Thread: "The people in your dreams are only products of your imagination"

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

I realize now that that was a lowball estimate. It's more like three or four percent. But considering how many members this site has, that actually comes to quite a few people.

I don't think so. LDing isn't that hard. All it takes is some discipline keeping your dream journal and doing RCs properly. I have to admit that I'm a bit neglectful currently, but when I did it strictly, I had LD after LD and a handful of OBEs too, sometimes up to 4 LDs a night. Didn't even bother to write them all down anymore, because it would've taken too much time. To experience a first LD it seems to be sufficient for most to just read a book about LDing. Maybe there are some people that lie about it for some reason, but I guess that are singular cases.

Space Explorer, for someone who likes to talk about how smart and educated he is, you're awfully slow on the uptake. Now read this carefully and commit it to memory:

***Nobody in your dreams wants to help you. If they did, they'd seek you out and help you.***

Is that clear enough? Or do you need to niggle and naggle it some more?

And Gigaschatten, every LD site on the Internet claims that "anyone can learn how to have lucid dreams, for just six low payments of $29.99."

That isn't true.

Are you saying that dream characters are ultimately malevolent?

I've had dream characters promise to make me lucid. And, less than a handful of times, they have. How would you interpret this?

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

Space Explorer, for someone who likes to talk about how smart and educated he is, you're awfully slow on the uptake. Now read this carefully and commit it to memory:

***Nobody in your dreams wants to help you. If they did, they'd seek you out and help you.***

Is that clear enough? Or do you need to niggle and naggle it some more?

And Gigaschatten, every LD site on the Internet claims that "anyone can learn how to have lucid dreams, for just six low payments of $29.99."

That isn't true.

No Arne, you're just very obtuse in your points.
What you are saying is perfectly clear... it however relys on assumptions that you cannot prove.
Firstly it assumes that the dream characters have free will, awareness etc.
I personally do not believe that to be so, I think they are like a very complicated psychological hall of mirrors... you see yourself and your memories reflected back at you in all sorts of interesting and unusual ways.

There is a reason they do not help... because they are not entitys they are animated illusions based on memories. They can't help, because they are not a "they"

Your point was that they are independent, and that you could prove it in your task. So if they refuse to help, how did you exactly plan to go about that?

And Gigaschatten, every LD site on the Internet claims that "anyone can learn how to have lucid dreams, for just six low payments of $29.99."

Not true, some people are trying to make a quick buck on the back of the subject. I think i can find examples of the same thing happening on pretty much any subject online.

Your argument means nothing... There are websites claiming you can have a 6 pack in 2 week for just $29.99....
There are also perfectly valid Gyms out there in the real world which will genuinly give you a 6 pack if you work hard and follow the instructions.
Does the scam site make exercise a myth? Of course not. It just proves that some people will tell lies about any subject to make money.

Does a few scam websites on any subject make the subject invalid?
of course not.
There are websites out there claiming President Bush is an alien reptilian.
Does that make him less human for those of us who arnt silly enough to buy into such nonsense?

No.

Same goes for lucid dreaming.
Dont try and discredit a subject just because there are a few crappy scam websites.


(also before anyone mentions it... I know the Bush analogy is going to come bite me in the arse)

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

No Arne, you're just very obtuse in your points.

Check out the mirror, why don't you?

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

There is a reason they do not help... because they are not entitys (sic) they are animated illusions based on memories. They can't help, because they are not a "they".

Ummm.. that doesn't figure. If "they" were all constructs of one's own mind, why would "they" refuse to help the self? Surely one's "subconscious" would aid the individual? I don't see your "logic" at all.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Your point was that they are independent, and that you could prove it in your task. So if they refuse to help, how did you exactly plan to go about that?

He didn't say that they refuse to help. He meant that they wouldn't willingly offer help off their own bat.

IMO you haven't got much experience of dealing with DCs. You want them to answer a question? Often, you have to pester them to make them answer.. but persistence will pay off, if your lucidity hasn't slipped by that time. They'll avoid answering if they can, but you often have to give them a taste of their own medicine by being a pedantic pest to them, in order to elicit a response.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Dont try and discredit a subject just because there are a few crappy scam websites.

