My response to the 'label' (whether it was placed on me or not) was intended to forestall what I have seen happen (and has happened to me) far too often. That is, where a set of beliefs has been grouped under a name (usually because the one after whom the belief(s) is/are named was the first one to popularize it/them) and someone well versed in different -isms recognizes the similarities. The name is dropped (not necessarily on someone's head) and assumptions are made which lead to uncivility and often outright disturbance. So while I apologize for any unmerited assumptions on my part, I want to be clear why I posted what I did.<br><br> As for the devil's advocate remark, I didn't want the focus to be what I believe, but simply wanted to hear what someone else believed about experience. It appeared to me that assumptions were being made in the post that were not even recognized. While I largely agreed with the post, I found it kind of odd that many of the conclusions were vastly different than my own. And when someone asks a question on this type of forum, it has been my experience that the responder usually gets very defensive and what ends up being the response is less of a response than a defense (if you understand my meaning). I must say that I am (pleasantly) surprised and pleased with your careful approach to things. I apologize for my disingenous first post. It is my hope that we can continue in civil debate and discussion.
