TechAngel85

Personally I would prefer that Bethesda (and other developers) would simply say, "you don't own your mods. we do. share them freely or don't share them at all". This would solve all the copyright issues around modding and promote an open modding community.

And that's the problem. Nexus has a bit of a monopoly when it comes to mods. Likely because it is the best and most rounded platform for authors to use. I will say that DarkOne has never been that "into" the community. He's a business man and runs Nexus as a business, for the most part. From what I've seen, he's never been in touch with the overall community and really only listens to a small handful of authors when it comes to community dealings. He will, nearly 100% of the time, side with the author in most dealings of disputes to avoid any legal concerns. You can't really blame him for that. He's just protecting his business.

Just looks like a big pissing match, if you ask me. :: I'll post the info for them to all make up their own minds.

To be sure of this, I went back and watched the Backster episodes. Backster's Method Since the focus seems to be Backster's method with the plant reaction to the death of other biological life, this experiment entailed "random and unexpected" death with no other life present for the experiment, thus removing the possibility of human or other life interference in the experiment. When he did the shrimp test he set up his test to be completely random and set to to perform overnight while no life was present in the building but the plants and the shrimp. This part of the protocol was important because Backster found if there was other life present the plants didn't really react because they "weren't concerned about the shrimp". Other scientists performing this test did not follow this the protocol of the experiment and were present while the experiments were taking place. This includes the Mythbusters tests but there were other issue I found when watching that episode too (though they did reproduce the results of harming the plant via both physically harming the plant and mentally thinking of harming the plant). By definition the protocols of the experiment must be followed to validation or invalidate the results. This is why I am dismissing citations 13 and 14. Anyone that wishes to argue against, I encourage to do the research themselves or watch the presentation provided by David before poking holes (I can gift the video that covers some of this data for anyone to watch...I think. I've never used their gifting feature so I'm not sure how it works). I will freely admit that I rarely fact check David because the way he presents the data is by laying it all on the table via slides of the actual data for you to see and validate on your own. When possible he also provides the links to the information for you to go and fact check it yourself in the event you don't follow what he is saying. I don't follow your latest post, though, and am not connecting the dots of how any of this is connected to STEP's acceptance of mods. This is the Banter Inn thread of which is provided for discussion of any random topics the community wishes to discuss upon. It can your pub to have some friendly chatting or your lecture hall to have intellectual debates. Do not consider anything in the Banter Inn as connected to any way to STEP processes. The staff shouldn't have to put up a disclaimer up every time we discuss something in this forum. Discussions herein are our personal views and in no way reflect upon STEP. To address Crash Fixes, which is off topic, mods of this nature are installed by the staff and ran with them installed for longer periods of time than your typical mod to attempt to weed out any potential issues with the STEP set of mods. I've had the mod install for months and am 100% confident it will be accepted for STEP inclusion. It should also be noted that STEP is going through some pretty big changes behind the scenes so work on the Guides is not a priority, atm. @Mator Wikipedia is an encyclopedia from the public masses, but that doesn't mean the sources it cites are reliable (and I realize you didn't say that they were, but that was the point I was making). In this case, I wouldn't deem them reliable in the slightest besides possibly three or four of the 19 which be be followed up on and fact checked independently. I'm sure you brought it up for amusement, but I really don't consider Mythbusters a reliable source for anything but entertainment. Though I did go watch the episode to do my own fact checking and they did reproduce some of the results, but dismissed them later because they couldn't reproduce them in other (different) scenarios such as their egg drop. Of which, their egg drop was a joke because it was suppose to be into boiling water. You can clearly see in the episode there is no boil on that water. It's just plain water they're dropping them into. Again, Backster's protocols weren't followed, but it's just a TV show for entertainment.