I just don't know where you got this from. Nowhere do I see Arne trying to discredit the subject of LDing. What he is casting doubt on, IMO, is the veracity of the myriad of so-called LDers who aver things like "I had an LD where I was lucid for hours!" and "You can do anything in a Lucid Dream" etc etc.

IMO.

>>I just don't know where you got this from. Nowhere do I see Arne trying to discredit the subject of LDing. What he is casting doubt on, IMO, is the veracity of the myriad of so-called LDers who aver things like "I had an LD where I was lucid for hours!" and "You can do anything in a Lucid Dream" etc etc.<<

That's just it, Oneiro. People think they can't be caught bullshitting about this, but they can be. Unfortunately though, there are an awful lot of bullshitters, and they very badly get in the way of progress.

And Space Explorer, I really do appreciate the more-civil tone of your recent posts, but you shouldn't have decided to be a wise-ass and post your results after I asked you not to do that. I'd have been a lot more willing to explain things to you then. And I'd have explained them in private, not out here.

>>Are you saying that dream characters are ultimately malevolent? I've had dream characters promise to make me lucid. And, less than a handful of times, they have. How would you interpret this?<

Many of them are malevolent, Abra. The Old Hag phenomenon attests to that. And some of the non-malevolent ones are friendlier than others. But none of them really want to help you. None of them are going to do you a favor without getting something back, whether you're conscious of how they benefit from it or not.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Check out the mirror, why don't you?
Ummm.. that doesn't figure. If "they" were all constructs of one's own mind, why would "they" refuse to help the self? Surely one's "subconscious" would aid the individual? I don't see your "logic" at all.

Firstly if i dont make myself clear, i apologise, but simply ask and i'll do my best to clarify.
As for your point...
I don't know what you are making that assumption from?
I can think of numerous cases of the mind and subconscious doing things that are not in the best interest of the individual:
Nightmares, Obsessive compulsive disorder, Addictions, Phobias, paranoia, low self esteem, insomnia etc.
It's nice to think that the mind would always be working in our best interests, but that simply isnt the case when you observe the world around you. If it was then there would be no therapists, self help books or the myriad of similar professions and products.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

He didn't say that they refuse to help. He meant that they wouldn't willingly offer help off their own bat.

Actually what he said exactly was:

***Nobody in your dreams wants to help you. If they did, they'd seek you out and help you.***

And how exactly do you you know "what he meant"?
I don't draw the same conclusions you do from that statement. I doubt many others would. Are you by any chance friends with arne? or perhaps arne himself? You seem to be very aggressive in your defence of him.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

IMO you haven't got much experience of dealing with DCs. You want them to answer a question? Often, you have to pester them to make them answer.. but persistence will pay off, if your lucidity hasn't slipped by that time. They'll avoid answering if they can, but you often have to give them a taste of their own medicine by being a pedantic pest to them, in order to elicit a response.

In your experience perhaps. I've never had such problems. It's probably all down to expectation. If you expect them to be akward then they probably will, what with them being creations of your own mind.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

I just don't know where you got this from. Nowhere do I see Arne trying to discredit the subject of LDing. What he is casting doubt on, IMO, is the veracity of the myriad of so-called LDers who aver things like "I had an LD where I was lucid for hours!" and "You can do anything in a Lucid Dream" etc etc.
IMO.

Well he dosnt do a very good job of it.
Claiming that most people are lying is a bad place to start if you are looking to make a point. He's said that 1&#37; of lucid dreamers are genuine and the rest are liars.

Also how can you possibly defend this standpoint as acceptable, but find it difficult when others like myself have issues with his claim that dream characters live an independent existence?

So it's wrong to say you had a lucid dream that lasted for a few hours...
BUT
its ok to say that dream characters are not creations of the mind and live in some inexplainable other world as seperate entities?

You choose a strange moral standpoint when it comes to choosing sides.
Personaly, I've had long lucid dreams, longest seemed to last well over an hour, it made sense to me for several reasons, i'd drunk a lot the night before so was experiencing REM rebound, and i'd become lucid very early in that REM period. (if you wonder how i established the length of the dream, i record my dreams on a dictaphone and the time taken to record the dream was almost an hour, allowing for th fact that reciting an experience condenses its timescale, i can assume the experience lasted longer than an hour)
It dosnt break any rules of physics or biology...
however dream characters being independent of the dreamers mind DOES.

