Free Will, war and suffering

[donnellholness]

It is cold and snowing here in Austria. Yesterday on the news, I saw a
comparison of the weather as it is now and how it was the same time
last year. Last year was warm and sunny and people were sun bathing
in the parks. Now its cold and snowing while many other areas are
under water due to melting ice and unprecedented rainfall. Hmmm?

OK. I have questions regarding free will.

The decisions and courses of action that an individual undertakes,
whether positive or negative, is allowed under the law of free will.
And if I understand it correctly, right or wrong choices can be seen
as right or wrong, insofar as they negatively impair the free will of
others or retard ones own personal spiritual development.

Now as I look around at the world today, I see people exercising their
inalienable right of free will to carry out abominable acts against
others - those they consider to be adversaries or enemies.

So here are my questions.

If we had the capabilities or power (via the agency of a mental
collective ? mentanet) to reduce such extreme negative impulse within
individuals, large groups or even nations, and to inspire more
positive benign feelings, should we do so?

Let me be more specific.

If we knew that Achmed somewhere over there in Palestine, was about to
exercise his free will by packaging himself in few kilograms of C4
explosives to carry out what he views as holy righteous act to kill
his enemies, should we not first bomb him with our collective love and
light, and thereby remove his free will to carry out such an act?
Would this not be a violation of the law of free will?

If we had the collective power to reduce not only the rate of crime,
but also influence leaders of large companies and governments around
the globe to adopt more humanistic values and pro "green" courses of
action, should do so?

As I look back at the history of Jamaica, my land of birth in this
incarnation, we Jamaicans are the by-products of horrendous crimes
against humanity. Yet I am not sure that I would choose to be anything
else than what I am today. If someone at that time, had the power to
stop slavery cold in its tracks before it began, from my current
perspective now, I would perhaps discourage this person from taking
action. Who and what I am now, what I stand for, my passions and
aspirations are all somehow linked with this terrible past of slavery.

Make no mistake about it, I am saddened, very angry and bewildered
about Sudan, Iraq, impending nuclear confrontation in iraq, innocent
people being slaughtered in the name of religions based on concepts
which, in my view, are simply dogmatic, infantile and primitive.

So how do resolve the free will question in this case. If we had the
power to intervene, should we do so? Or should we let the greater
cosmic play unwind as it will?

[Kurt Franklyn]

wow, amen brother


---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
starting at 1¢/min.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=GDFZwxohPVt_tX4DLW0YMQp2xsXkOLsbDgiYgx DrewrMvfVY-VHaoawP6KMpYBr1gqwiJDI87UZuSEgL1xsR), "donnellholness" <donnellholness@...> wrote:
> So here are my questions.
> Let me be more specific.
>
> If we knew that Achmed somewhere over there in Palestine, was about
> to exercise his free will by packaging himself in few kilograms of
> C4 explosives to carry out what he views as holy righteous act to
> kill his enemies, should we not first bomb him with our collective
> love and light, and thereby remove his free will to carry out such
> an act?
> Would this not be a violation of the law of free will?

I don't think you can remove somebody his free will. You can just
offer the love & light and the person himself can choose to accept
this or not. But the person his/her free will remains. But I think if
a large group does this there is a kind of group counsciousness wich
is better at healing distortions and easier for other people to tune
into etc.. Like the group meditations proved in the USA wich reduced
crime rates...
Whether it violates the law of free will depends on the intention in
my view. If the focus is on peace and love or if the focus is to
influence another person to refrain from a certain action. Do you
understand what I'm trying to say? My english is a little chiki wiki...

Btw I love Bob Marley! :)
Just saw Damian Marley in concert 2 months ago.


One love
Filip

[Strider]

Hello Donnell,

You have asked some very interesting questions about possible infringement
upon the free will of other human beings in this world! Here are a few ideas for
you to consider.

You asked: If we knew that Achmed somewhere over there in Palestine, was about
to
exercise his free will by packaging himself in few kilograms of C4 explosives to
carry out what he views as holy righteous act to kill his enemies, should we not
first bomb him with our collective love and light, and thereby remove his free
will to carry out such an act? Would this not be a violation of the law of free
will?

