Intuition

Give it time, it's early yet. In the beginning even pie style wasn't as hateable as toward the end.

I get sucked into this show every year even though I know it's not for real in any sense of the word. I like whoever called it "my frivolous summer show". Yeah, that just about nails it. I spend the first several weeks trying to pick out the plants and ringers. They're not even attempting to hide the contestants that resemble past contestants to the point that we can start listing them in tables, LOL. Like there's always the ditzy, crazy blonde (in this case pageant girl), and somewhat weird, offbeat nutritionist, who upon using the word "healthy" gets the shriveled nose from LBH, and is soon shown the door. PREDICTABLE....And yet, I suppose by now it's almost like tradition to me, and the show wouldn't be the same without it. Cowboy dude is this year's pork pie hat guy. Loud, annoying, fake, and probably going to stay around until the bitter end before he's sent packing. And Luca, well, he's a new one - a take on Fabio from "Top Chef" or the Luca from "MasterChef". I wish he really was the latter, because that Luca was quite nice and would do well with a show of his own, IMO. Oh yeah, and I knew it wasn't just me - I remembered that other Cuban guy who lost weight from a former season. Let's see how this one doesn't talk about losing weight enough and gets sent home for that. And also the African American woman who comes off as "too rehearsed and controlled" and then gets sent home for that. That's another repeat from past seasons. Why not have more contestants who have a real chance of winning? I already know which ones don't and why because it's just so much same old same old. Oh well, like I say, it's almost tradition by now. Can't take it seriously. BTW, I like Loreal and I'm even going to make a very early prediction about her. She's not a fake or a plant and might have a real chance of making it to the finale.

Yes, and my point is that perhaps in the future technology will also help us find the spiritual dimension, because up until this point any evidence of it has been denied and downplayed by more materialist scientists. I already feel like the theoretical physicists are touching on metaphysics within their own frame of reference. Which is great. They are tackling the big questions of Philosophy in the process and are more open to other dimensions and things that we aren't able to experience right now. I wish that more people knew about those philosophical concepts because it would make everyone much clearer and more consistent in their own beliefs about reality. The truth is not everyone believes the same thing about what constitutes reality despite what might seem obvious, and so I feel that those questions are very important to tackle. You have to know what your basic metaphysics is in order to better learn about the Cosmos, IMO, because it colors everything you see in a certain way. You have to know your basic viewpoint if only because you want to be consistent and correct yourself in light of what you may later come to see as logical or methaphysical fallacies. The point I'm making is that we all start out with basic assumptions about reality "a priori", and if we don't know what they are, we might be likely to have a less consistent or more erroneously biased view of reality. Science alone will not rescue us from our biases because it is not a belief system. Our worldview doesn't only begin and end with facts and artifacts that science educates us about, but those very things are colored by our beliefs about them before we even consider them, and science alone cannot rescue us from that. Understanding the concepts of metaphysics can give us a starting point to analyzing our basic beliefs and deciding whether they help or hinder the study of the Cosmos (or all of reality). Again, science, not being anything but a method, can't do this. I think a lot of scientists have absorbed a kind of materialist philosophy that they feel is implied in the scientific method, and it seems obvious to them like it should be taken as a matter of fact. But that is a function of their own belief, not something that has been proven, nor is it a necessary conclusion from looking at the world through the eyes of scientific method. Anyway, thanks for finding my rantings to be fascinating and putting up with me, lol. It isn't often I can get into this stuff with anyone as I'm sure you all can appreciate.

Sure, you can study behavior and make predictions from it (which are still only predictions), but you are doing that only from the visible effects that come from emotions, not the emotions themselves. Materialists tend to want to reduce everything to what can be observed, but it is clear (at least to me) by inference that there is something that these expressions of emotion are coming from that goes beyond behavior and thus beyond observation. We discuss "the mind" but has anyone ever actually observed a mind? No, only the visible effects of one. But materialist scientists will conclude that because they are unable to observe anything but behavior, chemicals, brain waves and tissue, that these things are all the mind is, not an entity that exists in and of itself.

