What if...

a person's whole being perched on those two words, what if? What if it gets better tomorrow, what if I help someone next week that wouldn't otherwise get help, what if I'm going to die in a month anyway and so just be patient? It's like Schrodinger's cat*.
You don't get to know what if unless you open the box, and if you open the box, you may find that you're already gone and this is all just a dream of some sort that you've never experienced. Maybe everything is just a dream that someone, somewhere is dreaming and everything we know to BE is part of that dream? Could that being be God? Are we all part of His dream for a universe and everything that would be in it? What if every single particle IN that dream made a difference in it? I saw a program, a science program, that proved that we are indeed formed from dust, stardust, to be exact. Every single thing in the universe is composed of the inner workings of stardust, from a star somewhere that died and spread itself out into the cosmos. It's positively Biblical in proportion when you think about it.
When the first star was created (let light come to be), it came and it grew over time and when it became old enough, it exploded into the space created and became EVERYTHING.
Remember that God's, and the universe's time, are NOT the same as OUR time. Who says science and religion can't get along? They're basically saying most of the same things, but like the Hatfield's and the McCoys, the Montague's and the Capulet's, neither side wants to admit they are in agreement about a LOT of stuff. There is NOTHING that I saw in "How the Universe was made" that dissuaded me from believing that an intelligence did it, nothing. Sorry space cowboys, you're steadily proving the Bible to be true little by little, whether you know your cat is dead or not.
As for MY cat, it's still in the damn box, and I'm scared to open it up. I want SO badly to be gone from all this pain, discomfort, frustration, loneliness and heartache, but then, what if...  Those have GOT to be the two most diabolical words ever stuck together, and bah humbug to the bugger that did it. A pox on your big toe.
This is SO freaking hard sometimes, isn't it?
Just sayin' and trying to explain it all,
Dragonfly Davis
No extra charge for the definition below, I think everyone should read it, it's a poser, to say the least, and makes lesser stickers somewhat less sticky sometimes.
 

*Schrodinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level -- everything visible to the unaided human eye.
Here's Schrödinger's (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of hydrocyanic acid, a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat.
The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive, in what is called a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)

Two and a half terminal men...

Is what it should have been called when Ashton came in to save it. Mr. Kutcher is NOT the reason the show is failing. It was on it's last legs when the pathetic Charlie Sheen finally blew a gasket. Granted, the show was, in large part, pretty much a thinly veiled view into Mr. Sheen's real life, but the rest of it was at least still tolerable, but sinking already. The real reason the show is tanking is the terrible writing. It's always been mostly dialogue full of double meanings and barely acceptable language, but Chuck Lorre has obviously lost all interest in this particular horse in his stable of shows. It's just everyone is now just walking about, saying the most prurient things they can think to say. The only character that has any decent dialogue is Walden, and he can't do it all alone, he has to have SOMEONE to play off of.  It's pure and simple, the show has just run out of ideas. Even if Charlie were still there, this would be the final hours of the thing. It wasn't much more than a one trick pony to begin with, but now everyone on the show is a caricature of themselves and it should be brought to an end, it's suffered enough. If anyone could have saved it, it was Ashton, but the writers just aren't interested any more, so let it die in peace, it's just embarrassing itself now, and it's the fault of the writers and producers, NOT the actors, most of which are probably hanging on so tightly because their employment elsewhere is in peril, except for Mr. Kutcher, which is a shame, because there are some good actors on the show, just not being used well, just used. Say goodbye, please.
Just sayin',
Dragonfly Davis

Creation and Evolution, just a thought...

