Tonight I Visit The The Bowlless Bowl

  • Thread starter TENYEARS
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of being in the matrix and how it can lead to a cleansing and clearer understanding. The participants also mention a new movie and personal visions that have been experienced. Ideas about proving the existence of an unseen reality and the role of consistency in understanding are also discussed. The conversation ends with a suggestion to try out ideas on a smaller scale before presenting them to the world.
  • #71
Originally posted by TENYEARS

Randi will never attract the real thing with what he has posted and the way he goes about it. The real thing will not sell it self it cannot by it's nature.

I'm not sure I see the difference between teaching Randi how to do something and collecting a million dollars and teaching me to do something and collecting $98 from me. Why is one a sellout and the other is not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Here are a couple of radio programs that discuss paranormal things and what not. In fact Judith Orloff appeared on the Laura Lee Show at one point. As for Art Bell, he may be only making appearances anymore. As a matter of fact if you follow the link you'll probably be directed to a different site, although I think it's still the same basic format.

http://www.lauralee.com/

http://www.lauralee.com/orloff.htm [Broken]

http://www.artbell.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
Iacchus32, I checked out the one site and will probably check out the rest. My gut did not hit on the first site I will check the rest. Thanks

Flipton, money corrupts because it sets up walls which directs the flow of the waters of ones self. Taking 98 bucks per person is also stealing from people who are reaching out to try to understand something or possibly change their lives. The main purpose here is to show that reality exists beyond what has ever been done. If it is recognized because there is proof some people will break free from themselves and make the leap.
 
  • #74
I think it is a cop out to say that there is something wrong with the idea of ESPers proving that they are the real thing.
 
  • #75
More Judith Orloff ...

From the URLAT, http://www.newdimensions.org/online-journal/articles/developing-psychic-vision.html" [Broken] ...

DEVELOPING A RELATIONSHIP WITH PSYCHIC VISION
a conversation with Judith Orloff, M.D.


The psychic realm has been much misunderstood and maligned in our Western scientifically biased culture. Science is just beginning to open it's long-biased eyes to the possibility that psychic phenomena may indeed exist. Things like synchronicity, precognitive dreams, clairvoyance, intuition, healing by touch and other meta-normal and metaphysical events may indeed be valid ...


Michael Toms: Judith, when did you start to feel that you had psychic gifts?

Judith Orloff: I had my first psychic experience when I was nine years old, when I had a dream visitation from my grandfather. In the dream he came to me to let me know that he was going to die. It was quite natural as it was happening. But when I woke up, it was dark and I got very scared. I ran into my parent's room, woke them up, and told them. They basically smiled at me and said, "Oh, no dear, you're just having a nightmare, that's all." But the next morning, my aunt called from the East Coast to let us know that my grandfather had passed on. So that was really my first experience that I had. My parents, who were both physicians in Los Angeles, kind of looked at me askance and wrote it off as an eerie coincidence.


MT: Were your parents supportive as you continued to have experiences?

JO: Not at all. For the next two years, I had many psychic experiences, all of which were quite negative. I would predict things like earthquakes, or disasters or illnesses ...

After that my mother told me never to mention another one of my premonitions to her again. And I didn't. I kept what I thought to be a shameful secret deep inside of me.

For the rest of the conversation please follow this link ...

http://www.newdimensions.org/online-journal/articles/developing-psychic-vision.html [Broken]
TENYEARS:

Am posting this only because Judith Orloff has an interesting story to tell, and I think it's something you'll be able to relate to ... You also might want to check the proprietors of the http://www.newdimensions.org/" ...

http://www.newdimensions.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
I think we'll see most of this deleted by tomorrow afternoon, unless you would be so kind as to edit this down for us, that's a good lad?