Strider here: I see nothing wrong with "bombing" Achmed with our collective
love and light. However, I would prefer to describe it as "offering a gift of
Love." The word "bombing" carries with it a sense of aggression, judgment and
condemnation of Achmed's Being-ness. Achmed, then, would still have the free
will to choose how to respond to our offered gift. The important thing for us
would be to assure that our INTENT was pure and unmotivated by self-serving
desires (such as "eliminating" terrorism to eliminate a threat to our own
survival.) If Achmed refuses to accept our offered "gift," the energies we sent
out to him will be reflected back at us. Magical tradition suggests that it
would come back to us multiplied three times! If we sent out energies arising
solely from Love and Acceptance, that would not be a bad thing! If we sent out
energies arising from FEAR and a need to CONTROL Achmed's behavior, the
fear-based energies we sent out would be reflected back at us
three-fold and make us feel even more fearful and helpless to control our fate!

You asked: So how do resolve the free will question in this case. If we had
the
power to intervene, should we do so? Or should we let the greater cosmic play
unwind as it will?

Strider here: Intervention implies use of power to FORCE another being into
complying with our will and desires. Such intervention, no matter how well
intended, would involve an infringement of both the individual's free will and
his/her right to express Self within the Manifest Creation. Conversely, letting
the "greater cosmic play unwind as it will" implies passivity and repression of
our right to create our reality as WE choose. Personally, I would prefer to see
us co-create a Community of Love and simply allow the energies generated by our
Community to flow into and en-lighten the collective consciousness of the World.
The expansive power of such Love eventually WILL fill the world to every corner
and create a New Age for humanity. Aggression, terrorism, exploitation and all
such fear-based expressions of Life simply will fade away in the Light of that
Love. If we truly Accept and Love Achmed, and he accepts our gift, why would he
feel a need to bomb us?

Peace/Oneness
Strider


---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Pi]

Strider wrote:
Hello Donnell,
You have asked some very interesting questions about possible
infringement upon the free will of other human beings in this world!
Here are a few ideas for you to consider.

You asked: If we knew that Achmed somewhere over there in Palestine,
was about to exercise his free will by packaging himself in few
kilograms of C4 explosives to carry out what he views as holy
righteous act to kill his enemies, should we not first bomb him with
our collective love and light, and thereby remove his free will to
carry out such an act? Would this not be a violation of the law of
free will?

pi: By the aim of the love bombs, this gesture seems loaded with the
intention of protecting achmed's enemies from violence. Let's apply
the adage, "be careful what is asked for" to this situation. If love
energy only aims to douse acts of Palestinian insurrection, it will
in effect help achmed's enemies, who are in no way devout messengers
of the Law of One. :) So why not consider achmed's plight with his
enemies & try to help him by "bomb his enemies with love and light"?

Strider here: I see nothing wrong with "bombing" Achmed with our
collective love and light. However, I would prefer to describe it
as "offering a gift of Love." The word "bombing" carries with it a
sense of aggression, judgment and condemnation of Achmed's Being-
ness. Achmed, then, would still have the free will to choose how to
respond to our offered gift. The important thing for us would be to
assure that our INTENT was pure and unmotivated by self-serving
desires (such as "eliminating" terrorism to eliminate a threat to
our own survival.) If Achmed refuses to accept our offered "gift,"
the energies we sent out to him will be reflected back at us.
Magical tradition suggests that it would come back to us multiplied
three times! If we sent out energies arising solely from Love and
Acceptance, that would not be a bad thing! If we sent out energies
arising from FEAR and a need to CONTROL Achmed's behavior, the fear-
based energies we sent out would be reflected back at us three-fold
and make us feel even more fearful and helpless to control our fate!

pi: i love your points, Strider! Love is neither a weapon for attack
or for defense. In a worldly sense, it may serve to protect & it may
serve to conquer. But it does not choose to do either. Accepting
love for self & accepting love from others leads to invulnerability,
which is unrelated to power & control. This is a paradox: Although i
am not sure how, i am absolutely sure, somehow, the unified faith of
a group of people is able to create a shield that deflects forces or
weapons aiming to do harm to the group or any one who is part of it.