This ongoing battle about whether we're a product of creation or evolution needs to stop, and I think that maybe semantics may be the reason that it rages on. Give this a few minutes thought, if you would.
Say we were created, bam, we're here. Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly HOW long it took for things to "mature" into what they are now. One of God's days could be millions of ours, right? SO, that could mean that we took a LONG time to become what we are, couldn't it? And as far as the term "evolve", it could just as easily be called "adapting", couldn't it? We have always adapted to whatever we were presented with. You can see that in the different races around the globe, how they adapted to the weather and conditions in their areas. Adaptation does NOT mean we were not created, does it? It doesn't have to. It's like the automobile. The first cars were made of what was possible at that time, right? And as the years have gone by, the cars have adapted to the changing conditions, the wants of the consumers, the laws of the land, etc., but that doesn't negate that they were created in their original form, does it? No. Everything that was created at the start is not still around. Some things were killed off and some could not make the necessary changes to survive in their current circumstances...survival of the fittest...but again, that does NOT negate the possibility of creation. We've changed just in the past few hundred years, since medicine and such have improved, and things like hormones are found in our food. There are 6 year old children hitting puberty now because of all the hormones in some foods, and there are people living to be 100+ due to the great medicines available now, and that can be considered "evolving", because we are, more correctly, adapting to our world as we go along, as we always have. So, if you really think about it, one concept does NOT negate the other. They can live quite nicely together if the powers that be would just be more flexible about things. I could name probably 20 things that have changed about us physically since ancient times, and that is due mostly to necessity and availability of different things, but it sure doesn't mean we weren't created by something greater than ourselves billions of OUR years ago. Just try to wrap your head around the time frame issue, and it's very clear. And we, and everything else in the world, are SO complex that there is no way it just, in a totally random way,  Happened to all fall into place. Just look at what's inside an atom and you can see that plain and simple, and if that doesn't do it for you, look at everything just in the known universe. None of this was an accident, not possible.
So all you have to do is agree that we were created, and have been adapting to our situations ever since, and we have the whole thing nicely covered, and all these people that live on government grants trying to prove one or the other will have to get real jobs. They keep the battle going because it's so simple to keep people divided on any big issue. It's our nature to take sides on things, but in this instance, I think it's time we were all on the same side. We have much more pressing issues to be fussing with. This seems to me to be a no-brainer.
Just sayin'
Dragonfly Davis

Dear Chuck Lorre...

I read your vanity card recently where it said " I am so very tired". Well, that has become pretty obvious lately. Listen, you have, and have had, many shows that have lots of dialogue that has double meanings, inuendo and other forms of wordplay that were mostly thinly veiled sexual remarks, and most were okay, some even very cute, BUT...Lately, on TAAHM, you have seriously crossed the line. I realize that you don't write all these shows or maybe even check the content before they are done, but you need to start watching. TAAHM is failing now, and it isn't because of Ashton, HE is the only reason I look in still, the only redeeming quality left on the show. "Men" has always been a pretty much one trick pony and sex talk has always been part of it because it was about a "playboy and an over-sexed and under-achieving sad sack", so. BUT when two lines cannot be exchanged without SOMETHING sexual being said, that's just too much, and it's not even just the quantity of sexual material, it's the quality, or total lack of, that is disturbing me. I am not a prude by most standards, but when a joke HAS to be made, not just once, but twice about the "fact" that Allan can, well, with the help of extreme flexibility, "toot his own horn" as it were, well, that is just crossing a very gross line. Yes, I know it's a possible thing, a lot of people know that, but does it have to find itself on one of your shows? I don't think so. I didn't think Mr. Cryer could sink much lower, but it seems I was wrong. I realize his character is very flawed, but there is a point after which he's not just flawed, but sick. It would seem that everyone on the show has become a caricature of themselves, even the previously "normal" ones. Walden seems to be the only one still within the realm of normalcy, sexually speaking, but even he is slipping. I realize that in the day of Mr. Sheen, your main demographic was 18-38 year old males, and toilet and sexual humor was all that was expected, but now that you have someone NOT basically portraying themselves and there is more reason to tune in, there are those of us that could use some of the adult, but not crude, humor that we all know you're capable of. What do you say, Chuck? I miss your wit, I really do. While you're at it, can you get Mike and Molly back out of the sex sewer? That was a cute little show, and you're ruining IT little by little, too. Please stop, I'm not the only one that feels this way. We love your stuff when it's closer to our "pay grade", okay? Thanks for listening. 
A longtime fan.
Just sayin'
Dragonfly Davis