(copyright violations, guys...we can get sued and shut down. Post a brief section and the link)
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I understand what this means. Forget James Randi. Let's just talk about the general situation. Someone has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can show that they have these abilities. What possible rational reason could one have to NOT do this?
Did you read my post to FZ+? I think to the degree that we rely on material proof (especially when sensationalized), then to that degree we don't rely on "spiritual proof," which is what affects us "interiorly." I know for me that there are any number of things that have happened to me in my life, that may or may not constitute proof in Randi's respect, and yet constitutes proof to me, because I was there. And yet being of a personal nature, with me being the only witness, it belies the fact that The Spirit was there guiding me. Therefore I'm very reluctant to take this to an outside source (which isn't to say I won't), especially when it involves someone who doesn't seem to have an appreciation for what it entails. I'm afraid I just don't see that in James Randi. I would rather go about my own business and remain an unknown.


Well sure. But statistically it can be shown that there are "some" people who will be satisfied with substandard results and also that another group of people who aren't satisfied won't bother to return it for a refund. It's all about money in the end.
All I can say is "buyer beware."


Iacchus32, I have read many of your posts and certainly can respect your unique angle to the issues that get discussed here. But on this particular thing I am a bit perplexed. I'm sure you will admit that there are crackpot fakes in the world who are trying to do nothing but make a penny. I don't think anyone would deny this. So how exactly do you distinguish the frauds from the real thing? I can appreciate being open to things but being open to everything and everybody is a bit different. Especially when you know some are frauds. Right?
As I said earlier (after your post here), I don't believe in anybody, or anything, except the "ground of my being" (my existence). Which is to say I can get pretty skeptical, indeed.


I think someone offering enough money to retire on for proof of supernatural abilities is a worthwhile thing. I cannot think of any reason why a legit person would not take this offer. Can you? Please let me know if you can.
If it looked like it was being "orchestrated" from up above (so to speak), then I would say it would be worth looking into ... and yet this is not the sort of "go ahead" that I get with James Randi.


As I said before I don't know much about this guy so maybe you have some information that makes his offer unreasonable. I am open to hearing it. But all this talk about ego is not sufficient for me. That is a bit of a dodge and an obvious attempt to avoid what this offer really means. If no one will step up and take the challenge, then they know they are frauds and don't want everyone else to know. I'm having trouble coming up with reasoning that differs from this.
The thing about Randi, in his totally "concrete view," is I don't think there's a spiritual bone in his body, which leads me to ask why he should be put in charge of those things which involve "spiritual matters?" Wouldn't that be akin to putting the fox in the hen house? Indeed, there's something very lacking in his attitude which just doesn't ring true.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Iacchus32, I checked out the one site and will probably check out the rest. My gut did not hit on the first site I will check the rest. Thanks

Flipton, money corrupts because it sets up walls which directs the flow of the waters of ones self. Taking 98 bucks per person is also stealing from people who are reaching out to try to understand something or possibly change their lives. The main purpose here is to show that reality exists beyond what has ever been done. If it is recognized because there is proof some people will break free from themselves and make the leap.

OK then you have at least provided a standard to determine what is legit and what isn't. And according to this standard, the links provided that sell knowledge on how to do remote viewing are not legit. I can agree with this.

As for the issue of whether providing objective proof undermines the legitmacy of the ability itself due to the nature of the source of such abilities...well that's a different discussion and I'm running out of time. Will try to respond a later.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Did you read my post to FZ+? I think to the degree that we rely on material proof (especially when sensationalized), then to that degree we don't rely on "spiritual proof," which is what affects us "interiorly." I know for me that there are any number of things that have happened to me in my life, that may or may not constitute proof in Randi's respect, and yet constitutes proof to me, because I was there. And yet being of a personal nature, with me being the only witness, it belies the fact that The Spirit was there guiding me. Therefore I'm very reluctant to take this to an outside source (which isn't to say I won't), especially when it involves someone who doesn't seem to have an appreciation for what it entails. I'm afraid I just don't see that in James Randi. I would rather go about my own business and remain an unknown.