Strider: You asked: So how do resolve the free will question in this
case. If we had the power to intervene, should we do so? Or should
we let the greater cosmic play unwind as it will?

Strider here: Intervention implies use of power to FORCE another
being into complying with our will and desires. Such intervention,
no matter how well intended, would involve an infringement of both
the individual's free will and his/her right to express Self within
the Manifest Creation. Conversely, letting the "greater cosmic play
unwind as it will" implies passivity and repression of our right to
create our reality as WE choose. Personally, I would prefer to see
us co-create a Community of Love and simply allow the energies
generated by our Community to flow into and en-lighten the
collective consciousness of the World. The expansive power of such
Love eventually WILL fill the world to every corner and create a New
Age for humanity. Aggression, terrorism, exploitation and all such
fear-based expressions of Life simply will fade away in the Light of
that Love. If we truly Accept and Love Achmed, and he accepts our
gift, why would he feel a need to bomb us?

pi: BRAVO! Let's just do the right thing, eh!?
in Love & Peace, pi

[Strider]

Donnell asked: If we knew that Achmed somewhere over there in Palestine,
was about to exercise his free will by packaging himself in few kilograms of C4
explosives to carry out what he views as holy righteous act to kill his enemies,
should we not first bomb him with our collective love and light, and thereby
remove his free will to carry out such an act? Would this not be a violation of
the law of free will?

pi wrote: By the aim of the love bombs, this gesture seems loaded with the
intention of protecting achmed's enemies from violence. Let's apply
the adage, "be careful what is asked for" to this situation. If love
energy only aims to douse acts of Palestinian insurrection, it will
in effect help achmed's enemies, who are in no way devout messengers
of the Law of One. :) So why not consider achmed's plight with his
enemies & try to help him by "bomb his enemies with love and light"?

Strider here: Amen Brother Pi! Perhaps, then, both Achmed AND his long-hated
enemies would recognize that the old "us vs them" thing is a self-created
second-density illusion; that only One Self truly exists (ALL OF US, just one
"family" of humanity and all Life); and no longer feel a compulsion to throw
bombs at each other! Love is impartial. Love accepts ALL THAT IS. If we are
going to accept and love Achmed, we also need to love and accept Achmed's
enemies. By all means, send BOTH of them some "love bombs!"

Peace/Love/Oneness
Strider


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2ÃÂà ƒÂƒÃ‚‚‚ÂàƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jon Taylor]

Morning,

Re: and thereby remove his free will to carry out such an act?

I don't know if it is possible to control anybody even if you wanted to.
There is this property of the universe that tends to make your experience of
it congurent with your beleifs. People see what they want to.



Jon

[Ron Erickson]

donnellholness: "If we had the capabilities or power (via the agency of a mental
collective - mentanet) to reduce such extreme negative impulse within
individuals, large groups or even nations, and to inspire more positive benign
feelings, should we do so?"

Ron: Let's not forget that we already have mental collectives - in the form of
"culture".

donnellholness: "As I look back at the history of Jamaica, my land of birth in
this incarnation, we Jamaicans are the by-products of horrendous crimes against
humanity. Yet I am not sure that I would choose to be anything else than what I
am today. If someone at that time, had the power to stop slavery cold in its
tracks before it began, from my current perspective now, I would perhaps
discourage this person from taking action. Who and what I am now, what I stand
for, my passions and aspirations are all somehow linked with this terrible past
of slavery."

Ron: Indeed! Considering this horrendous past endured by Jamaicans and also by
American slaves, you would think that they would have learned from this horrible
experience - but I understand that much of the Carrabean, including Jamaica, is
extremely misogynist and homophobic. Where I live, in Toronto, I occasionally
see men holding hands in the market near where I live - which is actually part
of (quite hetero) Chinatown, but if men were to do this in Jamaica they might be
beaten to death - and police probably wouldn't even take a report. In fact, it
might be considered as justified and reasonable punishment by many.

donnellholness: "So how do resolve the free will question in this case. If we
had the power to intervene, should we do so? Or should we let the greater cosmic
play unwind as it will?"

