Leaderboard

I had about five face-to-palm moments reading the recent posts. Can anyone really, REALLY refute the observation that you are very ulikely to find proof of something (even something inert and stationary) if you aren't looking for it, AND you don't believe it even exists to begin with? I mean...what is there about this point-beyond-elementary that gets so much denial around here? And Crow, we are all likely to be dead before some kind of proof lands in our inboxes. To which I offer a great "So what?" Wish the world operated on my personal timetable too. Crap, oh well.

I will just double-up on DWA's comment. We are not even fixing to start to get ready to commence to be serious, directly. It is not even a discipline or a field of inquiry that rates more than a nudge-wink in any media outlet of large circulation you could mention. Running around in the woods with an ever more sophisticated array of techonological gee-gaws just boosts the snicker factor for those who are disposed to dismiss the evidence and the geeks who wield those gadgets. The American public always, always, always must reach a point of "enough is enough" before they come unglued from the tee vee and consider it to be important enough to agitate for reform. As is typical, when that happens, events are way past the point where a truly aware and thinking person would want them addressed. We have much more serious political/social/economic/environmental issues to address that still aren't on many personal to-do lists. Those who think THIS subject will warrant a cry for action and resolution from Joe Q. Sixpack (and consequentially, mainstream science) anytime soon are seriously deluded. Or, as the song goes, "It is all to clear, we are on our own....on our own....on our own..." (And this applies equally to the pro-kill faction, or anti)