I don't disagree with what you're saying here. But keep in mind that I wasn't referring to a spiritual subjective experience that Randi would need to comprehend and understand. What we are referring to are people claiming that they have certain abilties that result in non-spiritual results! Randi doesn't need to understand the spiritual experience. He only needs to see that this person can indeed tell him something that can only be known through a "supernatural" experience. Like the ability to do remote viewing would give the experiencer some information that can only be known through remote viewing. This is a tangle, measurable result of the spiritual experience. Randi is not asking to understand the experience. He is only asking to see enough of the tangible result to represent an objective proof of the spiritual experience. Again, I see no rational reason not to do this if the ability is legit.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by Fliption
OK then you have at least provided a standard to determine what is legit and what isn't. And according to this standard, the links provided that sell knowledge on how to do remote viewing are not legit. I can agree with this.
Then what are you saying? That anyone who works in the field of "the mind," doesn't have a right to make a living at it? Then should that also not include the whole field of psychiatry? While I can assure you, a lot of them have no business practicing either!

And what about when people go to the doctor, and the doctor says, "Sorry, you only have two months to live?" Don't you think they have the right to question that, and look for a possible alternative? Even if it wasn't "approved" by the AMA?


As for the issue of whether providing objective proof undermines the legitmacy of the ability itself due to the nature of the source of such abilities...well that's a different discussion and I'm running out of time. Will try to respond a later.
But isn't that like with anything, where to the degree that you become "overly" self-conscious, that it affects your normal ability to do what you do, naturally?
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Fliption
I don't disagree with what you're saying here. But keep in mind that I wasn't referring to a spiritual subjective experience that Randi would need to comprehend and understand. What we are referring to are people claiming that they have certain abilties that result in non-spiritual results! Randi doesn't need to understand the spiritual experience. He only needs to see that this person can indeed tell him something that can only be known through a "supernatural" experience. Like the ability to do remote viewing would give the experiencer some information that can only be known through remote viewing. This is a tangle, measurable result of the spiritual experience. Randi is not asking to understand the experience. He is only asking to see enough of the tangible result to represent an objective proof of the spiritual experience. Again, I see no rational reason not to do this if the ability is legit.
And indeed this is entirely possible based upon the evidence that I've seen. Did you ever get chance to see the Nova program on remote viewing? It was pretty amazing, and they were backing up all their claims!
 
  • #82
As for the issue of whether providing objective proof undermines the legitmacy of the ability itself due to the nature of the source of such abilities...well that's a different discussion and I'm running out of time. Will try to respond a later.

Flipton, I was not referring to some moral code, but something which is intrinsic to the understanding itself when experiencing it. There is also something to be said of what relative objects do to your life when attachment begins to occur. Hey you figured out blurry theory, figure some more out. Life does not stop, it is continually new.
 
  • #83
What are you suggesting we "sanitize" our relationship with God?
No. I am saying that we maintain the division from things purely in the internal subjective belief, as you impression is, and things that supposed exist with an objective element. I am saying that we should be clear on which we mean, because you are attacking Randi for failing to do what he did not set out to do.
Nope, not good enough. To "dismiss" is not to "disprove." However, if you wish to remain skeptical about the whole thing, that's entirely up to you.
Depends on what you see by disprove. If it is shown that x has no effect on external reality, then the view held by these people that x does have an effect on external reality is disproved. If they maintain that x neccessarily has a side in objective existence, then their whole belief system is show to be inconsistent with the world, and is disproved. If their belief system can accept a lack of professional scrutiny, and real existence, then it is dismissed from rational judgement. If there is intentional to stop x from being proved, disproved or dismissed when the nature of x allows these tests, then their intentions are suspect.

Let's see again. You seem unclear about the facts.

Randi is NOT in charge. The money is in his bank account, but the actual people who carry out the tests and checks their fairness are chosen from independent scientific authorities.
The tests are double blind. The carrying out is randomnised, and the code to decrypt the results hidden on a computer. There is not possibility for someone to influence the test.
The tests are controlled to eliminate any chance of a placebo effect from experimenter error.
The money is not forced on you. If you pass the test, you don't have to take the money.
Without Randi's challenge, or an equivalent scientific test, any claim as to remote viewing etc cannot be accepted as true. Full stop.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Originally posted by FZ+
No. I am saying that we maintain the division from things purely in the internal subjective belief, as you impression is, and things that supposed exist with an objective element. I am saying that we should be clear on which we mean, because you are attacking Randi for failing to do what he did not set out to do.

