Tuesday, December 31, 2013

I DO believe in pink unicorns, damnit! It's my right!

You won't be surprised to know I've engaged in yet another "conversation" with people who seem not to like logic or facts. 

Despite the discussion having launched over this (IMO) really exploitive and non-scientific (that part isn't my opinion) book, it rapidly went to "everyone has the right to their beliefs." 

I will ask you right now, dear reader, to think for a second what that statement really means. EVERYONE. Has the RIGHT to their BELIEFS. EVERYONE necessarily, then, includes every crazy person who as done any horrifying, terrifying, brutal, murderous thing because of their beliefs. Everyone. Parents who choose prayer over medicine and allow their children to die whilst waiting for 'god'; men who stone to death the women they have raped, and cut the hands of starving cildren accused of theft when they attempt to feed themselves, because their prophet says it is the right thing to do; priests who rape children.... EVERYONE

However, there was, later, a pronouncement that I did NOT have the right to my beliefs - pink unicorns, for which there are many drawings and stories and even effigies and images - because MY beliefs are insulting, rude and assaultive. Hm. So NOT everyone. 

I've cleaned up the grammatical and spelling errors everywhere (that I noticed them).

JK shared a video.
Wow....this film looks incredible...

"I see it, so I believe it. Do you?" Heaven Is For Real is in theatres Easter Weekend 2014.
SK I read the book about all of the things this little boy saw. There's no way I could deny life after our time on earth. Such an amazing thing we have is knowledge of god and that there's someone looking out for us.

ME Yeah, except for the extensive, faulty premises and the idea of relying on a child's experience in a coma. There is NOTHING the least scientific in this disaster. 

I could write a book on how appalling and manipulative and unscientific and frankly garbage this book/movie is.

SK You have your beliefs, and I have mine. (well, no, I have evidence the writer ignored good science, which is not a belief) That's what is great about this world! I don't need scientific facts to prove to me that god is real (oh dear...). I have faith. If you need science to believe in things then that is totally fine! But as for me, sometimes I believe in things that science can't explain, and it's helped me see life in a beautiful way. If you're beliefs make you happy, that is awesome! But mine make me happy too, and that's also awesome! :)

(1. what things can't science explain, or at least make a decent stab at explaining? 2. Atheists do not have beliefs. A-theism is "without beliefs" or without gods. Our sole premise the lack of evidence for any god(s) makes bowing down to it/them ridiculous. 3. Heroin, which also helps people believe in things that aren't real, also makes some people very happy, and like religion, addicted and dependent)

Book Review: “Heaven is for Real” by Todd Burpo

ME So, if I have faith I will see a pink unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal?

JK I would appreciate if you guys don't do this kind of insulting/antagonistic debating on my page. (Ok, so I am not allowed to clarify this person's statement. Got it. Also, that is bullshit)

I respect all beliefs and I would appreciate anyone choosing to comment on my posts have the same courtesy for each other...or don't post (Bullshit this person respects all beliefs! BULLSHIT. IF that were true, this person would be on the front line of protesting their country's contribution to 10 years of US invasion in the Middle East. The second part of this post - the "please shut up" part really means "sure as hell don't ask anyone if they really do mean ALL beliefs when they SAY all beliefs")

I'm not saying anything about whether its right, wrong, true or untrue. It looks like an interesting film and could be very positively inspiring to many in a day and age that hope is hard to come by. Take it all for what you will, but please don't be antagonistic. Thank you.

(I just want to point out here that I have been asking questions up to this point, with the exception of my pointed statement about the film, which I followed with a review of the film. This allegation I'm insulting and antagonistic and rude continues as does this suggestion I "have to be right." It is ridiculous. I am trying to understand these people and their position on "live and let live" by asking what they mean and how what they mean applies.)


SK Why does it matter so much that you have to be right and I have to be wrong? We both have different opinions about religion and faith. Who cares? You don't have to be right. I'm not wrong, you're not wrong. Let's leave it at that.(Um. when did this I'm right, you're wrong thing happen, exactly? Oh... right now... I see)

ME Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (In case it isn't obvious to all, this is a statement and it is not aimed at anyone, and doesn't criticize anyone)

JK For you they do, and that's fine....for others they do not.

