Acknowledgement for thesis |

I recommend that the Contact and Disclosure Communities discuss this BBC Documentary “Rare Earth.”
J. Burkes MD 2022

Physicalism is the ideological perspective of materialist science. It is the dominant philosophy of academia and as such determines much of the public discourse on the possibilities of intelligent life, other than human, manifesting on our planet. Physicalism declares that energy and matter are the wellsprings of creation and that thought, i.e., consciousness, “emerges” out of matter. This scientific ideological position historically has been opposed by all religions. Religious faith asserts that thought (the mind of God) is primary and responsible for the material universe.
Flying saucers are a challenge to the Western materialist science. What are now called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) clearly violate the laws of physics as determined by professional science. In the growing societal debate on UAPs, I believe it is important for contact experiencers and all who desire full disclosure on UFOs, be aware of the underpinnings of academia’s objections to flying saucers. For these reasons, I recommend that we discuss the “Rare Earth” hypothesis as it has been used to deny the possibility that flying saucers might be controlled by extraterrestrial intelligences.

This beautifully produced BBC documentary linked below outlines the amazingly unique conditions here on Earth that allowed intelligent life to evolve from a materialist point of view. This special set of conditions that facilitated life on our planet makes it appear less likely to scientists that nearby stars could have provided similar conditions for advanced intelligent beings to evolve. The Rare Earth hypothesis is based on the following observations:

Our galaxy is teeming with planets. Red dwarf stars are the most numerous ones. These stars, however, put out much less heat than our larger Sun (yellow dwarf star). In order to be in the so-called Goldilocks Zone (where water is a liquid), planets of red dwarf star systems would have to be much closer to their stars. At such proximity, astronomers tell us that the common solar flares associated with red dwarfs would expose planets in the habitable zone to damaging radiation. In addition, red dwarfs don't create the massive magnetic fields required to shield planets from destructive cosmic gamma rays.

Then there is the unique origin of Earth that is now understood to have occurred when two smaller planets collided to form our world early in the history of the solar system. This extra mass allowed our planet to have a larger and longer lasting rotating molten iron core that creates a protective magnetic shield against cosmic and solar radiation. Mars is thought to have once had a molten core, but it presumably burned out long ago losing its life protecting magnetic shield. Without the extra mass that Earth has and a more enduring molten core, Mars lost its atmosphere long ago and therefore became inhospitable for life. The collision of two smaller planets in the “Goldilocks Zone, protecting Earth from life destroying radiation is viewed as a rare event and one not likely to have occurred in many close star systems.

Most importantly, the early collision that produced Earth also created our moon which is large enough to stabilize the Earth’s rotation at a set inclination. This allows stable seasons. With climatic stability large animals were able to evolve on land with adequate food resources. These large animals led to humans being able to evolve with the massive brain required for higher intelligence.

Finally, the existence of a giant world, Jupiter, far from the Sun provided an effective barrier to incoming comets. The powerful gravity of Jupiter attracts comets and draws them away from our planet. This has prevented a continuous bombardment of Earth’s surface by comets coming from the outer regions of the solar system. In many star systems studied by astronomers, gas giants exist very close to their stars. Thus, they cannot shield planets like ours that orbit further out from their stars.

Despite the proposition that a unique set of conditions on Earth makes the evolution of life less likely from the materialist perspective, The ET hypothesis for UFOs could still be valid if advanced technology existed to bend spacetime (warp drive a la “Star Trek.”) With faster than light speed other “Rare Earths” might evolve to have intelligent life that could create the necessary technological advancements to traverse vast distances and arrive here.

In addition, UFOs might not be travelling through interstellar space to get to Earth but could conceivably arrive via traversing dimensions from parallel universes. Thus, the ET hypothesis might not be valid, but an “interdimensional” one would allow flying saucers and their crews to show up in our skies and interact with us.
Most importantly, if consciousness is primary, then we can reasonably speculate that UFO intelligences might have access to non-material realms and that they may enter our material universe as “visitors.” If their origin is not from our material plane of existence, then many of their capabilities could become understandable. I refer here to flying saucers being able to dematerialize, often described as “winking out.” Furthermore, the seemingly “miraculous” cures described by UFO contact experiencers might be understood as part and parcel of flying saucer intelligences’ ability to manipulate spacetime via consciousness based non-material technologies.
In conclusion, both the “Rare Earth” thesis and this documentary of the same name are extremely limited by dealing with these issues only from a materialist/physicalist perspective. For physicalists, the natural world is essentially “objective” where randomness is a main force in determining events that could lead to the development of intelligent life. If consciousness is primary, as a growing number of contact experiencers and even some scientists are beginning to acknowledge, then the universe is not random. Synchronicities associated with contact are being driven by a higher order of intelligence, and the universe is conscious, meaning alive and awake. Thus, intelligent life throughout the Cosmos is being created by non-material forces that choose life. In the process, those spiritual forces are fulfilling a plan that compels us to realize that we truly are "one with the one that is all."
To view this BBC documentary, click on the link below.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5amshv

Addendum: A critic of this posting have commented that it serves no purpose to discuss the “Rare Earth” theory because it is formulated to “steer you away from the truth.” Another wrote “why even go there, you know better!” My reply is that contact/disclosure activists have a responsibility to challenge the theories of materialist/physicalist scientists and engage in public discussions whenever possible. As researcher Grant Cameron has pointed out, the US Executive Branch has carried out a program of gradual acclimatization on the flying saucer subject for decades. This has existed alongside a de facto policy of ridicule and denial.

With Senator Schumer’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with many observers believe most certainly has the Whitehouse’s approval, a confirmation/disclosure plan might be slowly going into second gear. As more information confirms the reality and importance of what are now called UAP, contact experiencers and their supporters will be allowed to share the stories of our encounters with the public This will include those who have been influenced by materialist scientists who will persist in promoting the rare Earth theory.

Physicalism is the ideological perspective of materialist science. It is the dominant philosophy of academia and as such determines much of the public discourse on the possibilities of intelligent life, other than human, manifesting on our planet. Physicalism declares that energy and matter are the wellsprings of creation and that thought, i.e., consciousness, “emerges” out of matter. This scientific ideological position historically has been opposed by all religions. Religious faith asserts that thought (the mind of God) is primary and responsible for the material universe.
Flying saucers are a challenge to the Western materialist science. What are now called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) clearly violate the laws of physics as determined by professional science. In the growing societal debate on UAPs, I believe it is important for contact experiencers and all who desire full disclosure on UFOs, be aware of the underpinnings of academia’s objections to flying saucers. For these reasons, I recommend that we discuss the “Rare Earth” hypothesis as it has been used to deny the possibility that flying saucers might be controlled by extraterrestrial intelligences.

This beautifully produced BBC documentary linked below outlines the amazingly unique conditions here on Earth that allowed intelligent life to evolve from a materialist point of view. This special set of conditions that facilitated life on our planet makes it appear less likely to scientists that nearby stars could have provided similar conditions for advanced intelligent beings to evolve. The Rare Earth hypothesis is based on the following observations:

Our galaxy is teeming with planets. Red dwarf stars are the most numerous ones. These stars, however, put out much less heat than our larger Sun (yellow dwarf star). In order to be in the so-called Goldilocks Zone (where water is a liquid), planets of red dwarf star systems would have to be much closer to their stars. At such proximity, astronomers tell us that the common solar flares associated with red dwarfs would expose planets in the habitable zone to damaging radiation. In addition, red dwarfs don't create the massive magnetic fields required to shield planets from destructive cosmic gamma rays.

Then there is the unique origin of Earth that is now understood to have occurred when two smaller planets collided to form our world early in the history of the solar system. This extra mass allowed our planet to have a larger and longer lasting rotating molten iron core that creates a protective magnetic shield against cosmic and solar radiation. Mars is thought to have once had a molten core, but it presumably burned out long ago losing its life protecting magnetic shield. Without the extra mass that Earth has and a more enduring molten core, Mars lost its atmosphere long ago and therefore became inhospitable for life. The collision of two smaller planets in the “Goldilocks Zone, protecting Earth from life destroying radiation is viewed as a rare event and one not likely to have occurred in many close star systems.

Most importantly, the early collision that produced Earth also created our moon which is large enough to stabilize the Earth’s rotation at a set inclination. This allows stable seasons. With climatic stability large animals were able to evolve on land with adequate food resources. These large animals led to humans being able to evolve with the massive brain required for higher intelligence.

Finally, the existence of a giant world, Jupiter, far from the Sun provided an effective barrier to incoming comets. The powerful gravity of Jupiter attracts comets and draws them away from our planet. This has prevented a continuous bombardment of Earth’s surface by comets coming from the outer regions of the solar system. In many star systems studied by astronomers, gas giants exist very close to their stars. Thus, they cannot shield planets like ours that orbit further out from their stars.

Despite the proposition that a unique set of conditions on Earth makes the evolution of life less likely from the materialist perspective, The ET hypothesis for UFOs could still be valid if advanced technology existed to bend spacetime (warp drive a la “Star Trek.”) With faster than light speed other “Rare Earths” might evolve to have intelligent life that could create the necessary technological advancements to traverse vast distances and arrive here.

In addition, UFOs might not be travelling through interstellar space to get to Earth but could conceivably arrive via traversing dimensions from parallel universes. Thus, the ET hypothesis might not be valid, but an “interdimensional” one would allow flying saucers and their crews to show up in our skies and interact with us.
Most importantly, if consciousness is primary, then we can reasonably speculate that UFO intelligences might have access to non-material realms and that they may enter our material universe as “visitors.” If their origin is not from our material plane of existence, then many of their capabilities could become understandable. I refer here to flying saucers being able to dematerialize, often described as “winking out.” Furthermore, the seemingly “miraculous” cures described by UFO contact experiencers might be understood as part and parcel of flying saucer intelligences’ ability to manipulate spacetime via consciousness based non-material technologies.
In conclusion, both the “Rare Earth” thesis and this documentary of the same name are extremely limited by dealing with these issues only from a materialist/physicalist perspective. For physicalists, the natural world is essentially “objective” where randomness is a main force in determining events that could lead to the development of intelligent life. If consciousness is primary, as a growing number of contact experiencers and even some scientists are beginning to acknowledge, then the universe is not random. Synchronicities associated with contact are being driven by a higher order of intelligence, and the universe is conscious, meaning alive and awake. Thus, intelligent life throughout the Cosmos is being created by non-material forces that choose life. In the process, those spiritual forces are fulfilling a plan that compels us to realize that we truly are "one with the one that is all."
To view this BBC documentary, click on the link below.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5amshv

Addendum: A critic of this posting have commented that it serves no purpose to discuss the “Rare Earth” theory because it is formulated to “steer you away from the truth.” Another wrote “why even go there, you know better!” My reply is that contact/disclosure activists have a responsibility to challenge the theories of materialist/physicalist scientists and engage in public discussions whenever possible. As researcher Grant Cameron has pointed out, the US Executive Branch has carried out a program of gradual acclimatization on the flying saucer subject for decades. This has existed alongside a de facto policy of ridicule and denial.