Depends on what you see by disprove. If it is shown that x has no effect on external reality, then the view held by these people that x does have an effect on external reality is disproved. If they maintain that x neccessarily has a side in objective existence, then their whole belief system is show to be inconsistent with the world, and is disproved. If their belief system can accept a lack of professional scrutiny, and real existence, then it is dismissed from rational judgement. If there is intentional to stop x from being proved, disproved or dismissed when the nature of x allows these tests, then their intentions are suspect.

Let's see again. You seem unclear about the facts.

Randi is NOT in charge. The money is in his bank account, but the actual people who carry out the tests and checks their fairness are chosen from independent scientific authorities.
The tests are double blind. The carrying out is randomnised, and the code to decrypt the results hidden on a computer. There is not possibility for someone to influence the test.
The tests are controlled to eliminate any chance of a placebo effect from experimenter error.
The money is not forced on you. If you pass the test, you don't have to take the money.
Without Randi's challenge, or an equivalent scientific test, any claim as to remote viewing etc cannot be accepted as true. Full stop.
Did you see that Nova program on remote viewing? They gave some pretty conclusive evidence to me. If you haven't seen it I would recommend you get a copy!

Hey, I don't doubt that there's a lot of fraud going on. So what! ... Most of these things I have no need for anyway. While as a rule, I don't accept anything that I can't see (experience) for myself.
 
  • #85
But you see, without something like what the Randi foundation does, that is still just "seems". No amount of programs in non-controlled circumstances is equivalent to one experiment in scientific surroundings. I have seen dozens of experiments attempting to find esp in controlled conditions, and they all failed. You can't say it's conclusive unless you follow proper scientific method.
While seeing may be believing, believing doesn't make it true. Ever seen a magic trick?
 
  • #86
Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, without something like what the Randi foundation does, that is still just "seems". No amount of programs in non-controlled circumstances is equivalent to one experiment in scientific surroundings. I have seen dozens of experiments attempting to find esp in controlled conditions, and they all failed. You can't say it's conclusive unless you follow proper scientific method.
While seeing may be believing, believing doesn't make it true. Ever seen a magic trick?
Apparently you didn't see the program then. These were extensive tests which were conducted by the CIA, and the whole approach seemed scientific to me. Here are a couple of sites which seem to substantiate the findings.

http://www.trv-psitech.com/newsletter/120701/the_matrix_p_4.html [Broken]

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Doesn't sound like exactly independent sources to me...
And I know lots of tricks around it. And so, why shouldn't this be subjected to Randi's challenge then? Seems that if it was tested so much, another little one would not make a difference. Does Randi have a negative aura then? Maybe the radiates antimagic?
 
Last edited:
  • #88
From another angle whos to say Randi would say it's real pay off some independent fools and then collect tons of cash for the rights. Or maybe take in the real thing collect all the data over a period of time and then release it in a way which is benificial to him. There are lots of possibilities here people. Who's to say the public would give to carps about some ? fool who pays some people to do tests. Who is to verify the verifier of right or wrong.

The government already knows it's real. Through out history many great leaders knew individuals or worked with individuals or consulted individuals which used the capabilities that are part of all people. The governments already know it is real.
 
  • #89
The governments ability to harness it was inadaquate in many circumstances do to it's overall purpose which is less than the cause which generated it. It's like taking a ten mile wide shovel to pick up a gum rapper. If the people know the shovel exists, maybe they won't drop the gum wrapper to being with.
 
  • #90
Originally posted by FZ+
Doesn't sound like exactly independent sources to me...
And I know lots of tricks around it. And so, why shouldn't this be subjected to Randi's challenge then? Seems that if it was tested so much, another little one would not make a difference. Does Randi have a negative aura then? Maybe the radiates antimagic?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing about Randi, in his totally "concrete view," is I don't think there's a spiritual bone in his body, which leads me to ask why he should be put in charge of those things which involve "spiritual matters?" Wouldn't that be akin to putting the fox in the hen house? Indeed, there's something very lacking in his attitude which just doesn't ring true.
Proof! ... That's such a dirty word. I didn't use to believe in any of this stuff either, and couldn't possibly conceive of how it was true ... that is until I found out. Hmm ... Now all I can say is, based upon my own experience, the likelihood that these things do exist is real. If you want proof, and it was meant for you to find out (it's more a matter of sincerity I believe), then you will have proof. In the meantime, I wouldn't waste so much time getting all worked up about it.