The problem is that scientists have biases like anyone else. They choose to study certain things and not study others. They choose to give more weight to certain results than others to lend credence to their opinions and biases. There is no way they can be 100% perfectly impartial and unbiased, and their discoveries are going to be affected by that. Also, I believe the scientific method is wonderful for studying the physical world but is hampered by human limitations in discovering the world that is unavailable or only partially available to our senses. This has contributed to many scientist's materialist bias - Which is the belief that if something is unobservable and therefore not testable, it doesn't exist. Of course, human emotions are behaviors that we can observe and can be tested scientifically, but in my opinion they are reduced to less than they really are in the process because the scientific method really only accounts for part of what they are - Their effects, which are the part that is observable. But can they really be reducible to just effects? What about their cause? So in my opinion, this is one reason why Psychology is a "soft science" - Because humans are unpredictable and fickle and not so easily pinned down by scientific study. Perhaps like Bible thumpers, they are not anywhere near in the majority, but they are certainly similar in being very vocal, except in their case in their condemnation of anything that isn't "tested and verified" by science. Suppose there are aspects of reality that science can't access (or is presently unable to access given the limitations of our senses)? I wonder why scientists are generally more than happy to accept that dark matter must exist, but has anyone more than inferred the existence of it from other evidence? I have inferred that the human mind is not completely reducible to chemical reactions in the brain or observable behaviors based on evidence I have seen that leads me to believe it is more, but is it any less respectable to infer that there may be more to the mind than science (or human senses) can observe than to infer the existence of dark matter? I sometimes think that the biases of materialist sciences conveniently overlook or attempt to discredit any evidence or logical inference from the evidence that doesn't confirm their materialist biases about the mind. What I said above is making me have an interesting thought. Science would be able to help us have a fuller picture of everything if human beings weren't so limited by their senses. We have more reason today to believe that our senses are inadequate to observe all of reality than ever before, given dark matter, theories about the multiverse, etc., and yet staunch materialists seem to me be on the rise or at least more vocal than ever. Another thought is that subjective experience is a part of reality that more materialist scientists can tend to want to either deny or discredit as a part of reality (by calling it fantasy, etc.), but the existentialists were at least right that it exists and is something important to consider. It is yet another part of reality that scientific method is unable to adequately study given human limitations. Reality is not just what is observed but includes the observer as well, but science so far has not been so great at taking into account or including the observer while it is studying things or people.

Any method of study is based on certain assumptions and beliefs about metaphysics and epistemology, and scientific method is no exception. I don't have time to write a lot about this today but here is a page that gives a very basic synopsis of those assumptions: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions Very basically, you have to believe that reality is inherently knowable and that the scientific method is capable of helping us to learn about that reality. You can't believe in solipsism if you believe in scientific method. You have to believe in a "reality" that exists outside of yourself if you are to believe science teaches you about something real that is outside of yourself. You also have to believe in causality, but it's also what you believe about causality that you assume with scientific method. The thing is, the method itself doesn't prove its own validity. The results it produces seem consistent and rational and verifiable, but in the end it's because they seem consistent with a method that we believe verifies them. The problem where I see it, is that the scientific method is only as good as our ability to use it. Fallible, biased, imperfect human beings have to decide what to study and decide which observations deserve being followed up on with further study in the first place, which leaves lots of room for oversight and error. There is a lot of human involvement in science that is not scientific at all, but based on subjective intuition and logic such as when forming hypotheses and conclusions based on data, which can interpret the data incorrectly. Also, as I have said, some things about reality defy being studied and explained by science, such as subjective human emotions. The problem is the scientific method may not be entirely adequate to study the non-physical aspects of reality. If it is used to study those things, it often only gives a partial story. There is always something left out. At best, it can give a prediction of human behavior with a healthy margain of error. This is why I can't be on board with scientists that wave around the scientific method like with it they can't fail and will someday know everything. We can fail. Theories are constantly being re-written. Facts are constantly being re-interpreted. Mathematical formulas recalculated. There is a lot going on here on a continual basis that is actually not really a part of science or scientific method, but involves the subjective minds (and personal judgment) of the scientists. The scientific method does not absolve scientists from having to use those subjective faculties when applying that method. Only these days many scientists seem to forget that they are not above being human, and that just because they have scientific method doesn't mean they have the understanding of reality in their back pockets. It's just as bad as the religious people who hold up the bible and act like it was "written by God" and as long as you follow it, you can do no wrong. But even if that were true, there are lots of ways to interpret the bible and there's the rub - A fallible, subjective, biased human being has to interpret it and there are many, many ways to do that, and they can't all be right. Only the fundamentalists think they have the one true way to interpret it. Scientists can be the same. They can think that they are above being fallible about how to interpret what science tells us because they think the method guards them against that and therefore they are always correct. Ummm.....Sorry, but I don't think so.