Yes, David is clear that a lot of the science from the scientist he talks about is not widely accepted in the scientific community or has been surprised by governments and later released via the Freedom of Information Act. He's very clear some of it is not "popular" or " mainstream" science, but doesn't refute the data simply because the community doesn't pick it up. Most, if not all, of the data he presents has been gathered from within controlled scientific settings. Some of the information he presents is from very reputable scientists in the community who didn't reveal they were the source of the information until they were retired or their tenures were up out of fear from losing their reputations by publishing "fringe science" during their careers. Wikipedia is about the worse resource you can pull information from. My college professors wouldn't even allow citations from it when doing research. Seriously... Allow me to make the point... 13, 14, and 15 don't even have links for you to follow up and check the information.13 (and 14 I believe) is addressed by David by showing they did not follow the same methods as Backster so their results would obviously be different (bad science by not following Backster's methods).10 and 16 for disclaiming scientific method are from news articles on The Guardian and St. Petersburg Times which contains no citations for their sources...you're going to use news articles to back up claims that scientific methods weren't followed? 3 cites a "skeptics dictionary" written by an author with no scientific background.In fact, the majority of the "Reactions by the scientific community" section came from those news articles, not from independent scientific studies.I think the point is made. Don't use wikipedia for citing information and make sure the information that is cited can be followed up on and fact checked from reliable sources.

Man...do I feel like a rookie. I installed Long War 2 and love the concepts it introduces; however, I feel that it overpowers the enemies for the beginning of the game. I haven't won a single mission and have had to restart twice from loosing all my soldiers. Your soldiers aim totally suck and they typically miss an enemies that is literally one space in front of them and not behind cover. For some reason that makes no since the hit chance in these situations is not 100%. I mean...that's the equivalent of walking up to someone, putting a gun against their chest, pulling the trigger, and still managing to miss. The possibility of that is near 0. That's my only complaints about Long War 2 so far. I'm probably going to have to play on rookie just to get into the game a bit with Long War 2 installed.

This group works under the assumption that UFOs are real and do exist. I truly believe we're on a cusp of a disclosure of information from our governments about the existence of intelligent alien life. I've believed this for a couple years now, but recently the governments have been releasing more and more drips of this information they've been sitting on for years and years. NASA seems to have more "new" discoveries in the past couple years than in the past 50 years combined. This isn't due to them just making these discoveries, imo. It's because they've been aware of these things for years and are seeding information in preparation for a type of disclosure event. Actually, there is not. The books are solely over the channeling sessions and nothing more. David Wilcock has independently validated most of the Law of One books with actual science that was preformed by independent scientists not connected to the books. For example: First, to set this up you need to know the Law of One teaches reincarnation. Now, planet life is of the second density. To ascend or graduate to the third density plant or animal life must become self-aware of its own existence. The Law of One says this is most commonly achieved in the animal life we take as pets because we are helping this animal life to become self-aware. In the plant kingdom this is most common in trees and house plants. For the purpose of this example imagine, if you will, that a plant becomes self-aware and ascends to the third density since that is the only criteria for graduation: being self-aware. To ascend one by die and be reincarnated into their new density. Now, you ask where is the science to back up that plants are aware of themselves and their environments? David Wilcock brings to the table the scientific research of Dr. Cleve Backster who proved that plants have a measurable reaction to their environment and the actions that we not only do to them, but also the thoughts we have towards them. That they are even aware of our presence in the room. More can be found on the subject which has been done by others with a very quick Google search. So that is just one example of the science that David attempts to back up the data from the Law of One with: Second to third density graduation requires self-awareness. Dr Cleve Backster (and others after him) have proven plants can be self-aware. The rest of whether the ascension happens is a matter of faith since what happens to the consciousness after death can not be measured by current science.