ME Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence or they have absolutely no credibility. (sorry, I personified...)


This particular book - its story and contents have been scrutinized - properly - with the lens of neuroscience and have come up severely lacking. I appreciate this story makes people feel good - but so does chocolate, which is also dangerous if over-consumed. 


The phenomenon of people "seeing heaven" as a result of major trauma is world wide. HOWEVER, the visions people have in that state are decidedly NOT uniform; they are heavily dependent on the person's culture, religion (if they have one) and ethnicity. 


If THIS particular heaven did exist, then those experiences would necessarily be uniform and there would be mass shifts in people's religions. This is not the case. 


The simple fact these experiences differ specifically along religious paradigms must be enough for an intelligent person to question the validity of such a story.

(Sorry for again pointing out the obvious, but I am making a statement here, again, not aimed at anyone in particular - although obviously for the consumption of those participating - and am not making a criticism of anyone. I am making points about the film and what it seeks to say)


ME But, if extraordinary claims do NOT require evidence, then we are free to make any claim at all and expect others to accept that claim - and to see any questions about such a claim as "antagonistic?" I don't think so. If that's the case, then we must accept ever crazy serial killer who claims "god" spoke to them and they were just doing "god's" bidding. 

Either all extraordinary claims require evidence or our judicial system is a complete failure.

JK Well, I don't know how it is in Canada but the US Judicial system is kind of a complete failure (just sayin'). I appreciate what you have to say. And I appreciate the references. I am genuinely intrigued by this sort of thing because it is very interesting, I have seen documentaries about children "remembering past lives" also which is another odd phenomenon that occurs quite frequently...is it true? Who the hell knows! (um....neuroscientists?... ) 

Is it interesting? You betcha!  But I don't appreciate the blatant attack on an individual's level of intelligence  just because they don't agree with what you are saying or the research you are providing as reference though... (I was substantiating THEIR statement with that link.... not everyone reading, myself included, was familiar with this alleged mathematical "proof" of god) so can we please ease off that particular tone? 

(WHAT blatant attack on WHICH individual??? WHEN did I mention ANYONE'S intelligence?? I just used my word processor's "find" option and there is no mention of "intelligence" anywhere before this poster writes the word and makes the allegation. I SAID, "The simple fact these experiences differ specifically along religious paradigms must MUST BE ENOUGH FOR AN INTELLIGENT PERSON TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH  A STORY)


ME No, it is not true. There is endless science - good, fact-based, falsifiable, verifiable, observable, repeatable science on both these subjects. One (One. Not you. ONE; general) need only have the courage to expose their "beliefs" to research and knowledge. 

As for faith, it is simply a way of claiming to know things one cannot know, and to bring that even further, once one DOES know a thing, one no longer has faith; one has evidence. (Yes, this is direct. But direct does not mean wrong, nor does it mean offensive)


As I say, I appreciate stories like this make people feel all warm and fuzzy but that does not mean such stories are true. Again, there is a LOT of reviews of this book, from a "christian" standpoint, where there is no analysis AND a rejection of science, and neuroscience specifically, and a rejection of the FACT that people from other religious paradigms have experiences that "prove" their version of "heaven" is true, when that version bears no relation at all to the versions that appear in American culture. 


It is the only logical stance one can have, as a thinking person, to acknowledge there is no way "proof" of "heaven" experienced by a muslim person or a buddhist person or a christian person can all be true. 


I made no "blatant attack" on anyone's intelligence. I don't care whether anyone agrees or not. My point is one - anyone, nobody in particular - must be intelligent enough to acknowledge all religions and all these experiences people claim to be true and to be proof of their version of heaven cannot actually be true. 


I asked a valid question up there. If we must accept other people's faith, then people must accept mine - that there are pink unicorns, and I am sure of this because I feel it, I have seen pictures of them and read stories of them and I know in my heart they are real. My faith cannot be attacked either, because faith somehow sits outside intelligence and to ask any questions that might rock my faith are to blatantly attack me.  

Right? (later, someone threw this example back at me as being rude and in their face.... Oh, hello wall, meet back)

CR Gödel’s Ontological Proof.