With Senator Schumer’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with many observers believe most certainly has the Whitehouse’s approval, a confirmation/disclosure plan might be slowly going into second gear. As more information confirms the reality and importance of what are now called UAP, contact experiencers and their supporters will be allowed to share the stories of our encounters with the public This will include those who have been influenced by materialist scientists who will persist in promoting the rare Earth theory.
J. Burkes MD

I recommend that the Contact and Disclosure Communities discuss this BBC Documentary “Rare Earth.”
J. Burkes MD 2022

Physicalism is the ideological perspective of materialist science. It is the dominant philosophy of academia and as such determines much of the public discourse on the possibilities of intelligent life, other than human, manifesting on our planet. Physicalism declares that energy and matter are the wellsprings of creation and that thought, i.e., consciousness, “emerges” out of matter. This scientific ideological position historically has been opposed by all religions. Religious faith asserts that thought (the mind of God) is primary and responsible for the material universe.
Flying saucers are a challenge to the Western materialist science. What are now called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) clearly violate the laws of physics as determined by professional science. In the growing societal debate on UAPs, I believe it is important for contact experiencers and all who desire full disclosure on UFOs, be aware of the underpinnings of academia’s objections to flying saucers. For these reasons, I recommend that we discuss the “Rare Earth” hypothesis as it has been used to deny the possibility that flying saucers might be controlled by extraterrestrial intelligences.

This beautifully produced BBC documentary linked below outlines the amazingly unique conditions here on Earth that allowed intelligent life to evolve from a materialist point of view. This special set of conditions that facilitated life on our planet makes it appear less likely to scientists that nearby stars could have provided similar conditions for advanced intelligent beings to evolve. The Rare Earth hypothesis is based on the following observations:

Our galaxy is teeming with planets. Red dwarf stars are the most numerous ones. These stars, however, put out much less heat than our larger Sun (yellow dwarf star). In order to be in the so-called Goldilocks Zone (where water is a liquid), planets of red dwarf star systems would have to be much closer to their stars. At such proximity, astronomers tell us that the common solar flares associated with red dwarfs would expose planets in the habitable zone to damaging radiation. In addition, red dwarfs don't create the massive magnetic fields required to shield planets from destructive cosmic gamma rays.

Then there is the unique origin of Earth that is now understood to have occurred when two smaller planets collided to form our world early in the history of the solar system. This extra mass allowed our planet to have a larger and longer lasting rotating molten iron core that creates a protective magnetic shield against cosmic and solar radiation. Mars is thought to have once had a molten core, but it presumably burned out long ago losing its life protecting magnetic shield. Without the extra mass that Earth has and a more enduring molten core, Mars lost its atmosphere long ago and therefore became inhospitable for life. The collision of two smaller planets in the “Goldilocks Zone, protecting Earth from life destroying radiation is viewed as a rare event and one not likely to have occurred in many close star systems.

Most importantly, the early collision that produced Earth also created our moon which is large enough to stabilize the Earth’s rotation at a set inclination. This allows stable seasons. With climatic stability large animals were able to evolve on land with adequate food resources. These large animals led to humans being able to evolve with the massive brain required for higher intelligence.

Finally, the existence of a giant world, Jupiter, far from the Sun provided an effective barrier to incoming comets. The powerful gravity of Jupiter attracts comets and draws them away from our planet. This has prevented a continuous bombardment of Earth’s surface by comets coming from the outer regions of the solar system. In many star systems studied by astronomers, gas giants exist very close to their stars. Thus, they cannot shield planets like ours that orbit further out from their stars.

Despite the proposition that a unique set of conditions on Earth makes the evolution of life less likely from the materialist perspective, The ET hypothesis for UFOs could still be valid if advanced technology existed to bend spacetime (warp drive a la “Star Trek.”) With faster than light speed other “Rare Earths” might evolve to have intelligent life that could create the necessary technological advancements to traverse vast distances and arrive here.

In addition, UFOs might not be travelling through interstellar space to get to Earth but could conceivably arrive via traversing dimensions from parallel universes. Thus, the ET hypothesis might not be valid, but an “interdimensional” one would allow flying saucers and their crews to show up in our skies and interact with us.
Most importantly, if consciousness is primary, then we can reasonably speculate that UFO intelligences might have access to non-material realms and that they may enter our material universe as “visitors.” If their origin is not from our material plane of existence, then many of their capabilities could become understandable. I refer here to flying saucers being able to dematerialize, often described as “winking out.” Furthermore, the seemingly “miraculous” cures described by UFO contact experiencers might be understood as part and parcel of flying saucer intelligences’ ability to manipulate spacetime via consciousness based non-material technologies.
In conclusion, both the “Rare Earth” thesis and this documentary of the same name are extremely limited by dealing with these issues only from a materialist/physicalist perspective. For physicalists, the natural world is essentially “objective” where randomness is a main force in determining events that could lead to the development of intelligent life. If consciousness is primary, as a growing number of contact experiencers and even some scientists are beginning to acknowledge, then the universe is not random. Synchronicities associated with contact are being driven by a higher order of intelligence, and the universe is conscious, meaning alive and awake. Thus, intelligent life throughout the Cosmos is being created by non-material forces that choose life. In the process, those spiritual forces are fulfilling a plan that compels us to realize that we truly are "one with the one that is all."
To view this BBC documentary, click on the link below.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5amshv

Addendum: A critic of this posting have commented that it serves no purpose to discuss the “Rare Earth” theory because it is formulated to “steer you away from the truth.” Another wrote “why even go there, you know better!” My reply is that contact/disclosure activists have a responsibility to challenge the theories of materialist/physicalist scientists and engage in public discussions whenever possible. As researcher Grant Cameron has pointed out, the US Executive Branch has carried out a program of gradual acclimatization on the flying saucer subject for decades. This has existed alongside a de facto policy of ridicule and denial.

With Senator Schumer’s proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with many observers believe most certainly has the Whitehouse’s approval, a confirmation/disclosure plan might be slowly going into second gear. As more information confirms the reality and importance of what are now called UAP, contact experiencers and their supporters will be allowed to share the stories of our encounters with the public This will include those who have been influenced by materialist scientists who will persist in promoting the rare Earth theory.

This is going to be a long one. Firstly, the Confession of Dositheus, a confession ratified by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and signed by all Patriarchs since the Council of Crete in 2016, says the following in its second decree (you can read it here https://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html ):
"but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God – who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich – it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority." (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 2)
However, it appears as if the Orthodox Church has erred in at least two places in its councils. Firstly, the Council of Jassy in 1642 ratified the Confession of Peter Moghila, which states the following in its 104th decree (https://maksimologija.org/mogila-orthodox-confession ):
"The ointment of chrism is the second mystery; and this had its beginning at the time when the Holy Spirit came down from heaven and rested upon the Apostles, and sealed them with his divine grace, that they might preach the faith of Christ steadfastly and without ceasing. Of this blessing and divine assistance hath every one need who becometh a Christian; and as then the Holy Spirit came down in the visible form of fire and bestowed his grace, or gifts, upon the Apostles, so now, when the priest anointeth the newly baptised person with the holy oil, he becomes endued from above with the gifts of the Holy Spirit: As appears from the words which the priest (as appointed) useth in the celebration of this Mystery; namely, the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Amen. As if he should say, By the anointing of this holy ointment thou art sealed and confirmed into the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which thou dost receive for a confirmation of thy Christian faith. Agreeable hereto are the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 1.21), He which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God: Who hath also sealed us, and given the Earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. This Anointing, or rather the bestowing the Efficacy of this Unction, was done in the times of the Apostles by laying on of hands; according to the Scripture (Acts 8.17), Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. This was afterwards performed by anointing with ointment, as we learn from St Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the Disciple of St Paul (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chs. 2 and 4)."
^ The text above clearly attributes the work of Pseudo-Dionysius to Dionysius the Areopagite as mentioned in the book of acts. By citing Ecclesiastical Hierarchy here, it is saying that this text was written by a disciple of the historical Paul. The problem is that scholarship is unanimous that the works of Pseudo-Dionysius are dependant on Proclus, who wrote in the late 5th century. Even if this is not true, we do not have any unambiguous mentions of the work of Dionysius before the sixth century, which would be odd if he was a prominent apostle, who, according to Church tradition, later became the Bishop of Athens. Furthermore, this work, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, contains references to ecclesiastical structures that were not present in the first century. Furthermore, Pseudo-Dionysius contains references to theurgy, yet this term first appears in the Chaldean Oracles, the earliest of which were written in the third century. There are no references to theurgy from the first century.
A= 'we learn [that it was performed by anointing with oitment] from St Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the Disciple of St Paul'
B= St Dionysius the Areopagite was the Disciple of St Paul
A ⊨ B
B = false
∴ A is false
Below I have attached some resources on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20717171?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A989329de8aa08b25bc69195915261da6
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jmedirelicult.43.1.0001?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A0cf11a64bb46b55bdcccfcdfc0cf3e38
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474890?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A17c51552dad6f7378aaae7441274950f
It is considered completely untenable that he was a disciple of St. Paul by modern scholarship. Regarding earlier texts that seem to mention him, modern scholarship has shown that instead, Pseudo-Dionysius was dependant on these: "Until more recently more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt, as Abbot of Rhinokorura. Hipler's attempts, however, at removing the textual difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has abandoned his opinion." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Note that the letter describing the reception of the Confession of Peter Moghila describes it as such:
"…vested with the most full and plenary power of the whole sacred Synod; he went into Moldavia, as we have said, together with Porphyrius; whither also, sent from the Russians, came Isaias Trophinus, and Conovicius, and Xenovicius; men truly excellent, adorned with all kind of learning and liberal knowledge. These three taking God only for their guide and master, who is the giver of all knowledge, and of all true holiness and understanding, brought the book to this excellent conclusion; having by much mutual disquisition and disputation thoroughly purged it from all foreign doctrines and defilements of novelty, and then forthwith he sent it to the most holy four orthodox patriarchs, the successors in the seats of the Apostles, to be reviewed and considered of. They also confirmed it with their approbation, as containing the true and genuine doctrines, and in nothing departing from the sincere and catholic faith of the Greeks, and declared it to be pure and uncorrupt; by the universal judgement, determination and consent of all, and furthermore by their own proper subscription, and of their clergy as appears hereunto annexed, they decreed and confirmed it; and entitled it, not only of the Russians, but by a more universal Appellation, The orthodox Confession of all the Greeks. Yet however, this book as it was but lately to be had in print among the Russians, so among the Greeks it was only to be had in manuscripts, and that but very rarely. Whereupon, the Lord Panagiota, Interpreter to his imperial Majesty of the East and West, a person of wisdom and piety, and entirely devoted to true religion; as he is most regardful and affectionate of our Greek nation, and zealous contender for the orthodox faith; among his many other magnificent works and public employments, wherein he is daily and hourly engaged, he willingly undertook the care and patronage of this also; and caused this book to be printed at his own expense in our and the latin languages, that every one, who was desirous to increase in piety, might without any expense (for he caused the copies to be distributed to all gratis) be provided with a book, from when as from a source of pure and living water, and out of the genuine fountain of salvation draw the sacred doctrine of our Church, unpolluted with the muddy and foreign opinions of sectaries. And now, let no one marvel, that this book is expressed in a plain style, and unadorned with eloquence; seeing that thereby, it is not only fitted for the learned, but the unlearned multitude also. For the wise and prudent reader ought not to regard the unfinished manner of expression, but the truth of the words and thoughts." (Prefatory Letter of Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem)
The above quote can once again be found here: https://maksimologija.org/mogila-orthodox-confession/
This letter describes the way in which the Confession was declared as ‘containing the true and genuine doctrines, and in nothing departing from the sincere and catholic faith of the Greeks, and declared it to be pure and uncorrupt; by the universal judgement, determination and consent of all’ by the patriarchs who signed off on it. As such, it seems that it was viewed as infallible.
The Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, in ratifying the Confession of Peter Moghila, says this: "And only some six or seven years ago at the most there was published a book intituled The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, which the IVTost Holy Metropolitan, Peter of Kieff, compiled ; and which was revised* and corrected, where revision and correction were needed, at the instance of the Synod of Jassy, by the Protosyncellus and Preacher of the Great Church at Constantinople, Meletius Syrigus, from Crete. And this the Eastern Church hath entirely received, and doth receive ; and the same was published" (Dositheus et al. 2011: pp. 15)
You can find this text on internet archive: https://archive.org/details/actsanddecreess00lucagoog/page/n26/mode/2up?q=Kieff
Dositheos, Robertson James Nathaniel William Beauchamp, and Cyril Lucaris. The acts and decrees of the synod of jerusalem: Sometimes called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden under Dositheus, patriarch of jerusalem in 1672. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, 2011.
The Holy Spirit didn't lead the Synod of Jassy to correct the authorship of the Dionysian corpus? This part implies that correction and revision were not needed in decree 104 of the Confession of Peter Moghila, and, furthermore, that the Church entirely receives the confession as dogmatic.
Secondly, the Horos of the Photian Council of 879, considered the eighth ecumenical council by Orthodox Christians, says this (read it here https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm ):
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered."
In this statement, there is an entailment that the disciples have sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations.
The entailment is as follows:
We expel those… → ([we are] Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact… the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment (based on sentence structure) → The Apostles have canonical stipulations)
Here, the structure of the sentence shows that "we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered" is dependent upon 'jointly sanctifying and preserving in tact...the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles'
A = 'we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered.'
The sentence structure indicates that this entails (⊨) B:
B = [we are] Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact… the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment
C= The Apostles have canonical stipulations
A ⊨ (B ⊨ C) = (A ˄ B) ⊨ C
For example, if I say 'keeping in mind the letter that Obama wrote me, I will do x', this entails that Obama wrote me a letter. If my statement entails something false, the statement is false: If p is false and q is true or p is true and q is false, the statement is still false.
P. Q. P + Q
TRUE. TRUE. TRUE FALSE. TRUE. FALSE
TRUE. FALSE. FALSE
FALSE FALSE. FALSE
So lets say that p + q is '(we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment'
p = (we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...the sacred ordinances...of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment
q= (we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment'
Even if the Disciples have ordinances, if p+q =B above (based on the text) and q entails C then if C is false q is false and p + q is also false.
B = p+q
B ⊨ C
p+q ⊨ C
p ⊭ C
q ⊨ C
C= false
∴ q = false
∴ p + q = false
A ⊨ B and B = p + q
A ⊨ (p + q)
∴ A = false
The problem is, it is considered completely untenable that the canons of the apostles actually go back to the apostles, as they quote canons from the Council of Antioch in 341 and reference a type of Church hierarchy not present in authentic writings from the first century written by presumed successors of the apostles. They are also not mentioned before the 4th century, which is very suspect for a canonical collection supposedly left by the apostles to help govern the Church. If the council of Antioch is instead dependent on the canons, why does it not cite them? If there are other canons that go back to the Apostles, where are they, and what is the evidence that they do? Certainly no other canonical collection states that it has a directly apostolic origin. Thus, it can be said that the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council entails something false, which means in no ambiguous terms that it has erred.
Note that the statement from the Confession of Dositheus reads: "it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority" (Decree 2) and again "In like manner the Church is taught indeed by the Life-giving Spirit, but through the medium of the holy Fathers and Doctors (whose rule is acknowledged to be the Holy and Ecumenical Synods; for we shall not cease to say this ten thousand times); and, therefore, not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivers the Church from error of every kind." (Decree 12)
If we call the second quote above x, it seems that x entails the truth of all other binding statements the church has made. Statement A from further above is binding because of its presence in a Horos (definition) from an ecumenical council.
Horoi from Ecumenical Councils are binding and infallible
A is a Horos
∴ A is binding and infallible
x from decree 12 ⊨ A
A is false
∴ x is false
You can read the following sources on the Canons of the 'Apostles' and why scholarship is unanimous as to their status as a forgery or fraud: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23947920?searchText=apostolic+canons&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dapostolic%2Bcanons%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Afb0f4deadf16b447c63b049972f4248e
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23948013?searchText=apostolic+canons+authorship&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dapostolic%2Bcanons%2Bauthorship%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aef8cb9e3774f5026b5fccc1979d79eb1&seq=8
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01/encyc01.html?term=Apostolic%20Constitutions%20and%20Canons
etc.
Note that 'canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles' is not the name of a document, and, if the statement should be analyzed [canonical] [stipulations] rather than [canonical stipulations], why would there be stipulations of the Apostles that wouldn't be canonical if they are the guardians of Church tradition received from Christ?
From these two arguments, it is clear that the Orthodox Church has erred and been deceived into thinking that forgeries are legitimate and actually originate from their pseudonymous attributions. Error and deception are just what the Holy Spirit was supposed to prevent according to the Pan-Orthodox and binding Confession of Dositheus. If a pan-Orthodox council signed by all Patriarchs with the same authority as other ecumenical councils as per i.e. the acts of the seventh ecumenical council (https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/07/03/what-makes-a-council-ecumenical/#nicaea2 ) can be wrong, how can anything in Orthodox tradition be trusted? Keep in mind these are not disciplinary canons either, the texts cited are meant to be a binding confession of faith (for the Confession of Peter Moghila), and the definition (Horos) of an ecumenical council (the Horos of the Photian Council of 879). On the ecumenical status of the latter in the east, see https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm and https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eighth_Ecumenical_Council
On the ecumenical status of the Council of Jassy see https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/12/21/the-delayed-synodical-receptions-of-the-councils-of-jasy-1642-and-jerusalem-1672/
The Photian Council was also ecumenical in Rome for a while before they opted to go with the earlier robber council as the legitimate one, so this post may also falsify Roman Catholicism.

To get a 1-4-0 on the rhetorical analysis essay, you’ll need to:

Identify a shift in the passage, where the author switches from doing one thing to another
Identify the primary way the author builds the argument in the first part of the passage
Identify the primary way the author builds the argument in the second part of the passage
Use lots of evidence to support your analysis

This is pretty abstract, so here’s an example from the 2023 AP Lang exam (see question 2): https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap23-frq-english-language-set-1.pdf
Notice that in the first three paragraphs, Michelle Obama is basically addressing all the different groups of people who are listening to her speech, and emphasizing that they are all American. However, at line 35, she switches to calling on her listeners to defend their rights by taking advantage of their education.
So our thesis statement can be: “By first acknowledging the diversity of Americans who are listening to her speech in order to emphasize their collective right to being proud Americans, and by crafting a call to action, Michelle Obama urges her listeners to take advantage of their education in order to defend their rights.”
The topic sentence for our first paragraph can be: “Obama addresses the many diverse groups of Americans in her audience in order to underscore the importance of the freedoms and rights they have.” We’d support that claim with 3 quotes from her speech.
The topic sentence for our second paragraph could be: “After acknowledging the freedom that allows the diversity of her audience, Obama crafts a call to action in order to encourage her listeners to take advantage of their education and defend their rights.” We’d then use 3 more quotes to support that claim.
With an introduction and a conclusion, that would be a solid 1-4-0 essay, enough to get you a 5 on the AP exam. But what if you wanted the elusive sophistication point — and a perfect 1-4-1 on the rhetorical analysis essay?
The AP rubric lists three ways you can earn the sophistication point:

“Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer’s rhetorical choices (given the rhetorical situation).”
“Explaining a purpose or function of the passage’s complexities or tensions.”
“Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.”

If you’re a skilled writer, a vivid and persuasive writing style is achievable — just use fancy words and complex sentence structures, and College Board will love you.
If that’s not you, the other methods aren’t too hard.
The rhetorical situation consists of:

the author (Michelle Obama, First Lady)
the audience (American students)
the purpose (to convince American students to use their education to defend their rights)
the exigence - the event that “sparked” the creation of the text (an event honoring school counselors)
the context - think: history (modern day, diverse America)

If you can talk about how any one of these elements affects the content of Michelle Obama’s speech, you can get the sophistication point.
For example: you could discuss how Michelle Obama spends a good portion of her speech acknowledging different groups in America because of the context of a diverse, modern America, and the reality that her audience of American students is made up of all socioeconomic classes and religious faiths. She acknowledges them because that makes her message feel more personal, so the audience is more receptive to what she has to say.
Complexities and tensions in a passage often stem from the rhetorical situation. For example, Obama talks about how she and her husband came from less privileged backgrounds, even how her dad worked at a city water plant. As First Lady, she has a position of power, but she emphasizes her humble background in order to be more relatable to her audience of students — if she didn’t, she’d feel like just another authority figure lecturing from up high.
If you can work that kind of analysis (in fancier language) into your essay on exam day, you’ll get the sophistication point.
That’s all I have — good luck!

prompt : https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/apc/ap10_frq_eng_lang.pdf
essay :
Thesis:
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson—“framer of the declaration of independence and secretary of state to President George Washington“— Benjamin Banneker —“ the son of former slaves” who was also “... a farmer, astronomer, mathematician, surveyor, and author” — exemplifies the state of slavery jefferson and his peers were enduring and how they responded, narrates the hypocrisy that is present due to the similarities of their experiences, and gives a solution based on knowledge he has of Jefferson and the problem of slavery in order to highlight that although Jefferson and those like him may share prejudice they should be able to understand why slavery is wrong and that african americans should be freed, ultimately urging Jefferson to take action in the process of ending slavery.
P 2 : Banneker begins by Exemplifying the Tyranny Jefferson and his white peers were subjected to under the British Crown and their response, the Declaration of Independence, which highlights their perspectives and actions taken against occupying a “ state of servitude.” For an example, he tells Jefferson to “ recall to your mind that a time in which the arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort in order to reduce you to a state of servitude” and to “...look back..” “...on the variety of dangers to which you were exposed; reflect on that time in which every human aid appeared unavailable, and in which even hope and fortitude wore the aspect of inability to the conflict” and that “ you cannot but acknowledge that the present freedom and tranquility which you enjoy you have mercifully received and that it is a peculiar blessing of heaven.” Beginning with the experiences of Jefferson and his peers allows them to begin to understand why slavery should end by letting them remember of a time where they were in a similar position. Since they shared a similar experience it helps them to think from the perspective of someone wanting to relieve themselves of a state of servitude. Thus, if they are able to think from that perspective in relation to themselves, it sets them up to be able to dissolve the separation that their prejudice imposes upon their understanding that enslaving their black counterparts is wrong and that slavery should be abolished. Similarly, Banneker continues with showcasing their response. For instance, he reminds Jefferson, “ that there was a time where he saw “clearly into the injustice of a state of slavery and which you had apprehensions of the horrors of its condition” and that he was so abhorrent toward it that he publicly recorded the declaration of independence in which he conveys, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Emphasizing the response Jefferson and his peers allows them to be reminded of their own response to slavery and what they thought they were entitled to: their natural rights as human beings, liberty, endowed by god. Since they thought that these rights were “self-evident” and “ that all men are created equal” it should prompt them to think about what they define as a human being and who they are. As well as who deserves these rights that they think all men should have. And, if they come to the conclusion that their black counterparts are human beings, it will make them question the circumstances they subjected them to and come to the understanding that they should have their rights to freedom too.
P3 :
Banneker then shifts to narrating the hypocrisy of the situation of slavery by highlighting that Jefferson’s perspective on slavery is in contradiction with the fact that he himself is a slave owner. Take, for example, how he argues that “how pitiable is it to reflect that although you were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges which he had conferred upon them, that you would should act the same time counteract his mercies” by enslaving his brethren Jefferson is “...found guilty of that most criminal act which you professedly detested in others with respect to yourselves.” Addressing the hypocrisy of Jefferson being double minded when it comes to the issue of slavery further lets him and his peers question their practices in relation to their beliefs on slavery and their connection to their god. Since, if they are able to see that what they are doing is counteracting what they believe their god gave to human beings, it will appeal to their emotions by letting them realize that the practice of slavery is against god and therefore should be ended.
P4 : Banneker then finishes by giving a solution Jefferson and his peers can act on. For an example, he closes his letter with, “ Sir, I suppose that you knowledge of the situation of my brethren is to extensive to need recital here; neither should I presume to prescribe methods by which they may be relieved, otherwise than by recommending you and all others to wean yourselves from those narrow prejudices you have imbibed with respect to them” as Job said put your souls in their souls stead. This will allow you to let go of this separation you put between and therefore you don’t need “the direction of myself or others, in what manner to proceed herein.” The solution is the logical conclusion of what Banneker was underscoring in the entire letter: To have them of to think from a time when they were enslaved, so that they can understand why his “brethren” shouldn’t be, consequently enabling Jeffersons’ and his peers’ prejudice to naturally be removed and allow them to clearly perceive that slavery should be ended and that methods of taking action to abolish slavery will be known without the need to be told how to end it.
note : it pasted weirdly, tell me if you need the google doc. thanks in advance. the score gpt gave me was a 7 in the original 2010 rubric, and a 5 or 6 in the current rubric. again, i don’t believe in those scores, so please critique it.

So right now I'm in Year 9 and we just started looking at an Inspector Calls. I'm keen to improve my writing to prepare myself for my GCSEs in two years. I know it's really early but I'm hoping that the earlier I start improving my writing, the better it will be by the time I do my GCSEs.
So some things to note about the responses to the questions: I purposely chose to answer the questions with points that I knew would be hard to argue for, in order to prepare for a difficult situation like if I was given a question that asked "How is Gerald presented as obsequious in an Inspector Calls?" Also, these wouldn't be my full response to the questions. In the case of an assessment, I would write a thesis statement, three of these paragraphs and a conclusion. So if marking, please consider that this is an incomplete response, and mark as if I had written three paragraphs of similar quality. Thank you so much for the help!
Q1- How does Priestley present Gerald in an Inspector Calls?
Q2- How does Priestley present the theme of generational divide in An Inspector Calls?
Q3- How does Priestley present the change in Sheila’s character in An Inspector Calls?
Q1-
One way that Priestley presents Gerald in an Inspector Calls is as being obsequious. This is demonstrated through his sycophantic behaviour to ingratiate himself with the Birling family, before his engagement with Sheila. For example, in act 1 Gerald describes Birling's callous dismissal of Eva Smith as being unavoidable saying he “couldn't have done anything else.” The noun “anything” demonstrates that Gerald understands Mr Birling, and accepts more capitalist views than the rest of the younger generation in the play. Gerald’s unfaltering agreement with Mr Birling’s views illustrates the extent to which he seeks to curry favour with the Birlings. On the other hand, one may argue that Gerald’s agreement with Mr Birling highlights Gerald’s detachment from the plight and suffering of the working classes. Priestley’s unsympathetic portrayal of Gerald as being unctuous may be intended to demonstrate the degree to which capitalists prize monetary connections. Moreover, despite Gerald’s portrayal as a charming and witty character, his immoral disassociation with the plight of others may demonstrate Priestley’s belief that Capitalists only concern themselves with the wellbeing of their monetary connections. This is further demonstrated through Gerald’s addressal of Mr Birling as “Sir”. The noun “sir” implies that Birling is a man of higher social standing than Gerald, which the audience and characters know not to be true. However this may be intended to please Mr Birling and show him what he has to gain from a union between their families. By using this title, Priestley demonstrates to the audience the guile of capitalists by highlighting the extent to which capitalists will fawn over others in order to secure financial connections.
Q2-
One way Priestley presents the theme of generational divide in An Inspector Calls is through each generation’s differing viewpoints. For example, the older generation is presented as being fixated on their own beliefs, and disapproving of new ideas. This is shown when Sheila uses the colloquial term “squiffy” to describe Eric’s intoxicated state and Mrs Birling reproaches her saying “the things you girls pick up these days.” The plural noun “girls” demonstrates that Mrs Birling refuses to acknowledge anyone who carries a differing opinion to hers as an adult. Furthermore, the noun “girls” ordinarily refers to children, and by choosing to use this, perhaps Priestley intends to highlight the difference in not just age, but opinion between Mrs Birling and Sheila. Moreover, the phrase “these days” demonstrates Mrs Birling’s disapproval of modern culture, her rigid beliefs that the status quo should be maintained and her belief in the traditional ideas of how women should behave. Additionally, this may demonstrate that Mrs Birling believes that people should live in a way dictated by societal expectations, rather than living freely. This would make a post-war audience, accustomed to freedom and relaxed societal expectations, disapprove of Mrs Birling, the older generation and their traditionalist ideals. On the other hand, the younger generation are presented as being open and susceptible to new ideas and teachings. This is illustrated through Sheila’s direct contrast to Mr Birling when she says “But these girls aren't cheap labour- they’re people.” This juxtaposes Birling’s view of the working class as commodities as the plural noun “people” demonstrates that Sheila is able to recognise the humanity of the lower classes. This illustrates that the younger generation can empathise with the plight of the working class and advocate for change. Perhaps Priestley meant this to espouse the audience with his hope that in the future the younger generation will deviate from the path created by the older, and accept his message of social responsibility. Priestley communicates that the younger generation are more capable of change and empathy, and so will be vital to create a better society for all. Through the theme of generational divide, Priestley conveys his message of socialism to the audience while denouncing traditionalist views.
Q3-
One way that Priestley presents the change in Sheila’s character is that she matures over the course of the play. This is demonstrated when, initially, Sheila is presented as being naive and childish. For example, when Birling reprimands her for not listening to his speech she says “Sorry daddy, actually I was listening” By reacting to her father in this way, Sheila demonstrates her naivety and lack of maturity. The noun “daddy” connotes the image of a young child speaking to their father. This is further supported by her amenability to do what her parents ask of her. Furthermore, Sheila being so quick to apologise demonstrates that she is eager to please her parents and behave well, similar to a young child. On the other hand, at the end of the play, Sheila is shown to have grown in maturity and assertiveness. This is demonstrated when Mrs Birling unknowingly speaks of punishing Eric and Sheila interrupts her yelling “Mother- stop - stop!” The short, exclamatory interjection demonstrates that Sheila feels able to interrupt her parents, unlike at the beginning of the play, where she was eager to please and obey them. Furthermore, the use of the noun “Mother”, demonstrates that Sheila has grown up from her initially childish disposition. Additionally, her insightfulness in trying to prevent her mother from saying anymore is a direct contrast to her naivety at the beginning of the play. Through the change in Sheila’s character, the audience becomes sure that Sheila will go on to be a better person, and be different to her parents. Furthermore, perhaps Priestley showed such a dramatic change in Sheila’s character to illustrate to the audience that they too can change for the better and help create a better society, different from the restrictive ideals of the early Edwardian era.

I am graduating with a PhD this semester, so I just wanted to write about what happened during my long 7-year journey (6^th year student) to talk about the red flags to watch out for and to rant to relieve my stress. This will be a long post, so this may be a waste of time to read, but I am writing this for myself.
Just to explain my background before joining a PhD program, I didn’t have experience in academic research environment and I was very anti-social, so I didn’t know anything about academia and have anyone to ask about what labs are good or not.
Red flags during interview:
The school I went to did not have a rotation program, so the program director connected you with the PI you are interested in. My PI didn’t have a large lab, but published at least one paper a year on good journals, so I wanted to join his lab. When I first interviewed my PI, one question I remember asking was “what’s the one thing your students struggle with the most?” and my PI’s answer was “all my students are excellent, so nobody struggles.” I also asked whether I could visit the campus, as I was invited to other campuses for interview, but my PI said he’s too busy. I was very naïve, so I didn’t think anything was wrong w/ these answers.
Generally, he was happy with me and I received an offer letter couple days after. The problem occurred when he told me to make a decision within a week or he’ll go with another candidate, but this was two weeks before other schools started sending out their offer letters. I contacted my #1 school, which was in top 3 vs top 20 (the school I went to), whether they could let me know their decision before, they said they cannot. Again, because I was naïve, I did not think about accepting and then rejecting the offer to wait for #1 school’s decision, so I rescinded my application to #1 school, because I didn’t want to know and decided to go to the with my PI.
First 3 years
When I first joined the lab, there were 2 postdocs, 1 master’s student who was about to graduate and 2 other PhD students that joined with me. There were multiple red flags when I first joined.
The lab’s requirement was to come by at 9 am at the latest and stay until 6 pm at least. This isn’t really a red flag, but I haven’t seen many labs that are this strict.
When I told the people in other labs that I am in my PI’s lab, everyone basically said, “Oh, that’s a tough lab. Good luck.”
I learned that the other PhD students made the decision to join this lab months after I made my decision. I was mad after hearing this, but I thought oh well, I am here now, so I will try my best here.
Another was that the master’s student used to be a PhD student, but she decided to be a master’s student after my PI yelled at her for not using the NMR herself and making her pay the NMR staff. Using the NMR was a problem for her because she had pacemaker in her heart, but my PI wasn’t understanding of that. She also had 0 publications.
There was only one PhD graduate from this lab when my PI had been a professor for more than 10 years. Everyone either left after arguing with her or left with master’s.
When I heard about these, I thought that won’t happen to me if I just work hard, so I worked in the lab around 10 hours a day. Also, the lab environment among the postdocs and the students were nice. Then one day, one of the postdocs’ family passed away, but he couldn’t go to the funeral, because this was in other country and he didn’t want to risk his visa. This made him feel very guilty and he started getting depressed and he started to come to the lab. When my PI started to notice this, they had a meeting and after the meeting, the postdoc told my PI that he was depressed because of his family’s death/guilt and my PI’s reply was “still?” Soon after that, the postdoc left the lab due to another issue.
My grandfather passed away soon after, so I had to go to my home country for 4~5 days for the funeral. My PI was understanding, but when I came back and we walked into each other in a hallway, the first thing he said was “did you start your experiments?”
He is very stingy. We had RO1 grant, but we had to ask his permission for anything over $100 and he would refuse to pay for any assays/drugs that are too expensive. Also, I asked for a multichannel pipette for cell culture studies and he said he doesn’t care if it saves me time. I only managed to convince him when I told him I borrow multichannel other lab’s and it helped keep my data more consistent.
On my 2^nd year, the postdoc that stayed in the lab had a lot of data, but my PI didn’t let him write technical papers and kept forcing him to write review papers. By the time he left (almost 3 years), he had 3 review papers and 0 technical papers. Also, when he was searching for jobs, my PI never helped him even if he knew the professors the postdoc was in contact with.
By my 3^rd year, the two that joined the lab with me left, but there was one 2^nd year student (one left after 1 semester), and one 1^st year student. During this time, the 2^nd year student started developing IBS, but the school hospital couldn’t figure out what it was so his symptoms got worse and by the time they identified it, he had to be hospitalized. Then he went back to her country to recover with her family for couple months. Then all of a sudden, my PI said I’m moving to a different school, so you have a week to decide if you want to follow me or not. He said there might be a slight delay in our graduation because of the time it’ll take to move/set up the new lab, but it really won’t have much effect and that he’ll cover the cost of moving. I was already in my 3^rdyear, so of course I followed and both the 2^nd and 1^st year students decided to follow also. When we moved, my PI said he won’t cover the cost of moving as the school’s not letting him and we were all mad, but we didn’t do anything about it. When we finally met at the new campus, the 2^nd year student forwarded an email he got from my PI and the PI basically sent him a contract stating that he can’t miss the school more than 5 times a semester or he’ll be dismissed. This was a very unreasonable request, because IBS can happen any time, so the 2^nd year student decided to stay in the old school and join a new lab.
While we were setting up the new lab, COVID hit, so the lab was shut down for couple months, so I couldn’t do anything during this time. I published 1 review paper at this point and I couldn’t even write a manuscript for a manuscript, because my PI’s plan always changed.
4^th – 6^th year
I had to take classes at the new school, because my major changed, so that was some time wasted. With the move, COVID and classes, my advisor said my graduation will be delayed by 1 year, but I thought okay, it’s understandable. During my 5^th year, he kept saying you have a year left, but during this time, he didn’t let me take my proposal exam, saying he wants me to publish at least one technical paper before. I sent him a written manuscript by the beginning of my 4^th year, but he didn’t look at it saying he’s really busy. Eventually, around 6 months before the promised graduation date, I told my PI that I want to graduate and he looked surprised and said I am not ready to graduate. I was very mad, but I at least convinced him to let me propose, which he agreed to, even if I hadn’t published yet. He still hasn’t looked at my paper at this point.
By my 5^th year, we had three 1^st year students, one 3^rd year and two 4^th year students. The 2^nd year student was very motivated at that time and he wrote a review paper within couple months and wrote a technical paper with me and wrote another one. However, my PI still to this day didn’t read any of them. During this time, a huge drama occurred and all the first years and one 4^th year student left our lab. The 4^th year student left, because his projected depended on this one instrument and my PI refused to fix it as it costs too much. This instrument is still not fixed after 2+ years. Also, because of the drama, the whole department found out about our lab and even the graduate coordinator and the department head were involved.
Eventually I formed my committee and every one of my committee members was very nice and during the proposal exam, even my PI was very supportive.
There were so many other things that happened, but as this is getting way too long, I’ll skip to the end.
I started writing my thesis around 5-6 months before the graduation date and managed to write a first draft after 3 months and sent it to my PI. During this time, I kept editing it, but he didn’t send me any comments. My school requires us to send our thesis 10 business days before defense to the committee, so when there were around 20 days left, I emailed my PI and that’s when he sent some comments. When I saw his comments, 90% of it was about the acknowledgement section of my thesis and it didn’t seem like he looked at the rest at all. He made me delete everyone that he didn’t like and made his part very long. I was mad, but I thought maybe he didn’t think other parts were that bad. However, 1 day before the 10 business days, he called me about more acknowledgement section changes and some other big changes. I was 1 day late, but I sent my thesis to my committee and they were okay with me being one day late.
The real issue came when it came close to my defense. 3 days before defense, my PI started talking about my data and telling me how they are not correct and that I need to fix them. I slept barely 8 hours over those 3 days and managed to fix everything and defended. I was very stressed during this time, because I was fixing my slides until 11 h before my defense, so I basically didn’t have much time to study and practice. After I defended, my committee told me to fix some parts, which I was okay with, but my PI again told me my data is needs to be fixed and gave explanations for these data that were contradictory to the papers I found. When I told him, he said that’s fine and that he’s right, so I just wrote exactly as he told me to. Yesterday was the deadline to submit to thesis to graduate by spring semester, but the school gave me until today. My PI expected me to revise over the weekend, but when I told him I have to submit, he said “your thesis is lousy and not up to my standard, but okay you can submit tonight” which I did.
At this point, I ended up with 0 technical and 2 review papers with 2 first author manuscripts that need to be checked by him.
Now I am on my bed typing this past midnight and I am planning to enjoy the weekend. If you got this far, this post is probably not written well, so I am sorry about that and also thank you.

Thesis: Tom Holland – Modern-day atheists owe their worldview, especially concerning morals and ethics, to Christianity.
Argument: This argument largely repeats the points made by renown British historian Tom Holland, who is personally an atheist. It also posits that atheists subconsciously adopt a Christian moral and ethical framework, when alternative ones do exist, such as Nietzsche’s “noble-warrior” framework could be adopted instead. This makes most arguments by atheists, especially against Christian theodicy, is rather ironic, hypocritical and futile.
This sub is dominated by atheist voices who criticise religion, but Christianity in particular. Many – maybe most – arguments attack religion, and Christianity in particular, on the basis of theodicy. That a supposedly good all-powerful god would not allow suffering and evil to occur.
The major problem with those attacks is they presuppose a Christian moral framework as to what good and evil even are, but which the atheist debater usually takes for granted. As Tom Holand explains in a 2016 article:
‘“Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian.
“We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves.
Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.’
And in a 2023 interview about Nietzsche, Holland would explain:
“Nietzsche would consider today’s atheists as basically Christian… There is a sense in which atheism which is the atheism that doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics, moral and values of Christianity, is simply the logical endpoint of a trajectory of within Protestantism… The New Atheist movement is still cleaving to fundamental Christian ideas”.
For those who may forget, Nietzsche considered Christianity essentially a “slave religion” that had turned ancient morality upside-down. What atheists consider “good” and “evil” is essentially a replication of Christian beliefs. They are not a reflection of how most humans in history viewed morality. Ancient Greeks and Romans would not complain about the death and suffering of the poor or weak, but extol that as a virtue of strength over weakness.
For those who listen to the Rest is History Podcast, one will note Prof. Holland often brings up this point about the hypocrisy of modern western atheism.
The punchline being, as Tom Holland rightly exposes, understanding modern western atheism’s own fundamentally Christian character, one can see most arguments by atheists, especially against Christian theodicy, is rather ironic, hypocritical and futile. A modern atheist can complain there is no evidence for a supernatural being, but most tangential attacks on Christianity on the basis of morality and ethics have no real basis.
Today’s atheist argument is the fallacy Christian apologist C. S. Lewis long complained about:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” Sources:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Agg6RLgm5E
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/359349-my-argument-against-god-was-that-the-universe-seemed-so

I apologize in advance for how long and un-spellchecked this post is going to be. Writing this out is both an act of self-reflection and the frantic word vomiting of someone without direction.
In September 2020 I started a PhD program. I'd worked for a few years after completing my Masters and had felt armed with a stronger understanding of my own research interests, better work-life balance habits, and the financial stability to undertake the program.
My new university was across the country from my old school, where I had worked after my MSc. Moving cross-country during a pandemic wasn't exactly stress-free, but I'm an outdoorsy gal, so I turned it into a front-country camping trip. The closest interaction I had with another human was picking up a park pass from a plexiglass-contained attendant.
That first year honestly went really well, all things considered. The social isolation of being in a new city during lockdowns wasn't easy but I had an acquaintance who'd also moved for a PhD the year before me and we've become close friends. I was doing well in my required courses and I was part of an incredible research team. My supervisor went on maternity leave in my first month, but I knew that was going to happen and was pretty well supported through it. I knew how grad school worked so I could figure out the administrative things I needed with minimal tears. Outside of my supervisor, I had two amazing researchers to mentor me. Neither worked at the university (they were additional leads on the grant project I was taking on) but despite not being on my committee, they taught me the theory and methods I needed to succeed.
I had joined my supervisor's lab on a grant-funded project that was really close to my dream study. My supervisor was still waiting to hear about funding for what we wanted to be my 'official' project - a multi-million dollar pan-Canadian research consortium.
Getting the funding for that project was the worst thing that could have happened. Funding came in and I was pulled out of the research team I loved and put onto a team that had no idea what they were doing. This was right at the end of my first year and my supervisor was still on mat leave. She went on a second surprise mat leave about 5 months after coming back from her first. Let me say right this second that I support her right to take mat leave. She is a brilliant human and a great parent. She is also completely incapable of saying 'no' and bit off way more than she could chew with raising a kid and managing millions of dollars and a lab of 10+ students. A ball is going to get dropped. And that ball was her students.
With her still gone, I and a new post-doc took up the reigns for getting the research started. Based on the grant application, we came up with entire research plans for multiple projects, budgeted funding, made timelines, did literature reviews, and the post-doc took over supervision. We'd be chugging along only for my supervisor to send us an email every few months, telling us about a new project she'd committed to and could be please fit that in as well. No conversation, no check in to see how any of her students were doing, just a 'hey I said you'd do this so do it. Oh and the deadline is in a month.' Cracks were forming.
The project I signed up morphed into something I didn't even recognize. I was being pressured to take on side projects when I didn't even know what my own project was anymore. When I said no there would be radio silence for a few weeks only to hear that she's so sorry but they really need someone to do this scoping review and it needed to be me. So I'd do the side project and just hope I could get back to what I was interested in. That went on for about two years. Between side projects, I wrote my proposal and passed my Qualifying Exam.
Then she came back and things got worse. Forms weren't being filled out and deadlines were being missed. I lost out of scholarships because she wouldn't write me a reference letter (despite telling me to apply) because she 'didn't know me well enough'. By that point we'd published 3 papers together.
Two friends I made in the lab dropped out. What started as an exciting opportunity has become a nightmare. I have been forced to work with sexist male researchers who have called me stupid to my face. I've watched my own female supervisor tell her own student that she 'wasn't worried about [the student] crying in a lab meeting because [the student] was probably just on her period'. I've been made to feel guilty for staying in touch with my first research team. I have had to teach every single one of her MSc students how to write a thesis (not kidding, I'm acknowledged in multiple theses because of it). I have had to completely teach myself an entire new field of research - and teach my supervisor when she realized she should probably learn how to do the method she wrote in the grant application. There is so much more I could write but just putting some of the experience into words makes me feel like there's a lead weight on my shoulders.
I'm burned out and jaded. I hate myself for resenting my supervisor. I hate myself for needing support and not being self directed enough to do this project on my own.
So here I am, four years into a PhD and all I want to do is drop out. The sunk cost fallacy is hitting harder and harder every day. Where do I go from here?

With patch 10.2.7 we have two new heritage quests which, spoilers for the ultimate ranking, I think kinda changed the game in terms of what we should be expecting here. Not only were they love letters to the races involved, but they made sure to bring in so many aspects of the past of their races, acknowledged the story stagnation as an in-universe event that they now seek to move past, and actually established a plan and a way forward for the future. I think, just going off of what the name "Heritage Armor" brings to mind, this should always have been the template. And I will be specifically addressing these in the rankings with this in mind.
12: Night Elf Heritage:
This is an interesting case because the Night Elf heritage quest came at a time where they were already the focus of the main story about to unfold. Considering said main story was fully dealing with the repercussions of Teldrassil and establishing Bel'ameth, which would come to be a place in which Night Elves from all over could congregate, the heritage quest was sort of stuck in limbo to tell a distinctly Night Elf story without advancing it in any way that would interrupt what was already planned.
And I unfortunately think they failed. The Night Elf heritage questline does not feel special. It feels like a story you would encounter as a side quest in any Night Elven zone. This is something a lot of these lower spots will share as you will come to see. There isn't really any examination of the Night Elves' past or a change in future orientation. The return of an old NPC from a very old quest is neat attention to detail, but not enough to save this one.
It seems ultimately that the main story here is about Maiev finally fully embracing the Highborne. This could have been interesting to fully explore, as the Highborne are a pretty major part of the Night Elf backstory. But it doesn't really commit. Maiev's horrendous actions in the novel Wolfheart are once again downplayed, with her claiming she "disagreed" with the reintegration of the Highborne, while conveniently leaving out any discussion of her literally slaughtering them. The most I can give this quest is that the assertion that the Night Elves will continue to protect Kalimdor as they once did was a welcome confirmation for many Night Elf players who were worried they were about to just abandon their ancestral home for the Dragon Isles. But, I mean, this quest ends with you being handed your armor in one of Stormwind's cornfields. So that really says it all I think.
11: Gnome Heritage:
Most people tend to be pretty positive on this one from what I've seen, and I can't help but think it comes from an underestimation of Gnome lore within the playerbase as a whole. The questline, on its own, is totally fine. Quests like this or the Goblin starting zone that hand you fun gadgets to utilize in quests give us the only chance in the game to actually feel like a Tinker without a proper class, and that's always welcome. Overall, this is a fun Gnome adventure.
But that's the problem, because as a heritage quest, it needed to be more. There is no reflection on the history of Gnomes, nor is there any kind of assertion about where they might go in the future. It's actually surprising because we go to so many places that should inspire some conversation about that past. Gnomes originate from Ulduar as Mechagnomes, and we go to Ulduar in this quest, but that shockingly doesn't come up. We hear and see that cleanup efforts are progressing in Gnomeregan, but they have been progressing ever since we initially beat the dungeon back in Classic. We need a bit more to latch onto here.
Then there's the cast for this questline, composed of none of the familiar faces we've come to know. Aside from one who was mentioned in Cut Short and now makes his debut here, the rest are created just for this quest. Which is fine, I like them, but I wish we could've struck a balance here. Like it's sister quest, the Tauren heritage quest, this came at a time where the racial leader was indisposed. Unlike that quest though, which made players reach the point where they save Baine to unlock it so he could be involved, the Gnome quest just progresses without Mekkatorque. The main villain of this questline is literally made up and killed in this questline, yet the characters just act like he was always there, offscreen.
What if we used someone like Tinkmaster Overspark? He's a character who has been around for awhile, and has always been characterized as pretty unpleasant. He goes against what we're told in Cut Short are some of the core beliefs of the Gnomes regarding not being selfish and helping your neighbor. So what if we had him take the opportunity of Mekkatorque's coma to rise up and lead willing Gnomes in a new direction? He starts withdrawing Gnomes from the ongoing war effort to consolidate and finally focus on just Gnome problems to retake their home. We get a split in the population regarding maintaining Mekkatorque's belief of helping the Alliance in a reciprocal relationship or following Overspark to become more insular and build their own power. This sort of story would get more to the core of Gnome values and history, and establish a potential change in direction moving forward.
10: Tauren Heritage:
Like the previous two, this heritage questline is just something that could be a normal Tauren-related sidequest and nothing more. It is placed above the Gnomes for me because the focus on spirits and the afterlife is tied to Tauren culture, but there is a major asterisk there. See, many hate this one because it's ultimately one big advertisement for Shadowlands. And I do get that. We don't explore the spirits due to some Tauren ritual or something. We do it because the Tauren are sensing a disturbance, which as we know is what was happening in the Maw. This questline comes and goes basically being like "Ooh spooky things are happening. We'll have to look into it. And you can too if you purchase the Shadowlands expansion!" And it's only made worse by the Tauren playing no major role in said expansion, with Baine's infamous "doing nothing" era.
There is a lot of interesting stuff you could've done with Tauren heritage. Explore the divide that has been happening in the books regarding different tribes, particularly spurred on by Cairne's death and Baine stepping up. Look at some Grimtotem who have turned against Magatha and want to live in Mulgore again. Address the Tauren who were kicked out of Thunder Bluff for wanting to answer Taurajo with violence. Or what if we did what more recent heritage quests have done and just further establish the differences in cultures and values between different tribes? Strain Baine as a leader given his mistakes and poor decisions, and have him solidify himself as stronger moving forward.
I do like how this quest ended with Baine talking to Cairne and his mother. But come on! You couldn't gave Baine's mom at least one line?!
9: Goblin Heritage:
So I actually really liked this one. But the whole Goblin situation is pretty complicated. They don't, by their nature, have much "heritage" to explore. We, the players, know now their origins of being primitive creatures who were uplifted by Mimiron in an experiment, but the Goblins don't know this and also wouldn't care. They're all about forward thinking. We still don't even know what those primitive creatures were or where they came from (and no they aren't the Pygmies from the Goblin starting zone).
With all of this in mind, the heritage quest reflected more on the starting experience Goblin players go through. And I think it was very successful in this. You get to interact with characters who you haven't really gotten to since that starting zone, and that past is acknowledged. Gallywix treats you as his rival again, which is something that hadn't been brought up since. I also really liked how the actual armor was worked into the quest. You're spending the whole thing testing the armor, and you use it to ultimately defeat Gallywix, which robs it of its amazing power and renders it just the cosmetic armor. It's very cute, and very Goblin.
But ultimately, in terms of proper "heritage" and history, there's not much exploration. It makes me think this should have waited until more of that stuff was brought into the story. Which, fingers crossed, may finally be happening in The War Within.
8: Forsaken Heritage:
I feel similar to the Goblin quest when it comes to this one. I really liked this one. I thought it was fun, had a great cast of characters, and really took the story back to the roots that Forsaken players are used to: Thee fight against the Scarlet Crusade. But in terms of "heritage," I actually think the Return to Lordaeron story, which is required before starting the heritage quest, is a better fit. That one dealt with the fallout of Sylvanas' abandonment of her people, cleansing the ruins of Lordaeron, the formation of the Desolate Council, and the unrest caused by Calia Menethil being the sister of the very person responsible for the Forsaken's existence.
Like I said, I liked the heritage quest though. The heritage was focused on the Desolate Council we had built coming together to further secure their lands and basically say "The Forsaken are back." And I dig it. It's also more personally about Lillian's background in the Scarlet Crusade, which I'm sure was a breath of fresh air to people after the heavy focus on Calia in previous recent Forsaken stories. I still would've ultimately preferred the previous quest to be given the heritage label.
7: Worgen Heritage:
A lot of people hate this quest with a passion and call it the worst one. I've always been a defender of it, and I do have some backing to my opinions given my main is a Worgen and both Worgen and Gilnean lore has always been some of my favorite to dive into. But let's address the main complaint. People claim this quest's message is basically "Being a Worgen is bad, and you shouldn't enjoy it." My argument has always been that this is a simplification, but also that being a Worgen was never supposed to be some net positive power up. I think many approach playing a Worgen like they're playing a fantasy beast-person, like the Hrothgar from Final Fantasy. But that's never what the Worgen have been. They have always been WoW's version of werewolves, and being a werewolf is not a boon. It's a curse. Being a Worgen is a curse, and its one that the Gilneans have learned to live with and maintain themselves in spite of overwhelming odds. That has been the core of their story since their introduction. So frankly, if the quest had treated the curse as a full positive, I'd find that to be the bigger betrayal of their core themes than what we got.
With this in mind, the message here is definitely not "Being a Worgen is bad." It's that the Gilnean people are not strong because they have access to a powerful new form. Their true strength is in their ability to live with and harness the power of that form without losing themselves. No, where I find issue with this questline is in how its core thesis is sort of fumbled. In a broad outline it's fine. Tess wants to be a Worgen to better understand her people, she gets her wish in a dream scenario but the curse overtakes her, and she ultimately finds that she achieved better understanding and in doing so no longer requires the Worgen curse. But in the actual quest, it all just sort of happens. Tess doesn't have any adjustment period to being a Worgen like the others would've had. She is instantly in control by virtue of Goldrinn. When she later is overcome with rage, she doesn't actually do anything bad. And then she comes to a separate realization about how even with all that strength she still couldn't save her brother, before switching back to the original intent of better understanding her people once she returns to Stormwind.
I think it all would've been more impactful if she'd gotten her wish in this dream scenario and killed Sylvanas before she killed her brother. Then, in her frenzied state, she turned on Liam and killed him herself, thus showing the true double edged sword of the power of the Worgen.
6: Dwarf Heritage:
I liked this quest, and it does explore Dwarven history, but it just sort of comes and goes without much fanfare. I appreciate the working in of the armor to the quest itself, like the Goblin questline, but I feel like the story was overall smaller than it should've been. Dwarven history has been repeatedly defined by clans, yet very few clans play a role in this quest. We work alongside a Bronzebeard and an Earthen, and that's it. It would have been nice if the forging of this armor could've only happened through the combined efforts of Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, Dark Iron, Earthen, and even Frostborn, making it so that the armor symbolized that the clans are stronger together than apart. Instead of getting a fire giant to help us heat it up, have the Dark Irons do it, as one example. The whole thing just feels so small scale.
5: Blood Elf Heritage:
This quest does what you expect it to do. You reflect on the fall of Quel'thalas and get to see some key events. It's fine, but not all it could've been. It's got the reflection on the past, but it's missing some key statement for the future. We know the tragic history of the Blood Elves already. We know how it has impacted them over the years. But at a certain point they have to stop dwelling on that and start looking forward, and this quest could've been that moment.
It also suffers by having one section being solely focused on Sylvanas. Yes, she is important to the fall of Quel'thalas, but instead of literally inserting one of her cutscenes into the quest, we could've spent more time with characters who have been important to the Blood Elves during WoW and not the Forsaken. I think acknowledging her goes without saying, but two of the stops on our grand tour are devoted to Lor'themar talking about how great she was. I guess my main problem here is just that the whole quest feels very "been there, done that."
4: Human Heritage:
This one gets overlooked due to coming out alongside the amazing Orc heritage quest, and that's a real shame. Human history in WoW is widespread and has many different cultures to pull from, but human players are always specifically from Stormwind. And so the questline reflects not on the beginnings of human history with the original human kingdom before it split across the land, but instead on the biggest events in the history of Stormwind itself. We deal with the remnants of Onyxia who manipulated Stormwind and got rid of our king. We deal with the Defias who split off into a bandit group due to Onyxia's manipulation. We deal with Vanessa VanCleef who was introduced in the Cataclysm revamp of the Defias storyline. I think it's all very well done.
What I especially loved here was the focus on the smaller characters who don't often get remembered. Like Marshal Windsor whose pivotal role and death was drowned out by the comics' reinvention of how that story went down. Best of all, this questline does give the kingdom of Stormwind a new direction in the future. The Defias Brotherhood has been all but disbanded, and now Vanessa, going by Hope once more, is returning to her old role of aiding the people of Westfall. Meanwhile we got introduced to a member of the House of Nobles who is more sympathetic to the common man and more kind-hearted, and thus can work to further bridge those divides.
3: Troll Heritage:
This quest was great because it finally established in the games what had previously only been talked about in the book Shadows of the Horde. It established why the Darkspear, despite their small size, are the best of the trolls, and why they deserve their spot as the main playable trolls in the Horde. In Shadows of the Horde, we found out that the Zandalari Empire actually wanted Vol'jin and the Darkspear to join them as partners and rule over the other tribes. This is because the Darkspear, unlike all the other tribes, did not fall to despair and betray their own people and Loa. The Darkspear remained true to their beliefs, remained strong in their convictions, and didn't bow to anyone. And it is because of this that Vol'jin ultimately refused.
The only time this came up in the game prior to this quest was in Cataclysm where we saw the Zandalari trying to unify the tribes and Vol'jin stepped away to rally both the Horde and Alliance in defiance of them. With BfA though, it started to seem like the Darkspear were being forgotten. All troll story was about the Zandalari. They joined the Horde, took many of the Darkspear's relevant characters and Loa, and just generally became more important. This heritage quest fixed that, solidifying the Darkspear's strength while simultaneously returning to their past to reclaim old forgotten Loa and strengthen their bonds.
2: Orc Heritage:
For the longest time I never thought this one could be topped. Bringing all the clans together into the Kosh'arg festival was genius, and it allowed the Orcs of Azeroth to finally properly establish individual clans once more rather than just being scattered individuals. The opportunity to finally establish my headcanon Bleeding Hollow Orc as an official member of that clan was great, and I'm sure many felt the same way about their clans. The quest ending in one big celebration full of every Orc NPC you can think of, including the dead Orcs who return in spirit form, was such an amazing celebration of the race and their heritage. The commitment to regaining clan pride, reclaiming forgotten practices, and finally treating Azeroth as a proper home that they are proud to live on was the perfect story to tell. As was the hint towards the future with the beginnings of turning Durotar into a more lush environment. So well done.
1: Draenei Heritage:
And then came the Draenei. It basically did everything I gushed about in the Orc quest, and somehow even more. The revival of an old tradition from their homeland? Check. A large festival with every relevant NPC including the spirits of the departed? Check. A commitment to acknowledging individual ranks and accepting Azeroth as their home? Check. But we also have so many updates to areas that have desperately needed it. Seeing Auchindoun actually being treated as a holy place again is amazing, with priests and Draenei technology filling up the once barren ruins. Calming spirits who have been in turmoil since the orcs destroyed their homes was a great bit of closure, including finally getting to talk to our universe's Maladaar as he was before and not as the crazed final boss we first met.
Really the standout was finally bringing all that juicy additional Draenei culture we learned about in Warlords of Draenor to our Azeroth. The Rangari, the Artificers, the Auchenai, the Vigilants, etc. Pulling in the broken, the Krokul, the Lost Ones, the Man'ari, and the Lightforged. And ending it all with the promise of the Draenei finally building a proper city on Azeroth and not just continuing to live in the ruins of their crashed ship? Something every Draenei fan has been begging for? I have never been more excited for the future of the Draenei, and that's why it's my favorite.

Bonjour fellow redditors,
I am an international student from India and I have been accepted into a M2 math programme at the Université Paris-Saclay. I have also applied for a couple of fully funded scholarships whose results are yet to be announced. In case, it doesn't pan out, I am planning to take an education loan to fund my stay in Orsay. In the meantime, I have been in touch with a couple of professors about the possibility of pursuing a master's thesis and a subsequent PhD project under the supervision. They have all acknowledged the possibility but probably won't be making any commitments before the declaration of the results of the first semester exams. So, here are the main questions I would like to get your opinion on:-

How many students actually enroll each year in the Analyse, Arithmétique and Géométrie programme? I know the maximum intake is 40.
How likely is it for a M2 student to continue as a PhD student in the math department at Orsay?
Are professors open to refer their master's students to their collaborators at other universities in France? If yes, would it be an effective alternative given that they would probably have their own master's students?

Lastly, considering all the above factors would it be worth it to join the M2 programme? Especially, if one has to take out student loans from their home country which have to be repaid starting 1.5 years after the commencement of the lectures?
P.S. I apologize for the post being written in English. I am a beginner in French and I highly doubt my writing skills.

Hello fellow redditors,
I am an international student from India and I have been accepted into a M2 math programme at the Université Paris-Saclay. I have also applied for a couple of fully funded scholarships whose results are yet to be announced. In case, it doesn't pan out, I am planning to take an education loan to fund my stay in Orsay. In the meantime, I have been in touch with a couple of professors about the possibility of pursuing a master's thesis and a subsequent PhD project under the supervision. They have all acknowledged the possibility but probably won't be making any commitments before the declaration of the results of the first semester exams. So, here are the main questions I would like to get your opinion on:-

How many students actually enroll each year in the Analyse, Arithmétique and Géométrie programme? I know the maximum intake is 40.
How likely is it for a M2 student to continue as a PhD student in the math department at Orsay?
Are professors open to refer their master's students to their collaborators at other universities in France? If yes, would it be an effective alternative given that they would probably have their own master's students?

Lastly, considering all the above factors would it be worth it to join the M2 programme? Especially, if one has to take out student loans from their home country which have to be repaid starting 1.5 years after the commencement of the lectures?
my_qualifications: B.Sc (Hons.) in Mathematics and Computing, M.Sc in Mathematics

Hello fellow redditors,
I am an international student from India and I have been accepted into a M2 math programme at the Université Paris-Saclay. I have also applied for a couple of fully funded scholarships whose results are yet to be announced. In case, it doesn't pan out, I am planning to take an education loan to fund my stay in Orsay. In the meantime, I have been in touch with a couple of professors about the possibility of pursuing a master's thesis and a subsequent PhD project under the supervision. They have all acknowledged the possibility but probably won't be making any commitments before the declaration of the results of the first semester exams. So, here are the main questions I would like to get your opinion on:-

How many students actually enroll each year in the Analyse, Arithmétique and Géométrie programme? I know the maximum intake is 40.
How likely is it for a M2 student to continue as a PhD student in the math department at Orsay?
Are professors open to refer their master's students to their collaborators at other universities in France? If yes, would it be an effective alternative given that they would probably have their own master's students?

Lastly, considering all the above factors would it be worth it to join the M2 programme? Especially, if one has to take out student loans from their home country which have to be repaid starting 1.5 years after the commencement of the lectures?

Bonjour fellow redditors,
I am an international student from India and I have been accepted into a M2 math programme at the Université Paris-Saclay. I have also applied for a couple of fully funded scholarships whose results are yet to be announced. In case, it doesn't pan out, I am planning to take an education loan to fund my stay in Orsay. In the meantime, I have been in touch with a couple of professors about the possibility of pursuing a master's thesis and a subsequent PhD project under the supervision. They have all acknowledged the possibility but probably won't be making any commitments before the declaration of the results of the first semester exams. So, here are the main questions I would like to get your opinion on:-

How many students actually enroll each year in the Analyse, Arithmétique and Géométrie programme? I know the maximum intake is 40.
How likely is it for a M2 student to continue as a PhD student in the math department at Orsay?
Are professors open to refer their master's students to their collaborators at other universities in France? If yes, would it be an effective alternative given that they would probably have their own master's students?

Lastly, considering all the above factors would it be worth it to join the M2 programme? Especially, if one has to take out student loans from their home country which have to be repaid starting 1.5 years after the commencement of the lectures?
P.S. I apologize for the post being written in English. I am a beginner in French and I highly doubt my writing skills.

Bonjour fellow redditors,
I am an international student from India and I have been accepted into a M2 math programme at the Université Paris-Saclay. I have also applied for a couple of fully funded scholarships whose results are yet to be announced. In case, it doesn't pan out, I am planning to take an education loan to fund my stay in Orsay. In the meantime, I have been in touch with a couple of professors about the possibility of pursuing a master's thesis and a subsequent PhD project under the supervision. They have all acknowledged the possibility but probably won't be making any commitments before the declaration of the results of the first semester exams. So, here are the main questions I would like to get your opinion on:-

How many students actually enroll each year in the Analyse, Arithmétique and Géométrie programme? I know the maximum intake is 40.
How likely is it for a M2 student to continue as a PhD student in the math department at Orsay?
Are professors open to refer their master's students to their collaborators at other universities in France? If yes, would it be an effective alternative given that they would probably have their own master's students?

Lastly, considering all the above factors would it be worth it to join the M2 programme? Especially, if one has to take out student loans from their home country which have to be repaid starting 1.5 years after the commencement of the lectures?
P.S. I apologize for the post being written in English. I am a beginner in French and I highly doubt my writing skills.

Truly a cruel Angel's thesis, that loong, silent staredown.
Now I'm imagining Shinji's sexual pecadillos and struggles with ultra-horny impulses masking a desperate need to feel loved, wanted and acknowledged, plus his sarcastic judgmental snippy passive-aggressive bitchiness, re-coded through Kazuma's brand of half-scumbag semi-shameless perversion and fragile egotism.
And Kaowru's 'love' for humanity in general and Shinji in particular taking on that special degenerate giggling sadomasochism of someone who'd strangle a kitten out of 'kindness's then ask to be turned into a Pez dispenser in lieu of any other solution or even properly explaining himself.
And Asuka taking on a more Ishtar-like brand of genius-moron tsundere desperate for recognition of her admittedly immense effectiveness when she's not getting in her own way.
The Konosubafication of Evangelion would certainly be something to behold.

Hi EA friends,
In light of the recent ban on cultivated meat (CM) in Florida, I think we should discuss this topic!
Below is my testimony at the FL Senate against the ban of CM. https://youtu.be/ebkVjedOzGg?si=I8t7EpOKMzOQwmw5
My testimony might have helped to allow CM research for space research at least... . This article came out today that cites my testimony.
I know that most EAs support alt protein. But sometimes I hear concerns about cultivated meat, for instance, regarding harming animals during sample collection or using animal products such as serum during cell culture.
So as a cultivated meat scientist, I'm writing this to share some thoughts and hopefully give you some talking points, even if you already support cultivated meat.
In addition, I know that many of you guys are computer and AI nerds! In the last paragraph, I will discuss a few ways YOU can contribute to food system transformation and why it would be one of the most impactful things you can do :)
First things first, I'm a biomedical scientist (who studied top causes of death and pandemics) turned food system scientist. I have my own 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Allied Scholars for Animal Protection (ASAP). We are funded by philanthropy, EA, and people like yourself, and we focus on training the next generation of leaders to drive major systemic changes in food transformation! My goal is to create more influential people like Bruce Friedrich, Mayor Eric Adams,
I'm also the Cultivated Meat Senior Scientist at the Good Food Institute. Here, we promote alternative proteins, including plant-based proteins and CM. We don't sell any products; supported by philanthropy, we help transition the food system toward a sustainable and ethical model. I'm also an advisementor at Effective Thesis.
The reason I say working on the food system and promoting veganism is one of the most urgent and impactful causes is because it's one of the largest sources of suffering, and yet one of the most neglected ones! Many scientists talk about climate, pandemics, chronic diseases, antibiotic resistance, etc. but no one wants to address the elephant in the room: the food! It's always neglected, and IMHO it also doesn't get the attention in deserves in EA (tho I see improvements!). EA itself identifies climate and pandemics and major threats, which are directly linked to animal consumption.
Personally, I have no desire to try CM. Like many other vegans, I've lost the taste for flesh. But CM isn't really for vegans.
I know some people dislike the idea. However, as a scientist, I want to share my thoughts so people can make a well-informed judgment.
I fully acknowledge that CM may not be a perfect solution. The idea that the cells originate from animals also bothers me.
However, it's important to know that the cells can be collected from a feather, an egg, a blood sample, a small biopsy, or from the meat of an animal who was unfortunately killed for meat. Another concern is the use of serum in cell culture. If you're unaware, the process of obtaining Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is extremely cruel.
But that's an additional reason to support CM.
Because of CM, most companies are developing animal-free alternatives. Indeed, it wouldn't be possible to scale up CM using animal-based serum. Once the animal-free serum is commercially available, it could hopefully replace the massive amounts of serum used in biomedical research and biopharma.
Another misconception I'd like to address is that once a company establishes a cell line and produces a product, they would never revert to using animals again. Indeed, the original cells are propagated in incubators and frozen. Each time a company starts a new batch, a tiny vial is taken from the cell bank (giant freezers powered by liquid nitrogen), and the cultivation process begins anew.
So, you'd never need to go back to the original animal. This would not be feasible due to regulatory limitations, even if a company wanted to, unless they were willing to go through years of painful and expensive regulatory approval. The reason I think we should give CM a chance and support it is that when it reaches price parity, it can replace a lot of meat from slaughtered animals, sparing the lives of many.
Cultivated chicken and fish have the potential to save trillions of animals!
I think that places like KFC, Chick-fil-A, McDonald's, etc. don't really care about animal cruelty or consumers. They just want to make a profit. If they can make profit without killing and torturing billions of animals, I think that's a step in the right direction!
I also believe that tasty and healthful plant-based options are already available. We should continue to promote them.
CM will help many people who won't go vegan to at least not pay for animal slaughter and abuse constantly. CM can also be used to produce meat for pets. A large number of animals are killed just for pet food.
In my humble opinion, CM is not the ideal and perfect solution, but it's one of the best options we have. The food system that relies on animal products is inherently unsustainable and needs to change. Nobody knows what the solution will be. Will it be plant-based foods? CM? Or a combination?
Currently, CM is being sold in very few restaurants worldwide, and this has already alarmed the meat and dairy industries.
I mention dairy because a lot of meat comes from the dairy industry, as dry mother cows and their male calves are killed on dairy farms.
The fact that the animal industry is so afraid of CM suggests that CM has a real chance to revolutionize the food system.
I don't have all the answers, but I do know one thing: Our food system is broken. It causes immense suffering to both human and non-human animals, from unimaginable cruelty in meat, egg, and dairy farms, to pandemics, antibiotic resistance, pollution, toxic chemicals, habitat loss, deforestation, climate change, and much more.
I know that to change this broken system, and the most normalized form of cruelty, we need to work together and use anything in our power to speak up and promote the change we want to see.
When I was in FL, senators' offices were packed by cowboys and folks from FL Cattleman Association. They were heavily lobbying against anything that would impact their business, and their businesses are fundamentally based on exploiting and killing animals for meat, egg, and dairy.
This is why at my nonprofit, ASAP, I focus on training the next generation of influential, kind, compassionate, determined, and hardworking vegan leaders. I help students to use their background, whether it's philosophy, CS, STEM, law, medicine, etc., to tackle the food system and understand its urgency!
Lastly, if you are a computer nerd, aside from donations, you can directly work on simulation, modeling, and automation of alt protein production processes. See Cultivated Meat Modeling Consortium. Modeling bioprocesses and bioreactors is one of the most important aspects of scaling cultivated meat production. Also see this article by Max Taylor about using AI in Alt Protein development.
Thanks for reading my big essay and let me know what you think. If I can be of any help, especially regarding effective careers, please send me an email through our website or social media. I'm always happy to help. (And thank you to many of you who already support ASAP/GFI).

I want to do the joint MS/MBA at Harvard/Stanford or other similar unis. MS in EE/CS. Graduated in 2017 with a bachelors in CS from a top-200 in QS university with 8.36 GPA (/10) Worked on and off as a software engineer, a machine learning intern, a computer vision engineer, and now a data scientist, employer spanning across big firms like Oracle, Goldman Sachs as well as local startups. Two years back I went for a masters in Tisch school under NYU (creative tech), but dropped out after four months. (still haven't gotten my incomplete marksheet). Have one research paper with name in acknowledgments which was my bachelors thesis. Last year did a three month research at another top-200 QS uni but no paper came out of it. Have some volunteering experience at ngos, no proper certificates tho.
GRE: 158 (Verbal)/ 167 (Quant) Toefl: 110/120 (expired, will need to retake)
Haven't started preparing for the applications yet, still in the planning phase. What are some things I can do to have a better shot at what I want?