Thanks for your carefully considered 'For' and 'Against' views re: tighter standards on inflammatory posts in political discussions.

I'll just pick out a few:
For:

( 3 ) Aggressive atmospheres arguably impact marginalised and socially nervous voices the most. — fdrake

This has a hint of "Don't upset the poor victim" about it.
There are plenty marginalised and socially inadequate voices who are the most strident attackers.

Against:

( 1 ) Is it possible to consistently enforce tighter standards on it in general? As unenlightened said, there's extreme ambiguity once you remove the clear cut "just flaming" posts. I suspect that tighter standards promote the passive aggression of academic discourse rather than good old fashioned accusatory tirades and insulting comments. — fdrake

The question of consistency is problematic, given individual, subjective decisions.
That is perhaps an argument for clearer guide-lines for mods, including type of behaviour to look out for and knowledge of persistent offenders, or those flagged for consideration.
Not everyone wants to be seen as a 'flagger' and some think it should be handled in thread.
Sometimes, that exacerbates matters...

[BTW, the flagging system doesn't allow the person to give a reason. The post is then deleted or not depending on mod judgement without much in the way of communication.
Deletion isn't always the answer.]

There will always be passive aggression, usually, a coping mechanism to avoid direct confrontation.

Ah, you have nostalgia for Good old-fashioned Boys' Own Own Fisticuffs, eh?
How very exciting and so old hat :roll:

(2)....The kind of mod actions being discussed would typically be edits rather than deletes - dialogues regarding conduct rather than warnings. That's a lot more work. I doubt anyone actually wants the job of going through every post of every political thread and trying to hold it to a consistent editorial standard. — fdrake

Why edits?
It only makes the culprit look better than he/she is, if there is no reason given for it.
So not easy to identify any pattern.

Why not a simple warning? Why would a dialogue be necessary?
First Warning, 2nd... a process...

It does involve more work but perhaps it's worth it.
How else do you nip it in the bud before escalation?
There's no need to go through every political thread with a finely tuned nose for trouble.
Even participants can usually smell the shit a mile away...

( 3 ) Excluding intemperate voices in political discussion is its own form of exclusion; I personally want people to be able to express anger in political discussion, with representatives of positions which make them angry. I don't know how to editorialise anger in debate without running into all the ambiguities regarding its expression. — fdrake

'Intemperate' - lack of self-control.
When it has adverse effects on others, to the detriment of respect for other perspectives, that is not a good look for a philosophy forum, IMO.
It, in itself, excludes rational thought and expression.

Anger, of course, is different and natural when it comes to issues concerning justice and equality etc.
There is just anger and OTT anger, that intemperance you talk of.
If a mod can't see the difference in type and effect, then perhaps some training is required.

Phew. I've just returned from a very pleasant walk through woods to a loch, herons and boys fishing...
Think I might have to leave this again...

Interesting and useful reflections...

Really great to see such excellent communication of thoughts.

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion. — Hanover

The Ukraine was the very worst of examples; I doubt we will see the like again but we might.
There are still lesser but just as bad examples of extended aggression e.g. related to Climate Change. Having a 'General' thread where anything goes, until it doesn't...because of something deemed 'irrelevant' even if it did relate to the topic. What?
I won't go on about that because I wasn't involved but I did notice what I would regard as a bullying element. Complaints were made, not by me. I stood by...

Whenever the word 'bullying' is used or implied, it triggers accusations that the person is thin-skinned, sensitive and 'playing the victim'. Sometimes the ''It was only a joke, can't you even see that?!'' card is played. Basically, there is a ganging up and it's not a pretty sight.
It can have long-lasting effects if the person isn't strong enough to withstand the attacks; physical, verbal or psychological.

To return to the question of a potential rule change for political threads.
I argued for a higher level of moderation because it matters that people can discuss and learn from different perspectives without ducking bullets or being caught in crossfire. Or even being targets of abuse.
In the high mist of low emotion, views and arguments can suffer. Nothing can be seen or listened to clearly or carefully.