While it's true that the scientific discoveries as facts are not beliefs or part of a belief system, but the scientific method itself rests on a belief system, and many scientists themselves have recognized this. Some don't but I think they're mistaken philosophically. I don't have time to post why now, but perhaps later.

I totally agree with Samuel. This was the first episode I felt handled the political, religious or environmental issues without using a sledgehammer. It even got by my climate change denier friend without causing him to throw anything at the TV. The one thing that does irk me is that it's always some "evil" institution that's blocking the way of true science, which prevails and saves humanity from some horrible fate. Whether it be the church, oil companies, other "evil" scientists, big business or government, they're always choosing to frame things in an adversarial way, like true science is always under attack by other greedy selfish institutions and people. I realize these specific situations are true, it's just the way they keep bringing up these things to discuss and framing them using cartoons and exaggerated comparisons to make it seem like science is the One True Way and others just want to crush it that irks me. Plus, I am sure there are other even greater developments in science that can be discussed that didn't involve a big institution that wants to crush it. I just think this show should be more about "Look what wonderful things science can tell us and how this can be used to help the world" rather than "Look at all the evil forces that threaten science from saving us".

I said last week in another place that I thought Rhonda was a bad actress. My BS meter was going off with this situation and I thought that maybe they already had the breast cancer scare before the TV show but were re-enacting it now to create a plot line. Now I don't know if they're re-enacting it, but I think it just could be because Rhonda is not comfortable with dramatizing things for the sake of show drama. She sometimes has this look on her face like she feels like she's lying. Didn't we even hear them mention "Lord Jesus Christ" in their prayer this week?

What is considered "fringe" and "right wing" here in the Northeast, Northwest and maybe California is what is "mainstream" in the Bible Belt, it's when you look at the entire world that it becomes "fringe". Although even American Baptist churches vary widely. Some are more like mainstream Protestant, while some are "evangelical", with the latter most often being identified with creationism and fundamentalism. In fact, the Southern Baptist church is a separate church from the American Baptist Association, and is governed separately. Southern Baptists believe in the Bible as supreme authority and are typically creationist, while regular Baptists may or may not hold those things, depending on their particular church, as their denomination is very loosely governed and churches are more independent in their thought from one another. A pew study found that 42% of American Christians are either Catholic or mainstream (mainline) Protestant (which usually comprises Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, Congregational, etc.), while 26% are evangelical Protestant. So most American Christians come from a tradition of more openness to science and questioning of the Bible as fact. Getting back to the show, I tend to agree with Neil Tyson that science needs to be popularized in America because it's amazing how much ignorance there is out there about science these days. Still, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Case in point (I went to HS with Neil, was in his Physics class) is my good female friend who also went to our school. She belonged to the astronomy club with Neil. She was born Jewish but got taken in by a fundie Christian church back in the 80s. She has since left that extreme church but joined another fundie church that was less fire and damnation and cult like. Needless to say, I tend not to discuss religion with her. Then last week we spoke on the phone about "Cosmos" and she told me she watched a few minutes of it but then decided it "wasn't for her". When I asked her what her beliefs were on creation, she told me she did not believe in evolution. I could not believe it. I did not disrespect her belief but in private I did not realize that she could be so blinded to the truth. And here we have a very intelligent woman who went to a HS of Science in New York no less, who was in the astronomy club with Neil Tyson not believing in evolution. So after that hit home with me I'm pretty much on board with what Neil is trying to do, at least in theory if not always in practice.