I see I will not be able to really discuss much with you because it is too much "New Age Woo", but allow me to send you over the edge here... Ra is lot older than 11,000 years. Ra is a sixth density social memory complex originating from Venus approximately 2.6 billion years ago. They visited Egypt and other areas of our planet approximately 11,000 years ago to teach the Law of One; however, the teachings were twisted from their intent and they were worshiped as Gods by many peoples. This was against their wishes and teachings. Ra stresses that the teachings on the Law of One is not a religion, that they are not Gods, and anyone teaching the Law of One should not be worshiped as such. They view their manner of teaching the Law of One in Egypt, particularly, as a nativity on their part and desire to correct the teachings. Hence the purpose of the channeling. They go into why it was with this group in book 3. They also explain the purpose the Bible, the candle, the chalice of water, and incense but I can't remember them all. The Bible represents the Law of One, the incense is an energizer, the candle represents the love/light light/love of the Creator, and the water is the one I can't remember. I know the channeler drinks the water after the contact has ended to help renew her energies. @Spiritual Aspect The Law of One is essentially the basis of all religions. In it's most simplest form is says that all things are one, that all beings are one. Ra explains it more as thus: In the Law of One it is explained that there is one Creator through which all things were created from. We are all individualized parts of the Creator learning to know ourselves and "other selves" until we eventually become one with the Creator again. There are two paths to take: service to others or service to self. Service to others is what we would call the positive path. Service to self is what we would call the negative path. Ra points out there is really no positive and negative here but as third density beings, this is how we would define it. That brings up densities. In a nut shell, densities in the Law of One are levels of consciousness of which there are eight. These densities actually line up with the chakras of the bodies, as we would call them. First density is the density of awareness. This is basically the elements earth, air, water, and fire. On earth, first density took about two billion years.Second density is the density of growth. This is basically the planet and animal life. Second density on earth took about 4.6 billion years. For those of you doing the math that's make's today's Earth about 6.6 billion years old. Today's estimates say the Earth is around 4.5 to 4.6 billion years so, according to the Law of One, they're only measuring for second density.Third density is the density of self-awareness and the first density of consciousness. This is our (human beings) density. In this density we choose the way (service to others or service to self) in which we will reach our evolution to the Creator. Third density typically only takes about 75,000 years to complete. An interesting note is the Ra says our lifespans were suppose to be much longer. The Bible talks about some living for hundreds and years and this is more in line with what the Law of One say our lifespans should be in third density. Various actions of our peoples have lead to shorter lifespans and this has made it far more difficult for us to graduate to fourth density.Fourth density is the density of love or understanding. It is the density in which we come together as one people to pursue the path we chose, either loving self or loving others. Fourth density lasts about 30 million years and Ra says fourth-density lifespans are typically 90 thousand years.Fifth density is the density of light or wisdom. Fifth-density entities are beautiful, by our standards, because they can consciously shape their physical forms.Sixth density is the density of unity, in which love (fourth density) and wisdom (fifth density) are blended together. Those who chose the service-to-self path change to a service-to-others path in this density because they cannot successfully master the lessons of unity without opening their hearts to others. Ra is sixth density.Seventh density is the gateway density, in which we once again become one with all.Eighth density is also the beginning of the first density of the next Creation. It is "both omega and alpha, the spiritual mass of the infinite universes becoming one central sun or Creator once again. Then is born a new universe, a new infinity, a new Logos which incorporates all that the Creator has experienced of Itself."

No, not trolling at all. :: I'm 100% serious and can get far more into the spiritual side of the topic which is the meat and potatoes of the Law of One. This bit about ghosts and UFOs and Bigfoot is just a bit of a side topic. David backs up all his claims and "pseudo-science" with real scientific studies. In fact, a lot of his "work" on Wisdom Teachings is just bring to light other scientist's work to let people know this stuff if backed by real science from real scientist who have done the science work, published the results, and gotten repeatable independent results from other scientists. Like I said, the information is out there if you look for it. I simply suggest Wisdom Teachings because David's done the hard work of pulling it all together to present it. Now, I will openly admit that he needs to refresh himself on the Law of One books because he miss interprets or misquotes them from time to time. I only know this because the information is more fresh in my mind from reading them. I totally agree with your approach to the science side. It's 100% valid and a strong point of view that many share. Seeing that we're dealing with more philosophical, "what ifs", and faith here, I have no more proof to provide you for my believes any more than you have to provide me for your belief that a higher power exists....and that's sort of my point here. Sense, as you stated, "the burden of proof lies on the believer, not the skeptic" please tell me what the difference is between the belief in ghosts vs the belief in a higher power is. To me, a logical point would be that you can not discount one without discounting the other sense there is no proof whether either exists or not. To science, they are equal concepts besides in the mind of the individual so I'm curious as to your belief in one but not the other. Just to state the information, I identify as Christian, but my beliefs are far from the typical Bible pusher. PS: Ben needs to lay off the cocaine or switch to decaff. I used to watch a lot of TED until I heard they stopped letting more controversial speakers on the show.