Right now, the level of moderation is low, lots of leeway given.
My preference is for a higher level of vigilance.
If that can't be the case, why not reach a compromise?
The middle way, as is the case for all other threads.

Yes, I actually agree with you if you are saying that you would prefer a tighter rein on flaming and ad homs, and the more controversial the topic, the more thorough the editing, rather than the more lax. — unenlightened

It really is as simple as looking at what seems to be current policy and questioning it.
Not editing as such, just being a bit more aware of what's going on and not being a part of the problem.
A bit of care and vigilance applied with as even a hand as possible. No obvious favouritism.
But as you say:

It's always an ongoing discussion, and one expresses a view, and then gets on with philosophy, or if it is unbearable, takes ones' pearls elsewhere. — unenlightened

Why should it be allowed to become so toxic that some people decide to leave?
We don't even know who takes one look at TPF and thinks, "Not for me, thank you very much, bye!"
The views that are not expressed and so not heard.

Never mind. It's all been said before. Time to give it yet another rest.
Hope Mrs un's book does well.
Be well :sparkle:

I don't care at this point. — Tate

I'm guessing most of the mods and participants are passed the point of giving a damn as well.
So it all balances out nicely.

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread.

f you are passionate about philosophy, as I hope we all are, then I expect that passion to overflow from time to time and I expect to get moderated; it's not the end of the world — unenlightened

It's not about occasional passionate exchanges but extended 'vitriol and inflamed tempers' in a political discussion about a serious event or subject. As per the Ukraine Crisis thread.

Also see 'simple question' and the OP with key parts in bold.

:up:

I await your guidance and questions... :nerd:

Mods are not gods — Agent Smith

But some might like to think they are :wink:

Not asking for the 10 Commandments.

Only to consider a simple question and give feedback re:

So, Politics is also seen as exceptional and less moderation is the rule.
Should this be the case? — Amity

Also follow-up to:

I will bring this up with other mods... — fdrake

Do you have an answer to the question or any practical, down-to-earth suggestions?
Or is it a case of *shrugs*.
Have to admit, I'm at the shrugging stage myself... :roll:

As a reminder:

Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter. — Tate

...how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. — Paine

What Z has to teach is for all, but, as is the case with the saint, for none. Put differently, who does "us" refer to? Whose ears? If not for certain ears and no one can hear or understand what Nietzsche has come to teach then although addressed to all it is for none. — Fooloso4

***

I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace. — Banno

I'm trying to work out how long it will take. I joined 2 days ago.
To read the book only: The Cambridge pdf starts at p49 and ends p312.
So far, I've reached Prologue 3, starting on p51. We are on p4 of the thread.
I've a feeling the others will up the pace fairly soon...

As already noted by @Paine 'book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum.'

Although I've been on the point of giving up, even this early on, the other 3 main readers seem to have enough knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to see it through. Or at least help others who try.
Some might drop in and join at the relevant section...where others drop out...

Time will tell...

In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:

"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag." — Paine

Now that made me smile :cool:

The Prologue to TSZ has been described as "thick." There are lot of ideas in there. This is just to explain why the saint declares that he's a "bear among bears." Nietzsche is referring to the spiritual stature of the saint, though this is not strictly a Christian spirituality. — Tate

If the Prologue is 'thick' with lots of ideas does that mean that once mastered, the rest of the book is easier to get through? A walk in the park :wink:

I agree it is worth spending as much time as necessary to understand the foundations.
Grateful for all your help.

I understood the 'bear' bit as pointing to a spirit of nature but isn't that what Z is about?
No, it's about overcoming that, right? :chin:

I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. — Paine

Yes, I understand that.
I've been there and done that with other book discussions.
Trouble is when there are too many and people start arguing the toss.
But whatever...
Do what needs to be done for clarity :pray:

still germane in the text — Paine

Fixed. Removal of . between 'germane' and 'in'.