I watched that show on the Jefferson Bible on the Smithsonian channel. One more reason to like Jefferson (not that there aren't other reasons not to like him). Rhetorica, I was raised Episcopalian and I too was taught to question everything in the Bible. On top of that, I studied Theology at a Roman Catholic university, where I was taught theories of Bible interpretation that pretty much made it a morality lesson set in the guise of a historical narrative. What there is of any factual historical value is not really known for sure. Mainstream Christianity gets a bad rap from the fringe elements at the conservative end. It's too bad that a lot of people don't realize that and still tend to think the RC church is the same as it was in earlier centuries on these matters. Has anyone heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? He was a French paleontologist and geologist in the 20th century who also happened to be a Jesuit. He also took part in the discovery of Peking Man. Now his philosophy was quit difficult to figure out, but the gist of it is entirely evolution based. Of course, he did have a deep faith in God, but his philosophy is that of a scientist, and fascinating. I have adopted some of his ideas in my own thought. When I read theoretical physicists today I hear thoughts that I originally read in Teilhard, but I tend to doubt that they know who he was much less how much they converge with him. Here's a laugh - "Creationist Cosmos": http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa1a1c8fb7/creationist-cosmos

"Blooper" on this episode:

As many shows as I've ever watched on this subject, it was news to me that there are more atoms in my eye than all the stars in the universe. Billions and billions....OK, was just having a flashback! When Neil went to the first day on the "Cosmic calendar" and stood at the edge of time like it was a boundary, I thought, "He's at the edge of his dew drop". Heck forget drinking, this stuff would probably be much better with some weed...Reminds me of the pot smoking scene in "Animal House". "That means that our whole solar system could be one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be one tiny universe".

Kromm, I think I have to keep reminding myself that some of the show takes aim at historical religion and any present forms that stifle rational and scientific thought but perhaps not other forms that are more open minded. I can scarcely believe that article - I almost thought it was misprinted from "The Onion". Kate Mulgrew was duped along with the scientists who appear in the film - she said it on her Facebook page. That said, I couldn't fail to notice in this episode the mentioning of Democritus. He was pretty much the first scientific materialist. What it boils down to in terms of thought (as studying ancient philosophy often helps us do) is that materialists do not think of things in teleological terms, ascribing to them purpose or final cause but only of mechanistic cause in terms of natural laws. According to them, only living things could be said to have purpose or intention. Meanwhile Plato and others did not discount the final cause or purpose of natural events even if it had to be explained in terms of coming from outside the object. For materialists, attributing final cause or purpose to natural events is to treat it like a living thing. Well, interestingly, I've seen theoretical physicists now wonder whether the Cosmos is actually a living thing. If so, even if they are materialists they might be willing to conceive of it having a purpose if they see it as a living being. I've often thought this meshes well with some scientific materialists who embrace some form of Pantheism whereby the Cosmos itself is seen as divine.