Ron: One man's freedom is another man's slavery, just as one man's angel is
another man's devil. Few people ever see themselves as wrong, misguided or
narrow-minded. Fundamentalists of every stripe and persuasion believe that they
are freeing others to see "the truth" - which is, in fact, merely "their
narrow-minded truth" - and what often ends up happening is war and oppression.
I heard a news story about southern fundamentalist Christians who want to attack
Canada because we legalized gay marriage. I have found that even followers of
various New Age beliefs get caught up in specific ideas that eventually limit
their ability to continue learning. What is needed today is not so much
"knowledge" (although knowledge is important), but "intelligence" - that is, the
ability to acquire new knowlegde on a continuous basis. If all we can ever
perceive is filtered through what we already know / believe to be true, then we
are "stuck in neutral". We all have some mental "skeletons in the closet", but
we need to learn to experience the present - to see the world beyond the
reflection of our local memories - including our life experience and culture.
Unless we can learn to get beyond narrow-minded religion, narrow-minded science,
racism, sexism, mysogeny, homophobia, ageism, etc, I really cannot imagine how
spiritual ascension is even possible.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Neil Haddon]

Jon wrote:
"I don't know if it is possible to control anybody even if you wanted to."

Unfortunately, Jon, this thing has been going on for many many centuries. We are
All educated, indoctrinated, manipulated to accept control as 'natural'.

Today we might blame this government, that government, Bush, Blair, Hu Jintao,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ehud Olmert , or Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan. We might
point to Big Pharma, or the Oil Cartel, or the myriad secret societies. But,
Jon, this secret agenda for mastery has been going on, probably since 3D souls
first appeared upon this planet.

The brain-washed, bought-and-paid-for media and entertainment industry bombard
us daily with misinformation to maintain the illusion that this control is 'how
it should be'. In so doing we are tricked into surrendering our connection to
our true - and higher - self. We yield our link to Universal Mind, and
effectively accept a cocoon of 'normality', even to the point of policing this
(controlled) 'normality' ourselves. It's called 'peer pressure' or 'being a team
player'. Most people would far sooner go against their natural inclinations
(intuition/instreaming inspiration) to be judged 'normal' or 'acceptable' by
their partners, families, friends, and colleagues, than follow their heart and
be thought to be 'weird', 'way out' or just plain nuts: in fact, today, in the
Bush-Blair axis, such behaviour will soon be considered sub-versive terrorist
activity (- which is actually where they want to get us!)

We have to re-open the connection, we have to reclaim our selves, our birthright
to be 'free' - free to choose for ourselves, free to know that 'it' is possible,
and go do 'it', just because our hearts decoded the communication from on high.
We must re-open our hearts to the Love and Inspiration that has been streaming
into Mother Earth since time began. But...
First we have to make the choice, the conscious choice to no longer be isolated,
separated from our-(other)selves by the cocoon/comfort zone we have been
co-erced/seduced into wrapping around ourselves so that we can voluntarily be
manipulated.

And that's the difficult part. The answer? Courage.

Love.
Neil

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jon Taylor]

Hey Niel

I agree. For these reasons I think it is a great thing when someone takes
responsibility for their life and actions despite the forces against them.
The fantastic part is that they can do it as soon as they understand that
they can.

Do you think that submitting to peer pressure or group opinion is a decision
of free will? I don't mean to contradict you in any way (because I agree)
only to pursue this thought. The existance of someone telling you that you
don't have choices, control or free will illustrating the fact that you do?

Jon

On 5/2/06, Neil Haddon <wayshower@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=MNSo8a4Icuqy2K7PqHfkp7jhiU6Frki3cPfTSg s4gDKGfXEPbYyz8t1lJw-u37ypJG7-SB5oO0NKmvM)> wrote:
>
> Jon wrote:
> "I don't know if it is possible to control anybody even if you wanted to."
>
> Unfortunately, Jon, this thing has been going on for many many centuries.
> We are All educated, indoctrinated, manipulated to accept control as
> 'natural'.
> But...
> First we have to make the choice, the conscious choice to no longer be
> isolated, separated from our-(other)selves by the cocoon/comfort zone we
> have been co-erced/seduced into wrapping around ourselves so that we can
> voluntarily be manipulated.
>
> And that's the difficult part. The answer? Courage.
>
> Love.
> Neil

[Jon Taylor]

Neil

OOPS!