My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions. — Paine

Thanks.
The 'germane' link isn't working.

As interesting as all this is, can I ask that the thread sticks to the title and OP, TSZ: Reading?
If you want to talk about N, possibly start another thread?

Oh, I missed that.
It's beautiful. Soothing :sparkle:

***

Part of 'Aretha Franklin: A Tribute to the Queen of Soul at the Proms'. Amazing :fire:
1 hr 50 mins long. Wow. Incredible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001bdx5/bbc-proms-2022-aretha-franklin-a-tribute-to-the-queen-of-soul

In Aretha Franklin’s six-decade career, she won 18 Grammys and was the first woman inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Celebrating what would have been the singer’s eightieth birthday, the BBC Proms pay tribute to a true icon.

Thank you.

In political discussions, we have a much lighter touch on vitriol and inflamed tempers — fdrake

This is just a general comment, not related to the current dispute of which I know nothing.

However, when complaints were made concerning the Ukraine Crisis thread.
The response was similar.
Political threads are not so heavily moderated due to their passionate nature.

I argued that it was all the more needed.
To nip in the bud and to stop any escalation.
I still think that way...

The purpose of the incantations in the Phaedo is to charm away the fear of death. The saint is praising his god. — Fooloso4

The author's own repetition of the expressed incantations makes us stop and think.
Just as Plato's does...to charm the readers to think again...
Or I'm just making up a load of garbage to fill in my time.
The déjà vu is strong :nerd:

I take this to be about the difference between God as universal and the god who is his god. But I don't know that the saint sees them as different. It may be an expression of closeness, of unity. — Fooloso4

Still a comfort blanket, the removal of which would destroy him or his sense of (well)being.
Z is being kind, not wishing to leave him empty and vulnerable.

The saint might not see them as different but the author might.
And the readers are made aware by the clever changes.

I dunno.
I'll leave it there.

I can't thank you enough for putting me through this hell :nerd:
Seeing N in a new light :sparkle:

That is one powerful statement. :fire:

In his early account Nietzsche understood the saint as embodying the supreme achievement of a self-transcending ‘feeling of oneness and identity with all living things’, while in his later account he viewed the saint as a representative of an unhealthy, life-denying ‘ascetic ideal’. — Tate

Oh, thanks for that, Tate. It looks like my interpretation chimes with the latter.
I should have known that there would be an early and a late Nietzsche.
Reminds me of my attempted reading and confusion with Wittgenstein.

Damn them for changing :wink:

cosmodicy — Tate

A new word for me. Care to explain what it means?

OK but you didn't address my question:

This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.

The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.

Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing? — Amity

I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god.

What I noticed here was the change from God to god.
The difference in context and circumstance; between time ('When') and person (''With)

1. 'God', the general God: The Big External Spirit in the Sky (Heaven). The Ideal.
The religious inspiration for the saint's creativity.
'When...' - He makes them with feeling, then sings in Faith. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
Singing as Incantation, like in a church. Invoking magic charms.

2. 'god', here. is his god. A more personal god.
The saint is human with a wide range of emotions, from joy to sadness, anger even?
'With....' - In the midst of 'suffering', he talks/prays directly to his particular god, special to him alone.
This personal relationship comforts him.
His Belief is his protection against the lower parts of him, his demons. Help me in my hour of need.
Without God, he would be vulnerable. That is why he praises God. He might also think that unless God receives gratitude, He will become angry and desert him.

That is one way of looking at it.

There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. — Fooloso4

The burden of being human still remains, even if he might delude himself with magic charms.
The saint has Pride in being above others he looks down on.
Physical and Spiritual combined.