This is mathematical proof that God exists. German mathematician Kurt Gödel proposed this theory that a higher power must exist. Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo have proven that Gödel’s theory is mathematically correct. There for it is a scientifically provable fact.

JK Oh Hell (exasperated sigh).....you two have fun with this....

CR No I believe the argument has ended before it begins. I accept her belief in science. (Just so it is clear, one does not "believe" in science. One can rely on science becasuse science specifically seeks to DISprove itself. The goal of all scientific research is to find the holes in current understandings in order that scientific understanding can improve. This is not what belief is. Belief exists regardless of fact and contrary to fact)

I have presented a provable scientific theory that supports both of our beliefs and the only way to argue that would be for her to go against her beliefs and claim science doesn't matter or to provide me with a provable mathematical and scientific theory that God does not exist. But like her belief about God that theory doesn't exist. 

ME Here's the background on Charles's information:
Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.

This is ontological "proof," that does not address WHICH god, nor does it provide a means to disprove all the 4000 or so "gods" proposed by humans.

(Just to simplify, this mathematical theory does not prove 'god' exists necessarily. It would be more apt to say 'gods,' plural. There is a clue in "formalised a theorem...".)


CR Sorry Julie but I will not debate you for no amount of proof would be sufficient and for me no amount of proof is needed.

ME I wasn't inviting you to debate. I posted background on your proposal. 

But, as you've brought up science, which seeks to disprove itself in order to better its theories, it seems inappropriate to say you need no proof to support your position. Falsifiability is core to good science. Anything else is simply pretending to know things one cannot know.

SK Look, the bottom line is we all believe different things. Julie, if you believe in a pink unicorn, go right ahead! I appreciate your opinion but I stated mine as well. I don't care if you think you're right, I don't care what science says. (This is very sad in 2013/2014)

To me, I've experienced things that make it so I could/would never deny God or life after our life on earth ends. If I believe stories like this like many others do, leave us be! We all have beliefs. Like I said earlier, let's leave it at that!

(Just to clarify the definition of what a miracle is: 
miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there is NO possibility this person's experiences of "things that make it so I could/would never deny god or life after our life on earth ends," qualify as "Not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature," and ARE, consequently, easily attributed to HUMAN intervention and help.)


ME Well, I'd leave it alone if "leave us be" didn't also apply to those who believe it is right to stone a woman to death for the crime of being raped, or to those who believe it is right to mutilate little girls' genitals, or to those who believe it is right to pray over their sick and dying children rather than take them to the doctor, or to those who believe it is right to forcibly marry off girls to men who already have five or eight other wives AND kick the young boys out of the colony to fend for themselves rather than those boys being competition to group abuse and child rape. 

Do you really believe "let them be" should also apply to people who hurt, abuse and kill others when their reason is "god" said it is right?

ME And for the record, I would absolutely accept the proof of god - any of them - doing what it/he/she is alleged to be able to do and rearranging the stars into a pattern that says "I am your god." 

However, until the allegedly-all-creating-all-knowing "god" does that, there is no reason to believe in it/them; to do otherwise is to live in a type of voluntary north Korea, where your entire life is dedicated the Dear Leader and his Son/replica of himself, with the constant threat of death by burning for doing it wrong. Full disclosure: I owe this little bit of excellent prose likening 'god' to the North Korean dictator, to the wonderful, late Christopher Hitchens. (*click for video)


JK Okay...I am putting my foot down. Enough is enough. Back down. Julie you are bringing up so many completely unrelated topics its is ridiculous. (Which topics are unrelated? I've been asking questions and responding to what others have written).

There are heinous issues with our world today and the people in it. That is not being disputed. Nor is it being disputed that many people do horrible things in the name of "God(s)"...but that is NOT the root of what this film or book is trying to give people. It is a message of hope. Nothing more. 

Stop turning anything spiritually based and intriguing that I may post onto MY TIMELINE into a "pro-heinous religious acts" accusation (Well, actually, I ASKED if these people actually believe what they are saying, when they say everyone has the right to believe what they will. I didn't accuse anyone of anything; I asked them to clarify what they meant. I do realise this is the portion of the program where they have got themselves uncomfortably lodged up against a corner....) on my page. None of us (that have spoken on this thread) are supporting those things and I'd appreciate it if you all knock it off....