Sorry I spelled your name wrong. I have a friend named Niel.


Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Neil Haddon]

Hi! Jon,
"Do you think that submitting to peer pressure or group opinion is a decision
of free will? I don't mean to contradict you in any way (because I agree)
only to pursue this thought. The existance of someone telling you that you
don't have choices, control or free will illustrating the fact that you do?"

I think the thing is, that the vast majority don't realise that is what they
have done. Technically it is a choice, although you could argue it is choosing
not to choose.
And the manipulators don't tell them they don't have choices, they achieve the
same end by far more subtle means. By creating a culture of 'acceptable norms',
it is very easy to get us to police ourselves: we (the peers) exert the
pressure on anyone who is behaving "ab-normally".
Thing is, he who creates the 'norm' rules the world!

Love.
Neil

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jon Taylor]

Hey Neil
Re: choosing not to choose

Interesting, My prospective recently has been how can I better understand
reality more accurately rather than how can I help others.

Someone I respect a great deal for personal development advice is Steve
Pavlina (http://www.stevepavlina.com/). He might suggest that to help people
in this situation you shock them by saying something that is constructive
but maybe socially unacceptable. Most people, including myself, are usually
complicit to save feelings when we could say something.

This goes back to the original thread, is intervention/interaction
desirable/acceptable. I think so. And if that turns out to be wrong then I
will know for sure:)


(snappy quote pending) but I enjoy your conversation.
Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[infinitelybanta]

Jon wrote:

> Someone I respect a great deal for personal development advice is >Steve
> Pavlina (http://www.stevepavlina.com/). He might suggest that to
help >people
> in this situation you shock them by saying something that is
>constructive
> but maybe socially unacceptable. Most people, including myself, are
>usually
> complicit to save feelings when we could say something.

This is a topic that I go back and forth on with myself a lot. It
seems as though, in a lot of cases, regardless of what you tell a
person, they will go to great lengths to justify their own mindset,
often times lashing out with personal attacks against the one
challenging them, instead of taking the argument on its own merits. It
can be wondered from that point whether or not you actually made any
progress in enlightening the individual (that split-second in which
they are challenged being worth it) or whether they simply repress
everything that you say because to face a larger and more complex
world would be incredibly damaging to them.

As to whether or not societal trends actually control a person
completely to a point where they can't see that they've made a choice
to "sleep" is a point that could be argued over and over again. I tend
to believe that a lot of people do realize on some level that "playing
the game",so to speak, is making a choice and even if that choice is
subconscious, could it not also the freewill of the person to, at some
point in their lives, decide to ignore the reasons why they might get
angry when challenged (meaning, ignoring their subconscious)?

Even if you were to look at it as in their current incarnation that a
person does not have the capacity of self-awareness to realize the
finer points of why they behave in certain ways, I would tend to think
that it's a part of their spiritual evolution to learn such things on
their own (I mean this in the sense that sometimes those who wish to
serve others, also wish to learn FOR others). So to bluntly shock
someone to try to get them to learn might very well be infringing upon
their freewill.

Of course, all of this is very much situational. As I'm starting to
understand, setting a guideline towards dealing with any situation
isn't the proper course of action. There very well might be
circumstances where knocking a person off their current path of
thinking could be the best way to serve them. But if a person reacts
so poorly to such an "intervention", it's possible that all that
you're accomplishing is making things harder on yourself.

I don't mean to imply that any of this was what you were getting at
either, Jon. This topic though inspired many thoughts which I can't
always relate to even myself, so I figured it best to share them with
others.