Ok some people get over excited about lucid dreaming, they exagerate a little.
However thier claims are not THAT far from the truth.
Ok maybe you cant do ANYTHING in a lucid dream... but you ALMOST can.
Ok maybe you cant have a lucid dream that lasts ALL NIGHT but you can have a pretty long one, if the circumstances allow... it's not going to happen every night though!

Yes it's annoying when people dont get the facts quite right. When extraordinary claims are made.

Personally, I think Arnes claims are more extraordinary and require a much bigger leap of faith than a few over excited lucid dreamers exagerating a little on thier abilities. At least thier exagerations have some basis in reality and known science.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

IMO you haven't got much experience of dealing with DCs. You want them to answer a question? Often, you have to pester them to make them answer.. but persistence will pay off, if your lucidity hasn't slipped by that time. They'll avoid answering if they can, but you often have to give them a taste of their own medicine by being a pedantic pest to them, in order to elicit a response.

Same experience. Trying to talk to a DC about LDing evoked strange responses, they either got angry and attacked or called for help or they tried to distract me. I haven't been getting any helpful information on that topic by a DC yet.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

I just don't know where you got this from. Nowhere do I see Arne trying to discredit the subject of LDing. What he is casting doubt on, IMO, is the veracity of the myriad of so-called LDers who aver things like "I had an LD where I was lucid for hours!" and "You can do anything in a Lucid Dream" etc etc.

Hour long LDs are an absolute exception. I know it is possible though, because I had one once. I drank wine with blue lotus that I had prepared some weeks before. It seems this somehow changed my sleeping cycle for that night.

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

And Gigaschatten, every LD site on the Internet claims that "anyone can learn how to have lucid dreams, for just six low payments of $29.99."

That isn't true.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Perhaps we should drop all this bickering and ask a few simple questions...

Arne.
What exactly is your point?
What do you aim to achieve from your points being made?

Do you genuinely believe that some dream characters exist independently of the dreamer?

What made you draw that conclusion?
If you were to be your own devils advocate, how would you argue against your conclusion?

If dream characters are conscious entities separate from the dreamer then the next time I have a nightmare whereby I'm being chased by someone with an ax should I phone the police when I wake up and report it?

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

Many of them are malevolent, Abra. The Old Hag phenomenon attests to that. And some of the non-malevolent ones are friendlier than others. But none of them really want to help you. None of them are going to do you a favor without getting something back, whether you're conscious of how they benefit from it or not.

The "Old Hag phenomenon" does not occur in lucid dreams. It is a pre-sleep stage phenomenon. When I was younger, I was haunted by something like that almost every night. I didn't have lucid dreams back then, not even normal dreams I could recall.

Yes, some are malevolent, but most... I don't know. Maybe you are right with that and maybe others who say they aren't malevolent are right too. Many believe dreams are a product of your mind and when you expect something to happen, it is likely that it will happen (autosuggestion). You could also say that dream reality is associative, so what you focus on becomes visible, like the radius of a flashlight in a dark room. We know this from waking reality: Several persons watch one and the same incident, yet they all tell a different story (selective perception, individual interpretation). If you're looking for malevolence, you will find it. The same applies to waking life. Cognition is relative, there is no objective malevolence.

One thing I find confirmed by everyone I asked so far though: In (normal) dreams you don't relax. You go through sequences of emotional situations. Often there are DCs in it that want to attract your attention at every price. Why?

(The astral body is called the emotional body. Many planetravellers have reported encounters with creatures that draw energy from you. I don't necessarily share that theories, but the parallel is highly visible.)

And why do dreams reflect your memories in such a distorted way? We try to become lucid by detecting those anomalies ("Something is not right, I'll do a RC."). So even if we do remember something correctly, we are presented something that is different. Explain that!

Wow. I've missed a lot.