Whereas when you do find out, you can then began the thankless task, of wasting all your time, arguing with people who want proof.
 
  • #91
Either you posted three and two were deleted or this is messed up. I received three responses to your post.
 
  • #92
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Either you posted three and two were deleted or this is messed up. I received three responses to your post.
That was because I deleted twice and reposted, sorry. I will do this sometimes (re-edit) so long as no one has posted after me.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what are you saying? That anyone who works in the field of "the mind," doesn't have a right to make a living at it? Then should that also not include the whole field of psychiatry? While I can assure you, a lot of them have no business practicing either!

And what about when people go to the doctor, and the doctor says, "Sorry, you only have two months to live?" Don't you think they have the right to question that, and look for a possible alternative? Even if it wasn't "approved" by the AMA?

I'm not talking about peoples rights. Sure they have a right to do it. But I also have a right to believe it isn't legit when they refuse to accept a very good offer to provide proof.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And indeed this is entirely possible based upon the evidence that I've seen. Did you ever get chance to see the Nova program on remote viewing? It was pretty amazing, and they were backing up all their claims!

And yet they still won't provide proof of it and earn some easy cash.
 
  • #95
Originally posted by TENYEARS
As for the issue of whether providing objective proof undermines the legitmacy of the ability itself due to the nature of the source of such abilities...well that's a different discussion and I'm running out of time. Will try to respond a later.

Flipton, I was not referring to some moral code, but something which is intrinsic to the understanding itself when experiencing it. There is also something to be said of what relative objects do to your life when attachment begins to occur. Hey you figured out blurry theory, figure some more out. Life does not stop, it is continually new.

Yes I know this. That's exactly what I meant. I didn't intend to discuss moral codes. If I said something about it I didn't intend to. I understand what you are talking about completely. It is the only argument not to take the $1M and still be somewhat rational. Of course some people, like zero, will think it is a cop out. I think it is certainly worthy of debate is all I meant.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
Originally posted by FZ+
Doesn't sound like exactly independent sources to me...
And I know lots of tricks around it. And so, why shouldn't this be subjected to Randi's challenge then? Seems that if it was tested so much, another little one would not make a difference. Does Randi have a negative aura then? Maybe the radiates antimagic?
Would you say Randi was a died-in-the-wool Atheist? This was the distinct impression I got, which is an indication of bias right there. While I also got the impression that the only proof Randi is looking for is proof to justify his own Atheism.

So you tell me, is this the kind of person you want heading up a program like this, one who acts solely out of self-interest? Rather than someone who's at least impartial or, has an appreciation for both sides? Otherwise it comes across as a big joke, and the only people it's "likely to draw" are those (perhaps like Randi himself) who think they can trick the system. It's like Tenyears said way back at the beginning of the thread, Randi is not looking for truth.
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not talking about peoples rights. Sure they have a right to do it. But I also have a right to believe it isn't legit when they refuse to accept a very good offer to provide proof.
What are you saying they refused because they didn't respond, to something they otherwise might not be aware of? (Randi's challenge). Or, are you saying Randi approached them directly and then they refused? Hey, that's a big difference!


Originally posted by Fliption
And yet they still won't provide proof of it and earn some easy cash.
Oh, I think you mean "cash in."
 
  • #98
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would you say Randi was a died-in-the-wool Atheist? This was the distinct impression I got, which is an indication of bias right there. While I also got the impression that the only proof Randi is looking for is proof to justify his own Atheism.