With love,
Terry

[bluephoenix010]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=11cvuU6-iPYIomd9ZXhQSbHF2UTPBLFraor7cTAiV082eEMG0gSN68sngB muUojmOr-_k47oxdAtej5KOA), "Jon Taylor" <jondtaylor@...> wrote:

> This goes back to the original thread, is intervention/interaction
> desirable/acceptable. I think so. And if that turns out to be wrong
then I
> will know for sure:)

Yeah, I get that, some lessons are good to simply learn in the big
wide world, trial and error. For instance, knowing that anything is
possible is more satisfying when you are performing miracles and
breaking your limits.

Since we are all one and we are all connected then it is notable the
same amount of love directed at ANY part of the one being will
achieve the same amount of good somewhere down the line.

I've been looking in to the good parts of the negative forces
recently, well, not deliberately, I've been lead.

And I ask you, would you ever write a story which didn't have a
negative aspect in it somewhere. Of course not, it would be dead
boring. If some lunatic wants to blow up a bunch of stuff, what would
he be to blow up. Some people who had decided subconsciously that
they wanted to pop off anyway? You could remove the guy and those
people might just get into a car wreck. The negative event of a
terrorist attack could force a few more thousand people to awaken
(polarise?), and the attack could blow up the next Hitler/ Resputin.
If this was destined to happen by the higher selves of all involved,
then your love (love can be used for any purpose) could provide him
with extra physical vitality for himself. Or simply be blocked out by
higher forces.

Actually, that last paragraphs a pretty lousy reason for wanting the
C4 thing, but perhaps you catch my drift. The best you can do is try
and remove the need for catalyst.

I think trying to mess with someone's free will for ANY REASON, is
inherently bad, because you are using your power to over ride free
will for your OWN GAIN, however subtle, and will probably encourage
the actions of those who are trying to over ride free will for their
OWN GAIN, which could be far worse.

But then technically, are we not doing this ANYWAY, with every
thought we think, we influence something, and we think about people a
lot. This is where it gets confusing.

I regretfully add, that in the real situation, if something similar
happened in REAL LIFE, I don't know what principles I would stick to.
For instance, what if a pharmaceutical company or goverment tested a
range of new torture drugs on a random sample of 1000 civilians, and
a loved one of yours was chosen. Hmmm...

(Shiver...)

Namaste,

[Jon Taylor]

Hey

I find it interesting that these posts are so thoughtful.

Something that caught my interest is this idea that deliberate actions can
affect the free will of others. "So to bluntly shock someone to try to get
them to learn might very well be infringing upon
their freewill.", "using your power to over ride free will for your OWN
GAIN".

A word that comes to mind to describe this is "selfishness". I used to think
the word was dangerous. How can you do something selflessly if it is
motivated by good feelings for your self? selfish?

Where does that conflict originate? From a belief that selfishness actually
exists outside of thought perhaps.

If you believe that you can affect the free will of others there is a blurry
line between where that free will operates and is overridden by the
environment and others. So free will requires the knowledge that you have it
to actually work?

I am just exploring ideas not saying that you can or can't affect free will.


Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[ethral3]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=JUorzS39-eumBwI6yAhRdVTeAP6SCMm6ZWoUEbar8l0_dq4hu0jf3DIklc2 OB4a9E2VGQp8hG8v-yro), "Jon Taylor" <jondtaylor@...> wrote:
> If you believe that you can affect the free will of others there
is a blurry line between where that free will operates and is overridden by the
environment and others. So free will requires the knowledge that you have it to
actually work?>
> I am just exploring ideas not saying that you can or can't affect
free will. Jon


Can free will be over riden? I mean beyond tieing someone to a
chair. Physicaly imprisoning them. Can you force an idea on
someone? They have a choice to accept an idea or not. Often times
when you present an idea to someone and it dosn't appear that they
accept it right away. Their subconcious heard it, they as soul
heard it, and maybe it will grow.....like a seed. Dormant untill the
right environment triggers it. Maybe a syncronosity, or few of
them......soul knocks at the closed door and says "You hoo! I want
to know more about that!"........lol

Is it sefish to with hold information for fear of hurting someone?
Can information that is honestly given with good intention actually
damage someone or infringe on them? If your going to be a hound and
keep battering someone then maybe that's not a good idea. But an
idea respectfully given, is just looked at or not looked
at......simple as that! If minds could be bent or damaged that
easily then things would be very different....lol!