ME As always, I am bemused by the termination of this subject when the realities of "Live and let live" invade.

JK Its being terminated because Im now annoyed at the fact that you won't just get off it. You all believe differently. Just get off it already and leave the goddamned bone alone.

This is the private continuation of this discussion:

I'm not happy to argue but I AM very put off by being told to shut up when my well-researched opinions happen not to be popular.
I appreciate you weren't looking for a discussion. However, discussions are important, particularly when the subject at hand has a very solid, scientific explanation. It is not intelligent to shut down a discussion because the information is counter to what one currently possesses.

JK I will take a look at that. I don't have a problem with your well thought out research. I do have a problem that you were actively on the war path and determined to fight.
Sometimes its best to just back off. (AKA, shut up when you make points that shine a light on the posters' inability to support their arguments).

I dont always post things for discussion. And I appreciate it if people would take the hint and "be nice" when I ask nicely...the first time...
I didnt mean to be as harsh as I was...but you kinda walked right into it by willfully refusing to ease up.... (Pretty sure - almost positive - the other parties in this discussion did NOT get the same message).
You know me well enough now to know that I am always open to a private message conversation (I've highlighted this because it becomes important shortly) about such things, nothing irritates me more than public comments that are easily misinterpreted as aggressive and confrontational...because , as youve seen, it turns into arguments.

ME Why is it a "warpath" or a "fight" when someone like me, with a lifetime of engagement in an evangelical family, spends more than seven years understanding that paradigm, comes to a very researched and substantiated conclusion that paradigm and all others like it are false, and on that wealth of experience and research, asks a person making a statement to substantiate what they've said?
Here's the thing JK: no person should "ease up" when they see information that is FALSE being presented as true.
I know you. I know you would NOT stand by or ease up in the face of something you know was wrong.
JK I post things that are interesting to me onto my wall, as is my right, I in no way say I believe every single thing 100%. (Ok, so why so disturbed by the conversation?)

They are posted to help inspire and promote positive thinking and positive action....not to destroy positive sentiment and belief in things that cannot be proven...that is not my cause to champion and I would appreciate it if you stop practically accusing "spiritual & religious based" ites (sic.. I don't know what word goes here) as somehow being blaketedly (sic) supporting of all the heinous things done in the name of religion and God.... and just because we cannot prove something now is a weak argument...it doesn't make things untrue, it means we cannot prove it to our knowledge right at this moment in time...that is all.... 
(Except that neuroscience has excellent, science-based, observable theories for what happens in an NDE and why those vary so widely, dependent on culture, language and religion). There was once a time when using leeches and bleeding people was "scientifically" supported as the best way to treat certain illnesses....we NOW know differently....

JK ....so yeah....Im sorry if I upset you with how I shut down the conversation....but Im so done with that whole conversation....

ME Fine. But if they're posted publicly, you might anticipate comments.
I did NOT accuse anyone of blanketly "supporting of all the heinous things done in the name of religion and God."
I ASKED them if they REALLY believe that statement (the one about "everyone has the right to their beliefs).
One cannot say, "live and let live," but engage in wars, or call out parents who allow their children to die (by relying on prayer) rather than seek medical attention.
I asked your poster to state whether he/she ACTUALLY meant what they said - because I KNOW, if they really thought about it, they do NOT. What they mean is "don't point out the fallacies of my statements; it pisses me off."
By the way, leeches are still used, very successfully, in many hospitals to treat flesh that has necrotised. Leeches are a common treatment for people suffering diabetes and whose skin tends to die off. Leeches are very effective in removing the dead flesh and, thanks to their saliva, very effectively and in a sterile manner, keep the wound from bleeding.
JK Dude...you are drawing so many false conclusions from everything they said...
they simply were saying they DO believe in a God....THAT IS ALL....the fact that you feel its your right to railroad people that matter to me all because they believe in a God is what pisses me off (I don't "feel it is my right to railroad people... because they believe in god," but I do KNOW it is my responsibility to ask questions when people say things that will lead them to a much different logical conclusion than they mean, if they were to actually THINK about what they said/wrote)
ME There are some really excellent researched, peer-reviewed articles on the phenomenon of near death experiences (NDE).
There are also some very good reviews of that book - those reviewing it from a scientific standpoint and from an ethical standpoint where it concerns capitalising on the experience of a four-year-old who, seven years previously, had a pretty significant medical event.
ME I'm not drawing ANY conclusions. None of my questions were answered.