Originally Posted by moonshine

I note that Arne has not yet attempted to provide any real evidence to support his vague assertions. That, to me, would be a way to earn some respect. In point of fact Arne has "rebuked" some fairly simple observations with
fairly outlandish (if convenient from his perspective) claims. Again, does this entitle Arne to respect?

No. I understand your point, but sometimes it's best to forgo the knee-jerk reaction of responding with malice, in order to encourage a potential discussion - which started off with skepticism - to come into fruition.

Originally Posted by moonshine

Furthermore, what if some of us believe that seeking to encourage false belief in people who may be too succeptible to such encouragement due to mental health issues, youth or new-ages leanings. And what if humour (rather than ridicule) is a valid means of demonstrating the same?

Not all "faith" is benign nor healthy.

In any event, Arne can earn some respect if he clearly lays out his evidence and/or beliefs for all to see.
Until he does, there is arguably a strong possibility that Arne may well be trolling us all.

He may very well be, but it is a possibility that I would rather see progressed to the point that it's obvious he's trolling, and not simply having a bad way with words, or trouble getting his point across in a way that isn't perceived as trolling.

Originally Posted by moonshine

And if you don't stop taking what ever it is your on, its going to be another 10 years before they let you back out.

That's the kind of response we are trying to avoid, here.

Originally Posted by Abra

She has dopplegangers, so that Arne can claim that if you control Cynthia Gonzalez, you didn't really complete the task, because you weren't controlling the real one.

This is a legitimate point. From what I'm reading, if Cynthia responds in a way that arne approves of, it is the right one, if it doesn't then it's not the right one. This seems more like a hit-and-miss trial than an actual test of something that is quantifiable.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

I'd just like to say that I feel that certain posters here are doing nothing but trolling. It's pretty obvious who they are.. and yet they remain unmoderated. I think this shows an unacceptable level of bias from the Mods.. they seem generally not to like Arne, and whilst threatening him with censure, they do nothing to stop others on here of behaving in a way which would bring others censure, if the Mods did their job in an unbiased fashion, that is. Trolling/Ad Hominems etc. are supposedly forbidden, but some favoured posters just seem to get away with it. I can't think why.

What "favored posters" are you talking about? I do believe I have addressed both Timothy and Moonshine, who were the two most prominent voices of dissent, last time I chimed in. Since I was the only Mod that brought up censure to Arne (unless I missed someone else) then I can only assume you were talking about me.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

As for spacexplorer's task, IMO it's far more difficult than Arne's.

It's also closed-ended, much more substantial, and seems to be more tamper-proof.

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

That's right, Oneiro. Go back and read the trolling that Moonshine alone has done in just this thread. I know I wouldn't have been allowed to get away with one bit of that.

Excuse me, but you got away with murder, in the last discussion we had, most of which was pointed at me directly. I'd appreciate a little more acknowledgement that no one here is using any authority to just be "out to get you," otherwise, you would have been banned like six times over.

Originally Posted by arne

I realize now that that was a lowball estimate. It's more like three or four percent.

I'd still like to know where it is you got those figures. I believe I asked you before and you never responded.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Ummm.. that doesn't figure. If "they" were all constructs of one's own mind, why would "they" refuse to help the self? Surely one's "subconscious" would aid the individual? I don't see your "logic" at all.

Because the subconscious and conscious minds do not always back each other up. It's a simple as that. This is basically what happens when someone makes a "Freudian Slip." Consciously, they mean to say one thing, but some sort of cue has triggered a subconscious association with that one thing, and the word or phrase that they meant to say comes out as something else.

This happens when you're awake. It is much more potent when dreaming.

[Edit: And, as far as "Old Hag" is concerned: My first encounter with "the Old Hag" was actually quite pleasant. For the most part, it was the same symptoms "feeling of someone sitting on my chest, a presence in the room, etc..." but I was not afraid. I was coming out of a dream in which I had been lying in bed with someone I liked so, when I felt the pressure on my chest during the paralysis, I simply interpreted it as being that person's arm draped around me.

I don't see the malevolence, in that situation. The only reason (IMHO) that "Old Hag" is viewed as malevolent is because a lot of people freak out, when they get those physical sensations, attributing the cause to something "scary and unknown."]

