEVER USE others especially Sexually. That, to me is VERY disrespectful and dishonorable to BOTH - or in some cases - ALL involved.

LOVING SOMEONE TRULY has nothing to do with "circumstances" - although it is possible for someone, say in prison, to begin to REALIZE they DO care about another Man and end up having Sexual relations with him. Same with a Pirate, same with a Cowboy, same with a Construction Worker, same with a Football Player, same with a fellow Bodybuilder, same with Boxer, same with ... - PEOPLE - ALL PEOPLE - HUMAN BEINGS - FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS you (meaning anyone here) CARE ABOUT.

Many people DO just "use" others for their personal "gratification" and nothing more. I am NEVER that way with anyone. I would not want to be treated that way be someone else and I do not do that to others.

You mention "...necessity of circumstance..." - when you jack off, is it because of that "necessity"? Certainly with many it IS. I can understand that. And taking it one step further, when YOU are jacking yourself off, YOU ARE HAVING SEX WITH A MAN even though that Man is one and the same Man. You are STILL HAVING SEX WITH A MAN. That is a FACT that can not be changed or "glossed over". Now when you jack off, are you doing it for pure pleasure or because you care about yourself. It could be both. And it IS a Man HAVING SEX with a MAN.

Think about that.

John H.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

when i asked for a rebuttal i meant to the fact rock had shown that the book you were talking about came to faulty conclusions. how is talkin about homosexuality in other cultures a rebuttal to the fact your pirate boook is believed to be a load of horse poop? never mind ive come to expect you to not address direct questions and for you to ramble on in a tangeant that has nothing to do with the topic at hand

Bio,

The Pirate book I listed was one that came to my attention - I had not read it myself. I posted it to see if someone else had seen it and what they thought of it. Everyone has opinions about everything. This book COULD be wanting to have others who READ the book QUESTION it FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. It COULD BE the author is trying to have people DO their own research into this subject FOR THEMSELVES to find TRUTHFUL ANSWERS FOR THEMSELVES THAT ARE ACCURATE. Books are written in that vein. Books are sometimes written to stir people purposely so they will want to find truthful answers themselves. Add to the knowledge of a subject. From all perspectives. He does raise questions in his book - probably purposefully.

Rock's posting showed viewpoints from the perspective of one or more people as appraisals of the book - from some not all. Not every book is written well - certainly even "best sellers" are not necessarily well written.

The book I mentioned in another thread FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) IS VERY WELL WRITTEN and DOCUMENTED WITH SOURCE INFORMATION - firsthand information. It is one that I have read and would hope others would read as well - it IS worth your time to read BIGTIME. It discusses Sexuality among Men around 1400-1500 A. D. in ONE town in Italy, Florence, WHERE RECORDS SURVIVED and were not destroyed. Yet look at those that would try to "damn" the book for what IT DOES SAY THAT IS FACTUAL. Nearly 50% of ALL MEN - THAT WERE CAUGHT - THAT WERE CAUGHT - and eventually prosecuted for having Sex with each other - a figure that is incredible and yet factual, makes you wonder then HOW is it that in this one town it would not have then also been PREVALENT throughout the world in other towns and in the outlying areas. If BiSexuality and Homosexuality are "so wrong" how is it that SO MANY MEN found it SO RIGHT? Also that book talks about how even those that were after "offenders" THEMSELVES ended up having Sex with Men. EVEN THEY - some - became involved as well.

There are a couple of books that come to mind about Melanesians and the surrounding area where all Males live with each other while growing up until they reach a certain age - maybe around 20, 25, etc. and then begin to be with Females IF that is what they choose. But until they leave this union with other Men they live with and have Sex with other Men. They feel that one of the ways to becoming a Man is by injesting the Semen of other Men. I'll get back to you on the titles. There is also one that I have seen that discusses what happens in Africa as well.

Here are some additional titles:

By or edited by Gilbert Herdt:

RITUALS OF MANHOOD: MALE INITIATION IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

THE SAMBIA: RITUAL AND GENDER IN NEW GUINEA.

GUARDIANS OF THE FLUTES: MALE INITIATION IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

Edited by Stephen O. Murray:

BOY-WIVES AND FEMALE HUSBANDS: STUDIES IN AFRICAN HOMOSEXUALITIES (the title is really not all the book talks about - it is meant I think to get a person's attention. All aspects are discussed.)

John H.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

being a scientist where you are not, i find your conclusions baseless and your methods faulty. by no stretch of the amagination can self stimulation be considered to make one bi-sexual.

Bio,

Are you now saying YOU are a "Scientist"? Just wondering. I myself am not making that claim about myself.

I AM saying that ANY MAN that masturbates HIMSELF IS HAVING SEX with a Man - even though that Man is one and the same Man. The IS a fact. Period. He is ENJOYING IT too. And when one Man has Sex with another Man that is not the same Men THEY TOO are ENJOYING IT. Sexual self-stimulation has nothing to do with it - it IS STILL A MAN HAVING SEX WITH A MAN. AND ENJOYING IT. If he was not "attracted to the process" he would not do it to himself - or to others if that is what ends up happening. Most Men DO have Sex with MEN - even it that Man is one and the same Man.

Women, the same thing. Those that masturbate themselves are having Sex with a Woman even if that Woman happens to be one and the same Woman. Same as above.

John H.

Originally Posted by Todd_

ive got a tattoo of an anchor on my arm

Hi Todd,

That will "do it" Buddy!!!

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by John H.

Bio,

Are you now saying YOU are a "Scientist"? Just wondering. I myself am not making that claim about myself.

John H.

what is chemistry if not a science? wouldnt the dedicated study to a science make one a scientist?

Arrrr yeah yeah harder Arrr
Arrrrrrr

Pirate´s orgasm.

john try and keep your answers shorter, i get bored reading your posts otherwise

Originally Posted by bio-chem

what is chemistry if not a science? wouldnt the dedicated study to a science make one a scientist?

Bio,

Yes chemistry is a science. For sure.

I was referring to you calling yourself a Scientist - as in "already received their degree" in it. I thought you were still going to college to earn your degree is what I was saying - AND NOT to run you down in any way. Just wondering...

And as for being OPEN MINDED - being a Scientist you MUST - you can not JUST ACCEPT the "normal" or "usual" because if you do that sets you up to NOT finding answers to those questions you will have in your career. Sure you learn certain "accepted" things BUT to FIND the answers to things there is no current answer for you MUST consider going outside the "norm" too. Not always just "accepting" what is "normal" or "usual" - see what I mean?

And believe it or not that applies to ALL THINGS we do not have "answers for". Anytime you are not (meaning anyone here) willing to CONSIDER ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES ALL THE TIME - OBJECTIVELY - and even those things that are not "normal" or "normally"....

John H.