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
— Amity

Good question. It should become clearer as you read on. As with many things in Nietzsche there is a reversal of Christian teachings. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 on the gifts of the holy spirit. — Fooloso4

For present and future reference, to consider how this is reversed by Nietzsche:

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. — Bible Gateway - Concerning Spiritual Gifts

Strange thing happened there. I didn't bold the last sentence.
It could be spooky or just that the next heading was in bolds:

Unity and Diversity in the Body

That is not how I hear this:

With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god. — Fooloso4

How do you hear it?

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is? — Amity

OK, getting there.

Reading continues > Section 3

And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:
“I teach you the overman. Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

Footnote :
“Ich lehre euch den Ubermenschen.” Just as ¨ Mensch means human, human being, Ubermensch ¨means superhuman, which I render throughout as overman, though I use human being, mankind, people, and humanity to avoid the gendered and outmoded use of “man.” Two things are achieved by using this combination. First, using “human being” and other species-indicating expressions makes it clear that Nietzsche is concerned ecumenically with humans as a species, not merely with males. Secondly, expanding beyond the use of “man” puts humans in an ecological context; for Zarathustra to claim that “the overman shall be the meaning of the earth” is to argue for a new relationship between humans and nature, between humans and the earth. Overman is preferred to superhuman for two basic reasons; first, it preserves the word play Nietzsche intends with his constant references to going under and going over, and secondly, the comic book associations called to mind by “superman” and super-heroes generally tend to reflect negatively, and frivolously, on the term superhuman.
— Cambridge pdf p51

:up:
An excellent summary of your considered attitude and practice to a close reading of any text.
Sprinkled throughout many discussions in a most helpful teaching/learning process. Thanks.

Just for you, rosebud :wink: :hearts: :flower:

There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet.
[...]
Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know? — Fooloso4

I hadn't thought of that. It seemed like a dialogue. So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters?

The saint does not want to give anything to man but rather wants something taken away. I think this refers to salvation from sin, the three metamorphoses of the spirit (page 16), and the burden of the camel. — Fooloso4

OK, you have the advantage of having read this before. I think this is a book which you can read over and over and still find something new or revealing.

This is the first time I've noticed this aspect of the saint — Tate

The beauty of discussions like this; new ways of looking and discovering.
Thanks for starting the thread :up:

The saint ask Z what he brings "us" — Fooloso4

The royal 'we'? Those 'above' in the spiritual realm. Or the saint and his natural companions.

Z says he has nothing to give the saint but leaves quickly before he takes something away (page 5). This might be a clue to the second part of the book's title:
A Book for All and None". — Fooloso4

What's the link between the 'clue' and the title?

To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes

'Lonely in the lanes'. I like that.
Mankind as a general collective can be suspicious or scared to be separate.
We (the unroyal) mingle in the marketplace.
Not wanting to be alone along a narrow way; on a parallel single line as in a swimming pool.

And if at night lying in their beds they hear a man walking outside, long before the sun rises, they probably ask themselves: where is the thief going?

We cling to each other in our beds in darkness. No light shining. We can imagine dark deeds outside.
We build separate family homes for shelter and protection. We guard our property. The material.

If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to steal something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? — Fooloso4

Yes, it would deny the saint his comfort blanket; his faith is his protection. Against what?
Men? The World? He wants his Garden of Eden.

Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? — Fooloso4

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?

I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god.

This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.
The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.

Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing?

There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. The god who is his god is not one Z wants to take away. To take it away would be to leave him empty. — Fooloso4

Before someone's belief/faith is questioned, attacked or removed, there would need to be something to take its place. Our minds can't say empty forever...

It is time for you to stop all of your sobbing
Yes it's time for you to stop all of your sobbing, ohh ohh ohh
There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop, stop, stop, stop

It is time for you to laugh instead of crying
Yes it's time for you to laugh so keep on trying, ohh ohh ohh
There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it

Each little tear that falls from your eyes
Makes, makes me want
To take you in my arms and tell you
To stop all your sobbing

There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Then there's one thing you gotta know, to make me want you so
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it

Gotta stop sobbing now, gotta stop sobbing now
Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it
Gotta stop sobbing now, gotta stop sobbing now
Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it
Songwriters: Ray Davies. For non-commercial use only.