JK and no, leeches are not effective treatment for 90% of the ailments we USED TO use them to treat....so that counterargument you present is splitting hairs and a weak argument at best

ME I have no issue with their belief in god. I have an issue with people having no means of substantiating "god" and being angry when someone says, "How did you come to that conclusion?


I also have a big issue with people who say everyone has the right to their beliefs but won't follow that through to the logical conclusion, which, in our recent past, (referring to 9/11) MUST include very religious people who are convinced of their version of heaven, flying airplanes into buildings.
Answer this: If it is true we all have the right to our beliefs, then why the hell is the US still in the Middle East and why the hell is TSA presuming we are all terrorists?
If one has the right to their beliefs, then we cannot, to use your term, split hairs: either beliefs are without consequence or they are not.
JK but ultimately Julie I feel like you are hell bent on a fight. I really dont have time or energy for this. . . AND further more...I DO NOT post them publically. I post them only so my "friends" can see them if they so choose to subscribe to me. I do anticipate comments...not harsh debates and blatant attacks on what is clearly intended to be a positive thing.... (well, I am an accepted "friend" of this poster, so um, they might expect comments on that basis)
ME I'm not bent on a fight but I am very interested in statements being followed to their logical conclusion.
JK No....it is pretty clear you aren't just bent on a fight but "Hell-bent" on one.... (Ok... has devolve to ad hominem, meaning now going after my character and my motivations - which is to say presuming motivation - rather than sticking to the points of the discussion... but back against the wall requires alternative measures, apparently)
ME I realise this is a difficult subject for you, JK. I get it. But difficulty aside, as you are not unintelligent or dishonest, you must at least think about what it all means.
I realise there is pushback from some of your friends and family but that isn't any real, or honest, impediment to really understanding what it means to say "we all have the right to our beliefs." I say it is critical to understand why that simply is not right and cannot be right.
If it is right, there are sure a lot of dead American soldiers fighting against people who should, by that statement, have the right to their beliefs.
ME Do you understand why this is important?

JK They have a right to believe in God....that is ALL that was said or implied...really bottom line. That's all anyone is saying. You are giving far too much implication to their words where NOTHING was actually said to support those accusation. They can believe 
(Ok. I'm frustrated now. Belief in 'god,' whichever one chooses to believe in, is usually not a benign thing, and when it is, the people who have such benign beliefs call themselves "spiritual." For most people, belief in 'god' comes with a certain code and dogma, so that belief is not "all.")

ME Yes, you do. (I meant "they")
So do those members of the Taliban. They believe in what they want. It does hurt people.
So do people who are prayer-only fundamentalists; their children die. Does their right to their beliefs override morality?
JK Its not their BELIEF that hurts people....its what they DO about it. TWO completely different things. People can believe in a God and have all kinds of "logical conclusions" and not all of them are bad....you are just hyper focusing on those people who DO bad things in the name of their God....even in spite of it, they still have the right to believe it....not so cool for them to act on it the way they CHOOSE to....

ME Like I say, I realise this is an immensely challenging subject and I am not a stranger at all to your point of view. I was once a very believing person who was challenged and was hell bent on proving non-believers wrong. I get it. I was raised in that environment and stayed in it voluntarily until I was 35. I am no stranger to scripture. Not at all.
Ok. Let's go there. It is not their belief that hurts people, it's what they do about it. OK. How does one divorce themselves from their beliefs, if their belief is god will heal their dying child. What action does that parent take?
JK the problem isn't with believing in good things...its when anyone becomes such an extremist about anything that they become intolerant and cruel. (There's a veiled allegation here... I see it but I didn't rise to it, and this poster did not make the same suggestion to the other participants)
ME I agree.
It is not extreme to ask questions. It IS extreme to be a prayer-based fundamentalist and allow your child to die.
JK So why the hell are you attacking people on my wall for simply BELIEVING in something good and better than themselves?
NO ONE SAID THEY DID THAT
WTH? NOR did ANYONE say they believe and support that
ME Who did I attack? Please will you copy and paste what I said that was an attack? 
(One of the reasons I'm editing and posting this conversation is to read through it again to see if/where I actually did attack a specific person. So far, nope)
ME They said - and you have said - people have the right to their beliefs.
Who does that apply to? Just christians? Just muslims? Who?
JK Everyone! But a belief in something does not mean someone has the ethic right to damage and destroy ourselves as a people because of it. Ethics and religious beliefs are two different creatures