Originally Posted by Licity

If I walk down the street and see a representative from the Salvation Army, I would donate some money, although I'm not going to scout out my entire town looking for them. There are other charities I would prefer to give to.

Does that mean I am not helping because I am not helping without being asked? ("asked" not being literal here, the person ringing the bell is the request)

Not the same thing at all. Although I did make an inquiry along those lines once. I presented a DC a scenario in which a human could help another human who was in need but declined to do so. Would the person who had declined to act be guilty of neglect? The reply came back that yes, he would be guilty.

I immediately began to argue with the DC that he and his kind were guilty of neglect because they didn't help people, and he replied, "That's none of our business."

So yes, Space Explorer, there are things in every dream you have that exist independently of you. But they have no interest in helping you. If they did, they'd help you. They'd help everybody. But they claim it's none of their business.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What "favored posters" are you talking about? I do believe I have addressed both Timothy and Moonshine, who were the two most prominent voices of dissent, last time I chimed in. Since I was the only Mod that brought up censure to Arne (unless I missed someone else) then I can only assume you were talking about me.

Not to mention that closing a thread also helps stop trolling. I'm also pretty sure that locking threads is as unbiased as it can get. Your so-called "favored posters" have also posted in Arne's other threads, which have been locked by myself and Shift. I have half a mind to close this one to save EVERYONE'S sanity that is being lost.

But I won't, because as much as you all either hate him or want the trolling to stop, Arne's topics are pretty good topics for conversation. O has tried and apparently still is trying to control the posts that add nothing to this thread. If you feel like the trolling will keep happening, I'll be MORE than happy to go to the Mod tools.

Since I'm in the mood I'll just go ahead and say it;

If you have ANY issues with Arne, or any member seen as a troll...

For GOD'S sake TAKE IT TO A PM!!!

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

>>Are you saying that dream characters are ultimately malevolent? I've had dream characters promise to make me lucid. And, less than a handful of times, they have. How would you interpret this?<

Many of them are malevolent, Abra. The Old Hag phenomenon attests to that. And some of the non-malevolent ones are friendlier than others. But none of them really want to help you. None of them are going to do you a favor without getting something back, whether you're conscious of how they benefit from it or not.

But can't Old Hag be explained as a misinterpretation of sleep paralysis? People fear what they don't know, so they think aliens or demons are messing with their body, even though it's only sleep paralysis (their expectation of aliens or demons may make them 'appear').

I've had dream characters that are nice. My dream guide is nice. I guess you could say one of my guides had an ulterior motive, but even after I completed the task, he still helped me even when not asked.

Anyway, why would they accept payment if we are unconscious of it? Wouldn't they rather know that we consciously understand the bargain? Or would they feel guilty for "taking advantage of us" when unconscious? If they can control the dream world, too, then what benefits could we serve them? I'm wondering how complex your dream characters are. Do they all have some selfish desire, or are they like us--altruistic sometimes, selfish other times, practical most times. Under your model, can DCs form true friendships with us?

Originally Posted by arne saknussemm

I immediately began to argue with the DC that he and his kind were guilty of neglect because they didn't help people, and he replied, "That's none of our business."

Did you ask what their business is?

Lots of long posts from you Arne, but we're still waiting for you
to lay out the basis of your theories and any clear evidence you may have.

I may have to bow out of this conversation soon, it's getting infuriating.
Arne, why won't you answer questions?
You use the old politician trick of pretending to answer a question and then just making your original statement again.

Me: Arne what time is it?

Arne: You know the last time someone asked me that question it was a dream character, just after they told me they were definitely independant and not interested in helping anyone.

Me: No seriously, I really just need to know the time?

Arne: You can be as serious as you like, quite often it is seriousness that makes people not realise that dream characters are definitely independant and not interested in helping anyone.


I'ts getting a bit silly, I can't debate someone who isn't giving me the simple respect of answering my questions.

12:33 PM where I live. (GMT+1)

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I'ts getting a bit silly, I can't debate someone who isn't giving me the simple respect of answering my questions.

Thats the crux of the matter. Yet were supposed to respect Arnes opinions?!?

Move this thread to the beyond dreaming section with the imps and faeries.

