God bless you, Nathan. Your post made my day. And probably my week. <sniff>

John: I would never suggest that someone use Wikipedia as a reference source. That said, Wikipedia can be very good for what librarians call "Citation Pearl Growing": If someone can get ahold of an article or source with a lot of good search terms, they can get a lot of thorough research accomplished: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc...

I would like to see more work and consideration done in the area of setting source reliability criteria for research into NRMs.

Jordan: Thanks for posting and for providing the initial inspiration for this post. It is an intriguing problem.

It irritates me that in a country that places such an emphasis on "free enterprise" that the self-employed have such a hard time getting health insurance. I wish Ms Tucker well.

Jason, Well-selected list of stories. Say, will you be at Pantheacon this year?

Beth,

It would be an awareness that just because "the lights are on" and I can "see to get around" doesn't mean that the lighting isn't good and free from distortion.

On a spiritual level, I think that it is easy to fool ourselves into thinking that we know ourselves because we think we have enough light with which we can see ourselves. But if there are distortions, we can deceive ourselves by seeing things that are not there.

If I know how the light works, how things really look in it, I might be more quick to spot the distortions.

And so many years ago it seemed like we couldn't relate on anything, eh?

Liz,

Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

Lori,

Your comments are so on target. I love that you are part of a meditation group that includes all kinds of people, and would really find it fascinating to experience such a group.

Thanks for stopping by and posting!

Kathy,

Sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts!