Thesis acknowledgment | | Essential Tips for Writing a Stellar Research Paper

Hey Redditors,
I’m diving into writing a research paper and thought I’d share some tips that have helped me along the way. Whether you’re a newbie or looking to refine your skills, these pointers can guide you through the process.

Choose a Clear, Focused Topic: Start with a broad area of interest, then narrow it down to a specific question or hypothesis. A well-defined topic helps you stay on track and makes your research more manageable.
Conduct Thorough Research: Use a variety of sources—books, academic journals, reputable websites. Take detailed notes and organize them by theme or argument. Don’t forget to keep track of your sources for citations!
Develop a Strong Thesis Statement: Your thesis is the backbone of your paper. It should be clear, concise, and reflect the main argument or finding of your research. Everything in your paper should support or relate to this statement.
Create an Outline: Organize your thoughts and structure your paper before you start writing. An outline helps you see the big picture and ensures a logical flow of ideas.
Write a Compelling Introduction: Grab your reader’s attention with a strong opening. Provide background information and clearly state your thesis. Your introduction should set the stage for the rest of the paper.
Craft Clear, Coherent Body Paragraphs: Each paragraph should focus on a single idea that supports your thesis. Start with a topic sentence, provide evidence or examples, and explain how it relates to your argument. Use transitions to maintain flow.
Use Credible Sources: Back up your arguments with evidence from credible sources. Peer-reviewed journals, books by experts, and official statistics are generally reliable. Avoid questionable websites and outdated materials.
Analyze, Don’t Just Describe: Go beyond summarizing your sources. Critically analyze the information, compare different viewpoints, and explain the significance of your findings. Show how your research contributes to the field.
Write a Strong Conclusion: Summarize your main points and restate your thesis (in a new way). Discuss the implications of your findings and suggest areas for future research. Your conclusion should leave a lasting impression.
Revise and Edit: Don’t submit your first draft. Take time to revise for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Check for grammar, punctuation, and formatting errors. Consider getting feedback from peers or mentors.
Properly Cite Your Sources: Avoid plagiarism by correctly citing all sources. Follow the required citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) consistently. Proper citations add credibility to your paper and acknowledge the work of other researchers.
Stay Organized and Manage Your Time: Break down the writing process into manageable steps and set deadlines for each. Use tools like reference managers (Zotero, Mendeley) to keep your sources organized. Staying on schedule reduces stress and improves the quality of your work.

Remember, writing a research paper is a process. Don’t rush it, and give yourself time to think, write, and revise. Good luck, and happy writing!

I am posting to check if anyone has advice/experience with thesis withdrawal from a PhD examination procedure in order to transfer to another university. It's a bit of a story as it's rather complex.. Thanks for reading!
I've found myself in a bizarre situation after the continued neglect by my supervisors caused my external examiner to withdraw over what she called an 'unprofessional' and 'unethical' course of events. My PhD is a practice-led research in Contemporary Art, for which a public exhibition of the artwork produced is to be examined in interaction with a thesis. Through the careless behaviour of my supervisors —responsible for communication with examiners—, neither of my 2 examiners made it to either of 2 exhibitions I organised around the submission of my thesis. My examiners continued to push me into entering the viva using video documentation of the artwork, which, due to the performative nature of the work, would jeopardise significantly the theory presented in the thesis. By accident I found out my external examiner had withdrawn 6 weeks earlier over the fact she was asked to examine based on video documentation of the artworks. She is a highly suitable senior academic and internationally practicing artist who accepted to examine on the condition she would have access to the practice in a live format. My supervisors chose to withhold her withdrawal from me and then claimed I would enter the viva with another external examiner they had allocated, yet whose relevance for my research is highly debatable. At this point I decided to approach the Head of the Graduate Research School who acknowledged the breach of trust and breakdown of communication, removing my supervisors from the research and suspending the examination.
I am now in conversation with 2 universities who are interested in my research, offering a period of development/public presentation of the next iteration of the practice. Clearly, I am eager to move into a new, supportive context. I am aware of a potential bottleneck however, which is that my thesis has been submitted for examination already. Even with help of the student's union of my university it is still impossible to find clear regulations, but what's available hints at the university 'owning' my thesis following its submission. I have received 4 years of scholarship for which I have always lived up to the agreement in terms of writing and practice. While this last-minute crash of the PhD is caused by misconduct of university staff, it is likely the university is unwilling to release my thesis from the examination, and might attempt to claim back the scholarship if I decide to not pursue the PhD with them.
Online I'm finding conflicting information regarding withdrawal from subsidised phd's in terms of reimbursement of funding, or the moment a university 'owns' a thesis. I would be extremely grateful for any advice, interpretation or sharing of experiences here. I am willing to fight for my research, but not sure I want to end up entangled in a legal procedure.
Thank you very much for your response!

In case some of you missed it this weekend the degens with no social lives and plenty of tinfoil found a treasure. Here’s the footnotes from a comment I made:
‘The concept at large is this. This deranged, brilliant motherfucker wrote a movie through memes chronicling everything he has been through from 2021 to present, with the most recent moment being the -Thanos 'Fine, I'll do it myself' meme. If watched in reverse, from last tweet to first, you can see the journey of the man. Price blew up, he went dark [ET] he faces backlash. He faces the congressional hearing [A Few Good Men], the Elaine dancing meme is him celebrating his absolute fire testimony at the hearings. It goes on to show a period of mourning his original intent, he has to go silent, he can't just chill and provide deep value investment thesis. There a period of acknowledging RC picking up the torch, 'Who is in charge' Guardians meme. He struggles with becoming THE MEME, but he sees the turnaround and awaits the Signs. He becomes the predator of the shorts. Then towards the end, all hell breaks loose. It's the most bullish fucking thing I've seen in my life, and admittedly the craziest.’
If you haven’t put it in reverse yet, it is worth the hour and ten minutes of your life to witness the majesty of this piece of work. You will see the timeline, you’ll see how it is an opus, meant to be ingested in its entirety and not picked apart. And the ending is just the beginning.

Glass Weeds Sometimes I feel like a writer. Like that was really “it” for me but I got blocked along the way. 20 years ago. 13? Maybe that was when the thought river was dammed up. That’s definitely when the self doubt and esteem issues arose. I know I could(can?) write. I learned the structure of an academic essay (intro, thesis, body, conclusion) and it worked for me, as bland as I found the rules, it served me at that time. I had a “voice” and I was told that by teachers when I was a young child and even when I was an older teen. “I can hear your voice in your writing.” Was that voice me? My “personality”? My “person”? My “self”? “Myself”. “Me”? I have joked for years now about how I’ve had an “x-years writer’s block! Lol—I swear I am a good writer” or communicator, or person even. I swear. I’m just “blocked”. I’m clogged up. I can’t get it out.
Now I’m 33 and just had an “I think I want to end this marriage!” outburst with my husband. It’s the time of the year where I’m lucky to have a constant, stimulating, and distracting, physical outlet in my garden.
My favorite task: weeding the garden. It’s a memorable analogy from AA’s “24 Hours” meditation books. Or maybe it’s from “Daily Reflections”. Either way it’s that sobriety “give it up” stuff.
Weed your emotional garden. Tear that resentful shit out. Plant the good seeds and rip out the bad ones.
I’m a tactical gardener. And learner. And experiencer. And some real gardeners would probably laugh at the way I put on my gloves and tear each and every individual weed by the root. Every. Tiny. Clover. Every single root. All the way. I like to get to the root or it just comes back.
I pull and pull and in this particular garden something else comes with the roots. Broken glass. An inexplicable amount of shards of all sizes. And when I thought I unearthed them all, more is pushed up to the surface weeks later.
This garden is 5 years in (my) making now. I remember in the beginning of my spring time digs, it was a cute, not so disturbing wonder “oh my! Look! There’s a shard of glass. I wonder where it came from? Let’s just get it out now.”
Then in the subsequent years, it became part of the process of the till. Turn the soil, pull out the few glass pieces. Wipe your hands. Have a good summer!”
This year it hit me harder than most. I’m hurting more than before. I’m drawing near the end of my capacity to feel blocked. And I am turning to the soil to dig dig dig with my bare hands and unearth whatever is hiding just beneath the surface.
Because it always is just beneath. My first real soil (lol that autocorrected to “soul”) search this spring was in the perennial bed and an inexcusable amount of glass was right there on the surface. Different colors too.
I always thought I was digging up the soul soil of the original home owner. Whom I at this point assumed was a passionate, garden loving, angry alcoholic. Why would there be so much broken glass in a garden?
But more importantly why does it keep resurfacing, even days, after I thought I’d found the last angry, imposing, threatening shard.
Today in my weeding frenzy which is also a thought frenzy, the biggest pieces I’ve found this year came to me. Green, clear, brown. I used to feel upset by them. Deep concern for the safety of my daughter, who now knows is not allowed to be barefoot in this particular garden. You must watch your step. But as I found each piece of angry glass, I came to a conclusion, or realization, of sorts.
I have a mind garden and I plant beautiful seeds and even plant big, fruitful ideas, but the cost of that is unearthing years of untold, unrecognized, unhonored, very very broken glass. Of all different sizes and colors and degrees of danger. But they are there. They’ve been there for years. Before I lived here. They’re always there. Especially when I thought that I got rid of them all.
That’s when they choose to remind me and scream: “I AM STILL HERE!!!!!!”
The first dig this spring brought a different narrative to the “angry alcoholic” smashing beer bottles. Because I dug up something different, an angled glass rod. Also, a chunk of ceramic,white, glazed, with the classic blue painted inscriptions. China-? Something other than beer bottles?
I used to throw these glass pieces away as fast as I found them, but now I have decided to collect them, as artifacts, of my inherited, 45yr old garden.
I’m learning to not be so angry and jaded toward the signs sent to me regularly. Part of my recovery from whatever this damaged, shattered glass soul, that I guess I’m realizing I am, is to embrace these small angry shards and give them the acknowledgment they truly deserve. I buried them, dug them up and tossed them, but more came.
I don’t even want to eradicate them anymore. I just want to keep collecting them as I find them for the bigger art piece to come. It will be a beautiful mosaic.

Speech dictates in the exact same way that thought liberates.
I choose to put my faith in the idea of free thought. In order to reinforce that belief, I want to encourage anyone reading this to find your own personal way to contextualize the idea of free thought and decide whether or not your can also put your faith in it. To say anything that would imply otherwise would be a reinforcement of the idea of free speech being an absolute. Acknowledging the influence of words is evidence to me that 'free speech absolutism' can't exist.
'Absolutism' is a logical fallacy.
Absolutism is a word that holds a value of an idea at its post modern state.
A post modern state can't be reiforced, only implied
Fashion is a psychological operation that will try to imply absolutes by manipulating peoples thoughts. Those who imply that free speech is absolute is challenging absolution of free thought.
I don't have to say that free thought is absolute. Free thought doesn't need to prove it's absolution or subjectivity. It inherently implies.
Free thought is the post modern representation of subjectivity. Subjectivity doesn't need to be proven. It's reinforced by free thought. Free thought will always be subjective and subjectivity will always be expressed through free thought. The implication of what these words mean reinforce themselves absolutely.
In other words, the only thing that is absolute is the fact that nothing is absolute, and it's impossible to prove otherwise.
The only way anyone can attempt to challenge subjectivity, is through 'free speech' and 'absolutism'. But saying absolutism exists proves that it doesn't.
Nothing that is absolute can be proven through a modern ideological state.
Absolutism implies an idea is at a post modern state. A post modern state can't be expressed in a modern society, only implied.
You literally can't say 'absolution exists' without proving that absolution doesn't exist. But speech can be exploited to pose as absolutism through fashion ads.
The first rule of fight club is to not talk about fight club because to talk about fight club exposes fight club for what it is. FASHion.
To claim anything is absolute, automatically imavlidates it.
Absolutism is an idea used to reinforces fashion.
Subjectivism is an idea that reinforces community
These ideas have equal 'power' but reinforces polar opposite ideas.
Thesis + Antithesis =Synthesis.
Community puts fashion in check, so fashion can't oppress us. The only way we can expose the manifestation of fashion being reinforced
Thought is inherentally subjective, but speech can never be objective. There is no such thing as free speech. Only free thought.
I think, therefore I am. To think is to imply.
The only way society can ever grow is to completely reject the concept absolutism. Because absolutism can't exist until our society grows into a post modern state of being.
Choose your own induvidual ideology. Give that ideology it's own personalized name. The name is just modern signifier. It doesn't matter what you call your ideology as long as it you have your own personal expression of your beliefs. The only fundamental belief that it can be rooted in is this. "Subjectivity is the only thing that can ever be absolute in a modern society" and apply your own personal beliefs from there and no matter what you choose to believe it will it will only ever reinforce that fundamental value automatically. Because anything that can be thought exists. You can't have a thought that doesn't exist. No one can invent a new color but you can think about colors In a way that can be percieved as new.
Embrace our one inherent freedom as modern beings. Freedom of thought.

Hello everyone. I'm sure there are countless posts about this here but I wanted to share some thoughts I have had and hear your opinion.
The Gambler's Fallacy in my own mediocre description is the belief that concurrent events impact the odds of future events.
Obviously, like the rest of you I have been taught that there are independent as well as dependent odds which behave uniquely. A flip of a coin, on the surface should yield a 50/50 odds between heads and tails. It is said that regardless of the flip before, there always remains a 50/50 chance of landing on either.
There is a clear distinction between what are the odds of obtaining heads or tails on 1 flip, as opposed to what are the odds of obtaining heads for X amount of flips concurrently. From my understanding, the question of concurrent odds has exponentially declining probability in naturally occurring due to the compounded effect of the 50/50 probability.
It is also said that the next flip must always be a 50/50 because it is independent of past flips. No matter how much I ponder this thesis, it seems like a glaring paradox.
How can a sequence of events be both astronomically unlikely yet have a 50/50 chance of continuing?
If we as conscious beings observe a black swan event, such as a string of 20 heads flips in a row, we must acknowledge that future flips are transpiring as part of this observed time series of events. With each and every flip, the likelihood of this series manifesting, when measured from our initial observation exponentially decreases in probability. Would this not, by some force of balance in the universe being intangible to us, render the probability of future outcomes dependent on those that we are observing? Reworded, I wonder whether an observation of a sequence of events by a bystander, due to the very act of observation, collapse or alter the theoretical probability of an outcome and render an independent event's probability dependent on this series.
I have seen that it took someone 5 hours of streaming live to finally flip 10 heads in a row. Sure they could have flipped 80 in a row according to our mathematical models. It is *possible*. However, it seems that real world experiences are far more likely to be balanced as would be expected, and anomalies of probability revert to normalcy with higher likelihood than the 50/50 we would calculate in a point in time for their continuation.
In a sentence I would say that nature seems to not care that the next odd is 50/50, but rather, that it exhibits outcomes similar to those expected from a dependent variable calculation.
Roast away, appreciate your time.

I know, it's the internet and there have always been trolls.
But on a different platform (health/lifestyle community forum) I just posted something. My thesis was basically: I like this lifestyle, it's a shame that the public figures (who also support this lifestyle) are politically r-wing.
I acknowledged my left bias though - maybe that was my mistake?
Que buddy who decided to tell me that it's the left's goal/agenda to destroy western civilization, that the left is awful and blah blah blah.
I replied 'why the hate bro' and he kept coming. I replied that 'you missed my point' and still didn't make a dent in buddy's retorts.
Fucking guy got my post removed because it because political.
Internet hate shouldn't be a surprise. Yet I'm surprised. The danger of our current world is silos. Yet here I am in my left silo venting. I just wanted to talk about my thing in a non-political way! That was entirely my point!
Gahd what a world we're in....

Link: https://www.elperiodico.com/es/deportes/20240512/mundial-prefiere-marquez-fiche-red-102252584

A very high percentage of the 1,400 inhabitants of the World Championship paddock take it for granted that 31-year-old Catalan Marc Márquez, eight times world champion, will be the rider chosen by the Ducati Corse team to partner two-time Italian champion Francesco 'Pecco' Bagnaia for the next two years.
The thesis, widely spread in offices, pits and press room of the championship, has gained even more strength after the Italian engineer Gigi Dall'Igna, guru and creator of the great 'boom' of the Borgo Panigale factory and first supporter of the Catalan rider, stated recently that the Italian factory "will take into account when making the decision, not only the results of this season, but the sporting history" of each of the three candidates.
It is clear, therefore, that if the weight of his track record is decisive in the choice, Márquez will undoubtedly be the one chosen. The rider from Cervera (Lleida) has eight world titles, 85 victories and 141 podiums to Jorge Martin's one title, 16 wins and 46 podiums, while Enea 'the Beast' Bastianini has one title, 11 victories and 43 podiums. There is no comparison, indeed.

Ducati's move

As the Grand Prix races go on and 'Martinator' continues to perform as he did last year, when he deserved to be promoted to the position of Bagnaia's wingman (“if they didn't sign him then, why would they sign him now, when they have Marc at their fingertips?” as one of the team bosses of the MotoGP grid told El Periódico), many are convinced that Ducati, which does not need MM93 for anything, as it wins races with a handful of riders, only wants to keep the best rider of all time under its umbrella (electronics work miracles) and prevent the decisive Márquez, who has already shown in recent months to have recovered his voracity and riding skills, from joining the ranks of any other competitor.
All the sources consulted by El Periódico affirm that Dall'Igna is tremendously in love with the elder Márquez, proud, among other reasons, that the best on the grid is, they say, burning with the desire to ride the real official Ducati, as he now rides last year's bike. The Borgo Panigale guru, who, last year, was in negotiations with Honda, is the most influential person in the structure of the Audi-owned factory and, therefore, his opinion is vital for the closing of the deal.
El Periódico is in a position to state that the World Championship and, of course, Liberty Media, the new owners of 80% of Dorna Sports, the organiser of the two-wheeled competition, would be happy to see Márquez opt to strengthen the KTM team, sponsored by Red Bull, the long-time sponsor of MM93. What is more, a source close to the top of Dorna does not understand why the Austrian firm, with whom the Catalan idol made his 125cc World Championship debut (he was champion on a Red Bull-sponsored Derbi), is not stepping up its approach to Márquez, who last Thursday acknowledged that he was talking to all the brands.

Perfect marriage

"It's the perfect marriage," said the source, "as it would be a beautiful and spectacular way to come full circle: to debut and 'champion' with KTM in 125cc and to conclude your successful career with the same factory, taking it, who knows, to the top of premier class. It is clear that for the World Championship organisers to have Márquez as a Ducati rider is not comparable to presenting a 'team' on the grid with the all-time champion and Pedro Acosta, 'the shark of Mazarrón', who everyone considers, right now, the heir of the eight-time world champion.
Now that's a tremendous clash: Marquez-Acosta versus the Ducati squad. Such a change would alter and brutally encourage the championship, the attendance of spectators, the take-off of the audiences and, above all, the media coverage of a World Championship, which has just been sold to an American investment fund for a whopping 4.2 billion euros.
Many in the MotoGP paddock are wondering what Ducati can offer Marc Márquez, compared to what the millionaire tandem formed by Red Bull and KTM could offer him. Nobody believes that the Borgo Panigale firm, which, I insist, does not need MM93 to win, would offer a million-dollar contract to the Catalan, while the energy brand that sponsors him could help the Austrian factory to raise a handful of millions to sign him.
Not only that, but Ducati has no reason to go crazy once they have strengthened their two-time champion team with the current Gresini Racing Team leader. That would mean that Márquez would become just another member of the Italian firm, surrounded by Italians, while Red Bull's media, marketing, television and networking apparatus, capable of sending a man into the stratosphere (Felix Baumgartner, 2012), could help Marc to achieve one of his dreams: The red tide in the stands at all the circuits of the World Championship is the same as the one that accompanies the Dutch F1 champion Max Verstappen, whose orange fans populate the grandstands of all the circuits of the single-seater World Championship.
Those who are voting for the deal (Marc Márquez's move to Red Bull KTM) to become a reality are not looking at contract reasons or anything like that. True, the Austrian brand has several riders under contract, including South African Brad Binder, one of the last riders in the sprint race yesterday, and Australian veteran Jack Miller, but, at the end of last season, it had to make room for the 'shark of Mazarron' in its structure and it did it quickly and efficiently.

KTM wants to win now!

"KTM, my friend, is a factory that has won the world title in all the competitions, categories and specialities in which it has decided to compete at the highest level and, for the moment, only MotoGP resists it," commented to El Periódico, in Le Mans, one of the best engineers of the premier class.
"And now," the same technician went on to explain, "we have all been able to see, especially with the portentous Pedro Acosta, that his bike is ready to fight for the big title all year round in the hands of a rider with experience, courage, determination and hands like Marc, while the 'shark' is growing." There is nothing better for this Murcian talent than to be at the side of Márquez, who has spoken highly of him since he appeared in Moto3.
In addition, the Márquez brothers' manager, Jimmy Martínez, is a former and experienced senior executive of the Red Bull company, which means that he has plenty of contacts to guarantee not only a good contract but also the technical and human conditions, that is to say, the recruitment of the reinforcements needed for his pupil to rebuild, perhaps, his 'paddock' family in the Red Bull KTM.
The experts only have a couple of 'buts' to all this conjecture. One, that Marquez should fall in love with the KTM as he is in love with the Ducati. And, two, if the signing were to happen, Marc would have to re-adapt to a new bike, different from his old Honda and his current 'Desmosedici'.
But none of these 'buts' seem insurmountable, when it comes to the best in the world, who in the fifth race of the season was already rubbing shoulders with the best, ready to win, as he proved yesterday at Le Mans.

I'm a beginner and very frustrated. Kindly help me out. I'm trying to replicate my Thesis in LaTeX which was originally written in Microsoft Word. My university does not provide a LaTeX Thesis Template. Forgive any mistakes. This my first post here.
I want to replicate the format as shown in the images below in latex:
For the abstract (frontmatter elements) I wish to have a chapter heading that looks like this (font size 14):
Fig1
For the rest of the chapters i.e., chapter 1, chapter 2 etc. I wish to have the formatting as shown below: Fig2
Finally, I wish to have my table of contents look similar to this (no problem with slight variations). The TOC must not create a blank page above it and continue with the roman numbering: Fig3 Desired list of tables format:
Fig4
Note: I have kept the frontmatter in a separate folder and used the \include command to load in in the main.tex file. My codes are given below:
This is the preamble segment
%-----------------------------------------------------------
%Page and font setup

\documentclass[12pt]{extreport}
\linespread{1.5} %Line spacing 1.5
\usepackage[a4paper, margin=1in]{geometry} %Applied to whole document
\usepackage{times} %Sets main font Times New Roman
\usepackage{anyfontsize} %Use anyfont size in latex
\def\blankpage
{
%\clearpage%
\thispagestyle{empty}%
\addtocounter{page}{-1}%
\null%
\clearpage
} %macro definition used to insert a blank page without affecting the page numbering. (/blankspace)

%-----------------------------------------------------------
%Page orientation, columns and paragraphs

\usepackage{lscape} %Used to make specific pages vertical.
\usepackage{pdflscape} %Used to make specific pages landscape.
\usepackage{multicol} %Enables multiple columns
\usepackage{parskip} %Adds vertical space after paragraph and removes the indentation of the paragraph

%-----------------------------------------------------------
%Graphics

\usepackage{svg} %Can take svg files
\usepackage{graphicx} %Adds figures/graphs
\graphicspath{
{E:/Programming/LaTeX/Thesisproject/Figures/Title_page}
} %Can add multiple paths

%-----------------------------------------------------------
%Tables in document

\usepackage{tabularx} %Used to make column space = line width

%-----------------------------------------------------------
%Tables of contents formatting

\usepackage{titlesec} %Format chapter headings
\usepackage{titletoc} %Alternate headings for TOC

\newcommand{\setupname}[1][\chaptername]
{
\titlecontents{chapter}[0pt]{\vspace{0ex}}
{\bfseries#1~\thecontentslabel:\quad}{\bfseries}
{\bfseries\hfill\contentspage}[]
} %This line of newcommand creates a new style of TOC similar to that of Microsoft Word

\renewcommand{\contentsname}{Table of Contents} %Changes the default Contents style to 'Table of Contents'

\setcounter{tocdepth}{2} %increases TOC number in Contents
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{4} %Enables sub-sub-sub sections i.e., (1.1.1.1.1)
%This is the main body
%-----------------------------------------------------------
\begin{document}
\include{FrontmatteTitlepage1}
\include{FrontmatteTitlepage2}
\include{FrontmatteTitlepage3}
\include{FrontmatteTitlepage4}
\include{FrontmatteCertification}
\pagenumbering{roman} %begins roman page numbering from here
\include{FrontmatteAcknowledgement}
\include{FrontmatteAbstract}
\tableofcontents
%List of tables will go here
%List of figures will go here
% include list of abbreviation segment
\setupname
\chapter{This is the first chapter}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\setcounter{page}{1}
\section{title}
\subsection{sub-secion-title}
\subsubsection{sub-sub-section}
\setupname
\chapter{Annexure}
\pagenumbering{Alph}
\setcounter{page}{1}
\end{document}

I've been seeing this therapist for the last 2/3 years and since the beginning it's been a somewhat difficult relationship for me. I developed intense transference right from the start and I began hiding a lot of stuff from her because I didn't want her to be disappointed in me. Then there were a few months - more like a year or so - where I kept looking at her instagram and her friends' instagram everyday, I read her phd thesis, I watched every video with her I could find, I listened to all the podcasts that interviewed her, all of this. I kept all of this a secret until I decided to share this with her a couple months ago, along with some other "secrets" (they were actually minor things, like details on my financial life and stuff like that). She didn't seem to be bothered at all, she just seemed a little surprised at first when I shared all the information I had gathered about her ans we talked a bit about my transference feelings, but other than that everything continued the same, as if I had never shared anything new.
And this is something that has happened before: I'll disclose something really big for me and then next session she'll just ask what I want to talk about, nothing has repercussions afterwards (and she tells me it has to be this way, because I have to bring whatever it is we need to talk about and not her). Sometimes I feel like we have a great connection and that she's helping me getting to some things that are important, but other times I feel like we're not going anywhere ever. She forgets about important details often, she'll often ask me the same questions she asked before, and seem surprised with things I'd already disclosed. I feel very unheard and very unseen these times and I tried to talk to her about it. Then she asked my if I wanted to be special to her, and for her to remember everything about me. And I just felt shame at that moment because I could see how ridiculous I was being. Anyway, she didn't ask in a judgmental way, I guess, but I felt bad.
So after this session I became increasingly annoyed at her, thinking about other times I was bothered about something happening in our sessions and she made everything about me, not owning up to any of her behaviors. One example is when she'd be always late for our sessions - 10, 15, 20 minutes late - and when I complained, she responded by asking me how it was for me to have a therapist who was always late. I was just very annoyed when she did the same thing when I told her I resented her for always forgetting stuff about me and this turned into me not being able to talk at all during our sessions, which became very frustrating and only left very anguished. Then I talked to her about all this and she said it didn't make sense to discuss her actions and her motives since it was my therapy and that I could be repeating something from my past so it was worth diving into it from my perspective, not hers, and that what difference would it make for her to say "yes, I shouldn't be late" and on and on. She also said I wanted things to be either my way or I wasn't happy, and I guess she's right, but did I feel even more judged after that and not willing to "dive deep" into my feelings about the whole situation. It just made me mad because to me it feels like she's gaslighting me. But we somewhat recovered at the end of the session and everything seemed good.
But another thing is that since I usually have a very hard time opening up during sessions, I'd send her texts I wrote after our sessions, and she'd answer and say she was there not only to listen to me, but to read what I sent. But a lot of times she simply won't answer nor acknowledge I ever sent something and this gets me very confused. I know I'm not to expect her to read and respond to everything I send, but I can't help but feel abandoned when she tells me to write her and then ignores me when I do so. And this happened after our last session and I'm just so tired of feeling like this - lately I leave every session feeling very angry and very frustrated, and I keep thinking I have to stop, that I can't go anymore, only to feel the urge to go when the day comes. I just can't let go of my anger of her but I know I won't be able to talk it out with her because she's not willing to just be talking about our relationship, and I on the other hand don't seem capable to just move on and talk about other stuff. But at the same time I just can't let go of her and the attachment I feel for her. I just feel very stuck and alone in this and I don't know what to do. I tried taking pauses before but the most I could stay away was for a month. I'm sorry for this long and somewhat pointless post, and thank you if you read all this.

Hi everyone,
I used to frequently lurk on this reddit looking for some ways to deal with my case of anxiety induced OAB. I thought I’d chime and share a success story that had with my battle with overactive bladder. I just want to start with some background I’m 29m with not major medical or health complications, I’m healthy and physically active (at the time that my symptoms really cracked off I was probably the fittest I had been in my life).
My symptoms all started in August of 2022 and they came on suddenly. To set the scene it was a beautiful sunny Saturday and I had some plans to go surfing with some mates latter in the afternoon. There was some pretty good swell due at one of my favourite beaches in town and I was super exited (maybe a little nervous because it was going to be kind of larger surf that I was used to. In the morning I had breakie and a cup of coffee. I was really excited about this new coffee that I had got from the store. Immediately after the coffee I was a little anxious but nothing out of the ordinary, I thought it was nervous jitters for the surf session. Anyways my mated pick me up and we head to the beach (it was about an hour drive away). On the car trip I remember having to pee but again nothing out of the ordinary. We go surfing for about 2-3 hours, and I didn’t have to go once the entire time I was out. I get out of the water and change, and that when it all started. I went to use the bathroom and immediately afterwards had to go again (I thought it was weird and tried to go again but there was nothing…okay…). pack up the car and start driving, and the urge was strong again, stoped to go again still not much again. So I suffered for the rest of the car ride home feeling like I was going to go in my pants the whole time. It was at this point my anxiety shot through the roof and I felt like a panic attack was coming on (I had one earlier in the year so I kind of recognized the symptoms of it). I get home and try everything I can to get myself to calm down and nothing worked. The plan was to go home and then meet my friend for homemade pizza at their house (20 minute drive away). I get ready and use the bathroom and get halfway to my friends house only to have to stop and go again. I struggle through the dinner have to excuse myself once or twice to go again still there was not too much. By the end of the day I had burned 3500 calories of stress. I figured it was anxiety at the time and I hoped that it would get better in the morning.
But that urge became something I constantly had to deal with, and when I say constant I mean like I’d go and immediately feel like I needed to go again (maybe 5 minutes of relief between visits). This would lead to me having to go to the bathroom maybe 20 times a day or so. I missed out on movies, shows, drinking with my mates, had to start planning my life around bathroom access, and coffee. (At the time I would have done anything to be able to have a pint or a cup of coffee with my mated and not have to worry about my symptoms getting worse). All this worry was starting consume a large part of my day to day thinking. I mean it’s not like it a symptom that you can just ignore. Fomos and the general anxiety around whether was was going to get better This really stressed me out and made the problem much worse as time went on.
I figured I’d wait and see before going to the doctor see what was going on. After about a week with nothing getting better I decided to go see a doctor. They did some test which all came back negative, I had an ultrasound and everything was clear. At the ultrasound appointment with less than 100ml of liquid in my bladder the feeling was so intense the lady even showed me that there was nothing there on her screen (again this clued me into thinking maybe this was a physiological issue rather than physical one). They said there was nothing that they could find that was medically wrong with me but they would refer me to a urologist to give me the all clear. At this point in my mind there were not major medical issues with me, so there were two potential causes (1) anxiety and (2) a nagging injury. Re (2) I had a nagging groin injury that I sustained at the beginning of the year. I was going to pt for it and thought I could have been surfing from a hypertonic pelvic floor and that was causing the oab symptoms. I couldn’t get an appointment for several months so there was a long period of just waiting while still battling with this constant urge to use the bathroom.
After that appointment I figured I’m dealing with the injury with pt already so maybe I should try to focus on the anxiety aspect. So I tired everything that I could do to reduce my symptoms, drink less coffee, meditate (headspace), saw a therapist, stepped back my work as much as I could to get some time to relax, kept physically active (surfing running climbing multiple times a week), spent time with friends and still nothing made me feel better.
I think this was a period where I was the most stressed that I had ever been. Lets just say 2022 was a year I would not want to repeat anytime soon. To list all that I had going on (tw: cancer, suicide(friend), family member death ) :

I was living abroad in nz and was far from family, and my partner. My dad earlier in the year had been diagnosed with cancer and was going through treatments.
My really good friend attempted suicide twice (The first time I was the closest person to him and he confided in me with his intentions and everything. Probably the most stressful we ek of my life)
My friends mental health emergency lead to me having to move flats on short notice because I didn’t feel safe where I lived because I was threatened by my friend after calling the cops on him to do a wellness check. I went from living in boarding situation with 12 really good friends to living in a studio which was super isolating.
I felt afraid around the town because of these treats and made it harder to relax. Plus running which was my biggest outlet for stress and the thing that I did with my friend became to hard for me to do. It kept giving my ptsd flashbacks of the event.
my grandfather passed away shortly after my father was diagnosed with cancer.

(tw:end)

I was in the process of writing my thesis at the time and had my defence deadline approaching nearer and nearer.
I was planning on moving back to my home country at the end of the year which meant that I was going to loose my whole support system and have to start fresh again. I had to worry about selling most of the stuff I own (car, furniture, clothes, surfboards etc.)
I was also planning a carrier change from one research to a completely different field of study. I’m an academic and I wanted try something new. You either get to pick where you live or the research you do.
worried about jobs I was going to get when I moved back and how I was going to support myself. This is related to 8)

I feel like any one of these events would be a lot to deal with on its own. This was all coming off the tail end of covid as well, thing were starting to get back to normal but there were still periodic lock downs. I feel like it had been a year of very high constant stress and everything together overloaded me. It hasn’t been uncommon for anxiety to manifest as physical symptoms for me before. I remember earlier in the year before the oab really kicked off that I couldn’t eat food without it making me feel sick. it turns out that anxiety cracks up stomach acid and that can make you feel nauseous. The doctor was able to help me out with.
Well to continue the story I went and saw urologist and he said that everything was clear and there was nothing to worry about. Just have to wait for things to calm down, he did give me some oxybutynin that didn’t really help. Then shorty after that I had to sell everything I owned and I flew back home. I remember that flight being kind of hard, I was sad to leave the country and anxious for the new life I was about to begin. It really enhanced the symptoms that I was experiencing.
I moved back to the USA at the end of 2023 and that is when I began trying to tackle this problem in earnest. The urologist recommended that I tried bladder retraining while it was helpful to see progress it still didn’t help with the symptoms that much. I tired cbd for my anxiety and had some success. It seemed to help manage my symptoms. I moved from summer in the southern hemisphere, to the middle of the winter in the northern hemisphere and the lack of sun didn’t help my mental health.
At this point I could go maybe 30 minutes between trips to the bathroom. I didn’t have coffee, or alcohol (didn’t even dream of it). Car trips were miserable, would spend most of them stressed I wouldn’t find a bathroom. Still had the constant urge to use the bathroom. Things were not fun. Luckily I had a decent amount of money in savings so I took some time to relax while I was waiting to defend my thesis. (I think I took about 6-7 months to myself)
Okay I’m sure you all know all that symptoms and how miserable they can be. Here’s what worked for me:
First thing I’d say is go see a doctor. Reddit is great but a doctor will be able to tell if there is anything physically wrong with you. Then trust what they say. When are you a dealing with a health related thing that is related to anxiety the most important thing is to make sure that you have a clean bill of health.
Once you know nothing is wrong physically here are some ways of dealing with oab caused my anxiety:

Talk: Talk to your love ones about what you are dealing with. Tell them you are struggling with this medical issue and you may need to pull over and use the bathroom or disappear for a couple minutes. They will understand if they love you. I waited a long time to open up to my partner about this, and I felt a lot better after I told her what I was struggling with.
Face this head on: Don’t retreat still do things go outside got to shows bars the store. You will be able to find a bathroom you don’t need to worry. Remember that stuff that you love to do don’t let oab rule your life. Its going to be scary but its good to face these anxieties head on. If you start canceling events because you are afraid of bathroom access will lead to further isolation, and eventually agoraphobia (not a good place to end up)
Bladder retraining: This gives you a way to track progress and play chicken with your bladder in a controlled manner. You are trying to teach your brain the difference between really and fake signals. This will help you gain trust in yourself again. Remember this is gradual process.
Professional help. Shortly after getting back to the states I started getting professional help to deal with all the stress I had in my life. I needed somewhere where I could process everything I was going through. I got the quickest appointment I could and took the first one I could get. By involving doctors and therapist and even your loved ones you are not tackling this problem alone anymore you have a team of people helping you. Plus they can give you ideas on how to manage your stress and anxiety.
Headspace: In a similar vein headspace and mindfulness will help with learning how to acknowledge how we are feeling and move on. We are always going to need to use the bathroom there is no way around it and we sometimes will have the feeling that we need to go when we don’t need to. In the same way there is no getting rid of anxiety, what mindfulness does is help change our relationship with these feelings. You could try the session on chronic pain because what we are experiencing is a persistent unwanted sensation from out body like a form of pain. There is also more general ones about anxiety. I think we can borrow some of the ideas that people dealing with chronic pain use to to deal with the urges that we experience ( I don’t know how much there is to this though).
(a) side tangent: I saw this guy in nz who said that when people are dealing with heartache sometimes taking a painkiller (like Tylenol or ibuprofen) can help deal with the pain. Even though the pain is psychosomatic the feeling is still real, and the painkiller can actually help with managing the heartbreak. (see)
Medication: Trying anti anxiety meds was the biggest thing for me. What I really needed after all the stress was some mental space. For me lexapro gave me this space. I know that finding the right medication to be on can be hard and its a long process to find the one that is right for you. I’m currently on the lowest dose (5mg) and I have been taking it for about 1.5 years with little side effects (only if I miss a dose I feel a little dizzy in the evening). I know anti-anxiety meds get a bad wrap these days and I feel like there is a lot of misinformation about them. People worry that it is going numb them that they are going to feel like themselves, or that people are going to judge them for taking it, but in my case that hasn’t been my experience. If you are at a high level of stress it can help bring you back down to baseline, it can give you the space to acknowledge the things that make you feel anxious and move on. I highly recommend trying this out. I should also say here that it does take 1.5-2 months for the meds to really start working, and during that time your anxiety can increase (but its worth it!!!)
CBD: if you don’t want to try an anti anxiety med try CBD, it really helps with stress and I found that it was pretty good at helping with some OAB symptoms at first but you build up a tolerance to it when you are taking it daily, and it can become expensive. What I found that worked for me was around 10-15mg 3 times a day (breakfast lunch and dinner). This helped me be less stressed in the car our when I was out walking places and there was no bathroom nearby.

When this all started I didn’t ever think I was going to be able to enjoy a cup of coffee again or go to a bar and have a pint and drive home with out a worry. After working at this for the last 2 years I’ve been able to get to a place where I can have a coffee and then go for a long car ride and have no symptoms. I’m able to go to a triva night and enjoy a beer without having to get up every 10 minutes to use the bathroom. I’m able to sit through meeting without having to leave 3-4. I’ve been able to give a 1 hr long talk to a large group of people (something I wouldn’t have been able to do because oab at the beginning of all this) with no issues. In my experience there is no instant cure for this, don’t say this to be negative but more so to say that its going to take hard work, and there is hope. I was able to overcome this thing and so can you! I hope this helps and thanks for taking the time to read my post.

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.