@Aiyen As for procedure A, I'm the type of person that challenges the procedure with B, C, and D to see if there is a better way of doing it. Self discovery is something that I highly value and I often find that procedure A works just fine, but sometime it can be improved upon. However, one thing I dislike is routine. I love change and the newness and challenges it can bring. As for the ghosts, you have an interesting prospective, but I would also call it a common one. Think, if you will, what are ghosts? Humans who have die, right? As humans we have consciousness and intelligence, do we not? Then I ask why would we lose consciousness and intelligence upon death? For this point of view, you must also believe there is life after death (which I do believe). When you strip away the flesh what is left? Our soul, spirit, or consciousness: the true nature of our being. Therefore, ghosts are a manifestation of our consciousness or spirit which still has its intelligence as it did in "life". There is no "governance" beside our own free will which survives death (the Law of One is very big on free will). I will reiterate that I believe ghosts are not the natural process. A ghost is the result of a traumatic or sudden death and in most cases the ghost is confused and is aware of its death. Therefore since the free will of the consciousness of the individual is to continue to live, this results in what we call ghosts. You are assuming someone's free will on the contact with ghosts bit. If they wish to be in contact, it will take the knowledge to do so as they are no longer a part of our physical realm. They are energy and would have to learn to manipulate that energy to manifest into the physical. Even then, in most cases all you hear reports of are cold spots, voices, sounds, and orbs. The full or partial apparition is rare. Most ghost that become "aware" of not being among the living move on to the next stage since that is the natural process. Those that choose to remain do so for their own reasons which can vary like any other reason for doing something. As for UFOs, I believe alien intelligent life is real, it's closer than most think, the governments are fully aware of it, and we (the public) are all going to get some disclosure on it real soon. @Neb, The Law of One actually very briefly touches on Bigfoot in the discussion of Maldek. Maldek (also more commonly known as "Phaeton") is believed to once have been a planet which its remains are now the asteroid belt. Did you notice the "I know this is unimportant" bit? It's funny because in the books Ra will often tell the questioner that the information being requested is of no significance before providing an answer.

That, I completely understand and was trying to say as much in my ramblings. I likely didn't get that point across. In my experience it's hard for most science minded people to have a philosophical-type debate because of this very reason. It's all about the proof for them and is hard for them to open their minds to other possibilities beyond their measurements and data. I'm not calling out anyone here to be this, but rather making a statement of my general experiences with science-types. You're hitting on some people's beliefs without even knowing it. Ghosts, I believe are disembodied souls/spirits who have not moved to the next step due to being confused at their death. This mainly happens with unexpected deaths and instruments like EMF detectors can pick them up because they still have an energy to their presence. However, being a preserved consciousnesses, ghosts would be able to intelligently hide themselves and their energies if they have figured out how to do such. Therefore, depending on one's personal beliefs, your case of making sense of it could also be applied to all of the supernatural. It's just comes back to whether or not you believe the supernatural entity to be of intelligence or not and capable or not of hiding from detection. I'm curious as to what you're thoughts would be of the documented evidence not just of the supernatural but of UFOs. With the Freedom of Information Act, it's been proven that even the U.S. (and other) governments of the world have been sitting on a treasure trove of information, witness accounts, photographic evidence, etc of UFOs (granted, in true government fashion, there is a lot of "blackout" lines on these documents). Furthermore, NASA has been quietly releasing information for a few years now such as that the likelihood of other life is that it's very likely, they've found water on Mars and throughout our solar system (like an ocean on one of Saturn's moons), there are an estimated 100 billion planets and estimated 1 billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, etc. etc. For those skeptics out there that believe we're alone in the universe, I believe they're about to have a rude awakening when it's announced that we're not. NASA just keeps dripping more and more of this disclosure information. The information is out there for anyone willing to search for it.