ME I absolutely agree with that. Religious belief and morals have zero to do with each other.
So I'll ask you this again: Does it apply to everyone that they have the right to their beliefs?
JK Yeas everyone has the right to their BELIEF. "So, if I have faith I will see a pink unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal ?" <----very a="" amp="" attack="" b="" distatefully="" form="" insulting="" is="" of="" patronizing="" which=""> (what??? How is my statement of belief in pink unicorns an attack???)

ME JK, you've just said people have the right to believe what they will, and then posted here my belief in pink unicorns is NOT ok and to state it is somehow an attack.

JK People of no ethical integrity have no right to ACT on their beliefs (um, yeah, they do. Just because I don't agree with another person's ethics or beliefs, doesn't mean I get to bring the hammer down on those beliefs. OH/ WAIT!! This is EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make with this person. HOLY CONTRADICTION, BATMAN!)
Because you are being sarcastic and rude. I'm not saying you don't have a right to it. I'm saying you are being an ass by throwing that in someone's face...just to somehow prove your point.... 
(The poster is referring her to my belief in pink unicorns and suggesting that my asking if I have the right to my beliefs as per their "Live/Let live" statements).

ME Ok. Everyone has the right to their beliefs.
Some muslim people really, truly, honestly believe they will see the kingdom of god if they kill infidels. This is the foundation for the attacks in NYC.
Do those people have a right to that belief?
Why is my belief "rude"?
JK the way you present it is rude....not the belief itself

ME JK. C'mon. Seriously?

JK and hell yeah they have the right to believe what they believe, its not my place or right to say they cant, it DOES NOT mean they had any ethical right to act on it in the way they did. I don't believe they should have DONE what they did. (So they DON'T have the right to their beliefs??? THEY BELIEVE THE ATTACKS WERE GOD'S WILL. How do they divorce themselves from their beliefs in this instance? This poster is completely missing the logical dilemma they have walked themselves into.)
yeah seriously
ME But they DO believe they were doing their god's will.
If we say everyone has the right to their beliefs, we cannot judge those acts by OUR beliefs. Either your statement applies across the board or it doesn't
JK your entire tone when you write is full of insult and disdain that someone could even possibly believe in a god despite all your "evidence" against it....its arrogant, and honestly that's what has put me off the most. What right do you have to tell someone that their innocent belief in something that makes them strive to be a better person is somehow bad. 
(At no point did I say any such thing. I believe this person is now spilling something of their own)

ME I'm not telling anyone anything, JK. I am ASKING QUESTIONS

JK sure you are....in a very aggressively intolerant manner

ME I am asking you if you really do believe everyone has the right to belief what they

JK to which I have answered you, but not in a way you like

ME I'm sorry you are getting aggression and intolerance. I'm having a really tough time understanding how you mean for it to apply.
We cannot say everyone has the right to their beliefs but sanction them when they do what they think is right based on those beliefs.
JK I don't based on MY BELIEFS....I base it off of an unrelated code of ethical conduct based upon the whole human race finding a way to co-exist and thrive together....NOT based upon religion.
ME I KNOW you do. Which is exactly what I meant when I said religion and morals have zero to do with each other/.
ME I'm not sure why you understand me as being intolerant when I'm just asking questions. I'm trying to understand how it works to say everyone has the right to their beliefs when some of those beliefs are frankly horrifying.

But what do we do when someone really truly believes, based on their interpretation of their holy book and the counsel of their religious leader, that it is right to stone a woman to death for being the victim of a rape?
What do we do then? They have the right to their beliefs and they really believe they are doing the right thing - the moral thing - based on their dearly-held beliefs. What do we do with that?
ME And to be clear, we're not talking about you here. The subject is "everyone," and yes, you're included but this is not specifically about you or me.