So you tell me, is this the kind of person you want heading up a program like this, one who acts solely out of self-interest? Rather than someone who's at least impartial or, has an appreciation for both sides? Otherwise it comes across as a big joke, and the only people it's "likely to draw" are those (perhaps like Randi himself) who think they can trick the system. It's like Tenyears said way back at the beginning of the thread, Randi is not looking for truth.
Did you read my list of facts about the Randi challenge?
I will repeat them for your convenience.

(a) Randi is NOT in charge. He simply has the money.
(b) The tests are design in such a way that there is no possibility of bias on any side.

If this was a factor of his opinion, then we can say that your objection was valid. But you don't seem to understand how the tests work. It is not a matter of what Randi is looking for.
 
  • #99
Originally posted by FZ+
Did you read my list of facts about the Randi challenge?
I will repeat them for your convenience.

(a) Randi is NOT in charge. He simply has the money.
(b) The tests are design in such a way that there is no possibility of bias on any side.

If this was a factor of his opinion, then we can say that your objection was valid. But you don't seem to understand how the tests work. It is not a matter of what Randi is looking for.
Randi is no better than the damn news media that come on at night. It's all sensationalism. Therefore, if you get Randi out of the way, and you get the sensationalism out of the way, then it might be another story. And yet without all the sensationalism, who cares? Right? This is the kind of attention you need in order to draw attention to "James Randi." It's big joke! Whereas if it was that important, why isn't anybody else offering the same challenge? Unless of course it's already being done, in the name of private research, except without all the fanfare and the money.
 
  • #100
Randi is no better than the damn news media that come on at night. It's all sensationalism. Therefore, if you get Randi out of the way, and you get the sensationalism out of the way, then it might be another story. And yet without all the sensationalism, who cares? Right? This is the kind of attention you need in order to draw attention to "James Randi." It's big joke! Whereas if it was that important, why isn't anybody else offering the same challenge? Unless of course it's already being done, in the name of private research, except without all the fanfare and the money.
This is why:

What are you saying they refused because they didn't respond, to something they otherwise might not be aware of? (Randi's challenge). Or, are you saying Randi approached them directly and then they refused? Hey, that's a big difference!
The reason for the fanfare is so that no one can claim that they didn't respond because they never heard of it.
 
  • #101
Originally posted by FZ+
The reason for the fanfare is so that no one can claim that they didn't respond because they never heard of it.
Except that he invalidates the whole thing by drawing so much attention to himself. And if he does draw anyone, it's the wrong kind of people, i.e., those who are probably more like himself and are trying to trick the system. How much money (or, at least notoriety) do you think James Randi has made out of this so far?

And indeed I can see how Randi comes across, like the "savior of Atheism."
 
  • #102
Notice another fact.
Randi.org <- .org being legally a suffix implying a non-profit making organisation. If he makes money out of it, then you can go sue them for false advertising.

I think you don't have any real evidence to go on here, except for your own bias against Mr Randi...
 
  • #103
Originally posted by FZ+
Notice another fact.
Randi.org <- .org being legally a suffix implying a non-profit making organisation.
http://www.dionysus.org/ ... Do you see the sufix here? I imagine it applies to "organization," but nobody seemed to make a big deal out of issuing it out to me, and I'm not a non-profit organization (I'm not commercial either).

If he makes money out of it, then you can go sue them for false advertising.

I think you don't have any real evidence to go on here, except for your own bias against Mr Randi...
He dosn't have to make any money from it directly, not with all the notoriety he gets, which is probably the best form of advertising ... and then you start raking in the dough, through all the other little services the Randi Foundation provides. Or, if nothing else through accepting donations?
 
  • #104
Do we need to attack teh personality of James Randi, or can we speak to the bigger issue of how no 'miracle' has ever been performed under anything like strict scientific protocols?
 
  • #105
Jeez... I thought you read the site...

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.
Now notice the words NOT FOR PROFIT. The .org tag is taken very seriously. Throw away the comments on raking it in, because legally, they don't mean jack.

To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize.
The goal of the prize is very plain. As is the way it is only part of their overall activities, and that the money is an offer. Also notice "mutually agreed scientific conditions".

I suggest you read the site properly at:
http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html
And then make a criticism, if you still can.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
9K
Replies
16
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
724
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
12K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top