Well, completed my first run through of the game today. It was a nice experience, though it could use a few bug patches.

If you want scientific evidence to back up the material you need to look no further than "Wisdom Teaching" by David Wilcock on Gaia. He's a fairly large advocator for the Law of One material and gets fairly technical on that show with the science that backs up most of the material (a lot of it is over my head as I'm not that big of a science geek). Granted, you have to have an open enough mind to look past the conspiracy theory tone in all of the material surrounding this area of discussion, but all the data you're wanting is provided within the episodes of that show. Without even knowing it, you just made a contradictory statement: "You cannot perform good science if you go into something with an expectation of a certain result." So your statement of, "The only way I could ever take a "scientific study of the supernatural" remotely seriously is if it was conducted by individuals with no preoccupation to find a supernatural result." would result in little to no data being found because you now have the preconceived expectation that you will not find any supernatural evidence. :: This is actually something talked about on Wisdom Teachings. The idea that an expectation of an certain result during experimentation will likely conclude in or close to the expected result simply because it's what you are expecting. Thusly, if you expect no result...you're likely end up with no result. In my opinion, the "supernatural", whether it be ghosts or religious miracles or something else, can not be measured by our current science and must be experienced by the individual. History is littered with a plethora of documented experiences of ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious miracles, etc. with no real "science" to back any of it up, but yet the sheer amount of documentation of individual experiences can not be simply ignored. The point I'm making here is not everything can be backed by science due to our limited knowledge of our universe. Now allow me to head one thing off here that I see coming from the science minded, which is faith. "How can you believe something on faith and without proof?" (like the supernatural) Well let me ask the same question. Take for example Einstein's theory of special relativity (E = mc2) which has never been proven (hence the word "theory" attached to it), yet in the science community has taken it as factual and we have entire sciences which are built on this and other scientific theories. These theories are nothing more than thoughts based on observations of various data. Therefore, in a sense the supernatural is no different than scientific theory. Rather it being based on math and observations in a lab, the "theory" of the supernatural is based on the documented accounts throughout history combined with the same visual observations which most science would use in an analogous, visual lab experiment. I feel most science minded people dismiss the supernatural because there are not specified tools other than the individual which can measure and capture the data in the same sense as a scientific experiment would...which I assume is basically your view as well given your statements in your third point. I would like to point out most science started as "anecdotal evidence" until we developed our technology enough to properly measure data and correct our theories. One of the best examples of this is that we used to believe we were the center of the universe and everything obits around us...until a little "tool" was invented that allowed us to obverse our heavens more closely. Embarrassed? Really? :O_o: Why? Are you not open to philosophical thinking? Belief in a higher power? I like intellectual debate with those that can do it. Most seems to just get offended or are too rigid to have a meaningful debate. I will admit that I do get amusement whenever the science minded individuals start discussing on such material simply because of how rigid most are in "show me the proof". :: I will say that your statement here is suggesting that you are not likely open minded. "While it's true that people are susceptible to things such as this, it's still concerning." Who is to say who is right or wrong until it is proven or disproven? Does God or a higher power exist? Who knows! A higher power can't be proven or disproven with science and tools so are you going to tell 84% of the world population they are wrong in believing in such? Those that don't believe are in a great minority, but no one can proven who is right and who is wrong. I would also ask how is believing in the supernatural any different than believing in a higher power when there is nothing but anecdotal evidence of either? That last question is some food for thought. Pish posh. You can find anything debunking anything on the internet. Until it is proven or disproven it can only be a philosophical debate; therefore, tossing about this and that evidence in either way is only good for the debate of the information. Which brings me to the point of posting, "sparking up some discussion" in the OP. Ultimately, people will have to make up their own minds. As for me, I'm a free thinker with an open mind who tests new material according to my own experiences, knowledge, and research. I do not require something to be proven to me by hard facts as long as it rings true with my spirit. If I'm eventually proven right or wrong, so be it. I encourage all to do the same when it comes to such subjects. See there...discussion!

Out of curiosity and possibly sparking up some discussion, I'm wondering if there is anyone here who has read part of or in their entirety the books of the Law of One? I'm nearly finished with the third book and have found them to be inspirational, intriguing, mind blowing, spiritually awakening, and thought provoking. For a little reference, the Law of One book series is a collection of channeling sessions with a social mind complex of sixth density which refers to themselves as Ra. The books cover a very large and wide range of varying information, but the main purpose is to share the knowledge of the "Law of One".

My 1060 chews up SSE (though I play at 1080p). I don't think the fans even turn on with that game. If they do, it's so low I can't hear them. XCOM 2 seems to be able to push it harder than SSE.

It does appear that you might be running LOOT outside of MO. Can you screenshot your LOOT executable window in MO?

You are welcome and I am glad you found the information helpful.

Yeah, you have messed something up in the install. Ensure you follow our instructions here: https://wiki.step-project.com/LOOT The whole point of MO is to keep your Data folder clean, so I wouldn't install mods to it. You should work out the issues you have before playing. But ultimately it's your choice.

Can you take a screenshot of LOOT while it's open and post it please?

It was just the most stable and complete manager when I started looking into SSE modding. MO2 still has some quirks about it, but is successfully being used by some to mod their SSE.

I have no issues, though I'm not using MO2 for SSE. I'm using WB on Windows 7 for SSE. No issues so far. Sounds to me that if they're having issue with certain formats, then though files are not set up correctly or corrupt in some way. Classic Skyrim formats and the newer BC7 formats have worked flawlessly for me on Windows 7 and SSE. There might be an issue with MO2, but if so that's not the fault of the game or it's formats. That's just the fault of MO2's beta state. WB is better, imo, for SSE modding as of the time of this post. WB isn't as "noob" friendly, though.

You're welcome. ::

Right

Most people who do testing and reviews are not using saves from which they also play the game from. Take for example, STEP. When I do all the testing for new mods for STEP, I do so from a completed STEP install using a separate "STEP Extended" profile. This profile has all the mods from the Guide installed; however, all the saves are vanilla (as previously described above) and remain separate from my other saves. However, this is NOT the profile from which I actually play the game from. The profile from which I play the game is a separate profile entirely with it's own saves (you can easily created duplicate profiles in MO by copying them in the management menu). The saves from my testing profile and my playing profile do not cross because I don't wish to mess up my good saves from which I do all my actual playing on. I hope that makes sense.

Cleaning a mod from a save or a "clean save" is done by doing the following: Go to an interior which the mod doesn't affect and save the game (any interior which the mod being removed doesn't affect is fine). For example, if the mod is an overhaul for Breezehome, you wouldn't go to Breezehome to save. Exit the game and uninstall the mod If the mod has scripts, run Save Game Script Cleaner to remove these scripts from the save. Relaunch the game and load the save from step 1; answering "yes" to any missing plugin warnings. Once loaded, make another new save and exit the game again. Your new save is cleaned from the removed mod.From this point use the new save from step 5 to continue your playthrough. Keep in mind this is not a "fail proof" method. There's always a change to break or corrupt your save by removing plugins and scripts mid-game, but there's the information you requested. Use at your own risk. ::