Woah. This thread really getting tense now.
I'm glad Oneironaut posted the long post he did... I was considering doing it, but he was the one who dealt with arne in the first place, so I felt it was right for him to arbitrate here.

And I agree with what he said about 'favoured posters' by Oneiro... that's rubbish. I also don't see any ad hominems recently in this thread at all.
Maybe you're mistaking a heated difference of opinion and disrespectful personal attacks?

I personally hate it when someone tries to tell us how to do our jobs in a way that suits them, and in a way that implies that we're idiots. You think we get paid to deal with this?

Next time you have a problem with somebodies post... use the PM or report post buttons, k?

Originally Posted by moonshine

Thats the crux of the matter. Yet were supposed to respect Arnes opinions?!?

Move this thread to the beyond dreaming section with the imps and faeries.

Agreed, this belongs in Beyond Dreaming.
Claims of dream characters being sentient beings living a unqiue existence of thier own independent of a dreamer is a supernatural claim. A claim that laughs in the face of all established scientific knowledge.
People have a right to believe whatever they wish, Arne included, however this is a fringe belief eating up space in one of the mainstream areas of this forum.
If we want Lucid Dreaming to be taken seriously, we need to keep the wacky ideas in a place where people know that is exactly what they are... fringe beliefs held by the minority not the majority, so put it in beyond dreaming.


edit: hadnt read Placebos post before posting this myself. I'm not trying to tell you how to do you job, sorry if it comes across like that!!! just starting to get frustrated with this topic being in a mainstream area. When in beyond dreaming we are told to respect peoples views and beliefs. The same should be true for the new-age minority when visiting mainstream areas. THose of us who hold to the values of modern science also deserve to have our opions and "beliefs" respected too.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Agreed, this belongs in Beyond Dreaming.

Unless arne can offer up a little more substance, that's where it will be going. As with Extended Discussion, I'm all for letting a metaphysical topic be posted in a mainstream area, as long as it is a approached in a way that implies it could be scientifically possible. As of now, I don't believe arne has done that, but I was more than willing to give him the chance, just as I would give it to anyone else.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Claims of dream characters being sentient beings living a unqiue existence of thier own independent of a dreamer is a supernatural claim. A claim that laughs in the face of all established scientific knowledge.

You'd be surprised how many plausible concepts laugh in the face of all established scientific knowledge. That is why science periodically evolves, to admit concepts that were previously unaccepted.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

People have a right to believe whatever they wish, Arne included, however this is a fringe belief eating up space in one of the mainstream areas of this forum.

I believe that people deserve a chance to make their case. As someone who is interested in metaphysical concepts that have some level of evidence behind them, I don't see "fringe" as a bad thing. I would rather someone offer a "fringe" idea, and to have it systematically proven to be false, than to simply be ignorant of the possibility based on assumption or strict adherence to dated paradigms.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

If we want Lucid Dreaming to be taken seriously, we need to keep the wacky ideas in a place where people know that is exactly what they are... fringe beliefs held by the minority not the majority, so put it in beyond dreaming.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about minority vs. majority acceptance. Majority Rule is not synonymous with truth, and I treat every topic as such.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

The same should be true for the new-age minority when visiting mainstream areas. THose of us who hold to the values of modern science also deserve to have our opions and "beliefs" respected too.

I agree. This is the reason why I made it clear that I would be keeping an eye on arne, because I know how "holier-than-thou" he can be in his discussion.

And, Arne, you really need to step up to the plate. You are dodging points, dodging questions, and being very uncooperative. Despite our first encounter, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt to make your case with some substance. As of now, you've been very cryptic and stubborn, and have really offered nothing of substance since this discussion has begun.

Either be more cooperative and try to find some agreeable way to prove your point (because if it's true, the "test" wouldn't need to be so "exact," IMHO. It simply feels like you are controlling the variables so tightly that you can either affect or forge the results). Stop dodging people's points and being so selective in what you respond to. You've done that through our last conversation and I'm starting to see it as deliberate.

If you can't stop dancing around the subject, and act like someone who wants to share knowledge and not just play the guru game, then this thread will be going to beyond dreaming...as opposed to Senseless Banter.