Zarathustra replied. “Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.”
“Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Rather take something off them and help them to carry it – that will do them the most good, if only it does you good — Cambridge pdf p50

Thinking aloud.

Z asks the saint 'Why...?
Did he mean "When did I speak of, say anything about love?" - Love of material stuff?
Or is it short-hand for "Why do you think it's love I carry?" - In his heart?
Does this mean Z has no love for fellow human beings, even if he wants to return as one?
He only wants to be a Giver. In control as a master to a slave?

The saint seems more spiteful and selfish than spiritual.
To lessen the human burden ( material or spiritual) by helping them carry it?
How would that do anyone most good, to be dependent?
And why would Z want that kind of burden, when he wants to enlighten?

“Why,” asked the saint, “did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?
Now I love God: human beings I do not love. Human beings are too imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.” — Cambridge pdf p50

I interpret 'mankind' here as being things of the world; material objects and desire.
The saint rejected this, seeking spirituality - the 'higher' level.
Human beings are seen as 'imperfect' due to their physical needs and hunger for the 'lower'.

Reminds me of something along the lines of being in the world, but not of the world.
Love for material objects would kill his spirit.

The separation of body and mind; the physical and the spiritual.
But they are both required...

As the footnote indicates:
“Ich liebe die Menschen” means literally “I love human beings." — Fooloso4

Interestingly it continues:
 “Ich liebe die Menschen” means literally “I love human beings.” Earlier translators ignored the
ecological framework in which Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra by using expressions like “man.”
The prologue establishes a prevailing semantic field, a framework in which human beings, animals, nature and earth interact or should interact as never before.

[emphasis added]

In the second section,
— Tate

What page, where? — Amity

OK. Found it. You're using this translation.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0004

We can copy this freely, I'm going to close some of the gaps:

2.
Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots.

And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra:

“No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago passed he by. Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered.
Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiary’s doom?
Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer?
Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?
As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?”

Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind.”

“Why,” said the saint, “did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me.”

Zarathustra answered: “What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.”

“Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them—that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!
If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!”

“No,” replied Zarathustra, “I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.”

The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: “Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.
The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?
Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me—a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?”

“And what doeth the saint in the forest?” asked Zarathustra.

The saint answered: “I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?”

When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: “What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!”—And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!”
— TSZ - Gutenberg Thomas Common trans.

OK. Got that.
I'll just have to check the bottom of the pdf pages for the actual book page in the translation we're using.

OK. I think I'll leave this discussion now.
It's becoming a nightmare to follow.

In the second section, — Tate

What page, where?

If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
I'm using the pdf, so I've been referencing that.

Another spoiler: In Christianity God must become man. For Nietzsche man must become a god. — Fooloso4

It doesn't spoil if it helps me understand where I'm at with my questioning if that makes sense.
So, anything you got is more than :100: welcome!

I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato. — Fooloso4

:smile:
BTW, I am not looking at secondary sources as I make my way through this.
I'm enjoying it as a newcomer. Like reading the Short Stories but I don't need to guess the author :wink:
I don't even want to know about the author.
This is a first for me.
Not looking things up.

So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss! — TSZ

Z is praying to the Sun, his spiritual 'God'.
He wants nature's supernatural blessing so that he can be a 'disciple' and carry the word, in all its shining glory. Or something.

Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become human again.”
– Thus began Zarathustra’s going under — TSZ

Like the son/Sun of 'God', Jesus the man, he is part of a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ?
3 in One? Or One in Three?
Come down to Earth, to enlighten but is there also a devil to deal with?

This is intriguing me more than I thought it would.

Good point! — Fooloso4

Yay, I'm cooking with gas :fire:
*keeping an eye on energy consumption and cost*