To your first sentence, I think that's untrue, at least of a healthy religious belief, which does not have anything to do with stifling critical thinking or the questioning of everything. If I felt that my religion was forcing me to leave my mind at the door in order to embrace its beliefs, I'd leave it. Granted, historically organized religion has committed all these offenses but it doesn't have to be so and is not universally so. To your second sentence, I think it is possible to be "intellectually consistent" and believe in God without denying science in any way. It just would not be the same image of God as taught by certain mainstream religions, but still no less a God that one can believe in, unless one doesn't like believing in things one feels only with one's intuition and not their physical senses. I think it would have to be a God that doesn't fiddle with creation but allows it to work according to its own laws. It's entirely possible to take this rationale to the limit without denying science. One doesn't have to believe that there ever wasn't a cosmos or that the cosmos was created by God from nothing in time in one singular event. God could still be the existential ground of creation without having physically created it in the way a lot of religions believe. That's a tough thought to wrap one's mind around and it can involve seeing the cosmos as part of God or the cosmos as God evolving into the perfection religions usually ascribe to him. From the perspective of our finite point in time, it can look like there is no God because nothing's perfect from our point of view. But if the cosmos evolves into God eventually, or we decide that the cosmos is perfection as it is, it kind of is true for all time anyway, even if it isn't happening until the future from our perspective. There is a lot more to this line of thinking but I can't do it justice here so I think I'll leave it at that. You may all call me crazy now if you want. By the way, one thing I have realized from watching "Cosmos" is something I've known all along but never verbalized until now. And that's that I look at the Cosmos to tell me what to believe about God, not vice versa. As long as one takes that point of view I think they should be OK. It's when one has a preconceived idea that God should be this way or that way that they aren't open to seeing God the way the cosmos teaches us he must have to be. If science says there are no gaps in the scientific account, I have to take that seriously and not believe in miracles which violate the laws of the cosmos. But that doesn't also mean I have to stop believing in God, in my opinion. It just means that the God I will end up believing in will be nothing like the old tyrant with the white beard sitting on his throne that traditional Judeo-Christian religion taught. In fact, it will be a very different conception of God. But I've said enough.

Interesting, I didn't see it that way. I watched those two clips and I think he was taking the typical therapist's non-confrontational angle by framing everything in terms of how they feel while not standing in judgment of it. He said stuff like "Well, if you feel like you're being bullied, then is your "fight" response really the best way of dealing with them?" Or telling them to disconnect their phone if they don't want to get harassing callers. Also, he did call them out on some stuff, such as telling them that the diners in the fight footage were "no actors" as Amy and Samy kept alleging. They kept saying they were paid actors by the show or not "real" customers but "Bullies" who came from Yelp. I thought Dr. Phil was holding back his real opinion in that episode to avoid a fight and because he hoped to possibly get through to them. When they're told they're wrong directly and start fighting it, they're not listening to anyone and game over. I think he knows he's never going to get them to realize everything about themselves, but at least if he can help them learn that they're defeating even their own purposes by their behavior, it might improve things for them (and quite possibly the world too!).

OMG, what a snoozefest! I am finding the comments here FAR more entertaining! Markysnark, I thought the same thing about Brady's "gender equality" comment. He doesn't treat his own wives as his equals but he wants that for his daughters? I don't think he even knows what equal means. Even in this episode he decided to blow off Rosemary because HE wanted to be there when his daughter with Paulie came home. Oh, I suppose Rosemary should just know her place and not complain, because it's all about what the man wants, obviously, not the women. I suppose Brady's version of "equality" still gives him the prerogative to just blow off wives on their designated nights with him whether they like it or not....The mind boggles on how he doesn't see anything incongruent with what he says vs. what he does. If he thinks he's "progressive", I'd hate to see what he would think is NOT progressive! I think I have actually seen Kody Brown make more of an effort to be fair with the wives and let them work things out on their own, not that this ever leads to anything less than conflict and unhappiness, but at least he appers to make a weak attempt to walk the walk....or at least make it look like he's doing so. If the wives have unequal shares of the pie in the Brown family it's usually after they've fought to the finish over it amongst themselves, not from outright being given it by the husband. Thank you for the "flaming Brady narcissist asshat" descriptor. I am so relieved I'm not alone in thinking it fits him well. And I totally agree about the Buddhist stuff being bullshit. Unless Brady thinks he can practice "cafeteria style" religion, lol. Like, "Well, we're Buddhists, but we still celebrate Christmas and pray to Jesus"......Yah right, what a total jerk off he is.

I am not going to respond to individual comments, but suffice it to say that I accept science in its entirety with absolutely no gaps in the scientific account, AND I believe in God. And I have several decades of scholarship in this area to know how to achieve that without inconsistency. And even so, I still think the show is lumping different religions and religious people together without making enough distinction as to whom it is targeting with it's anti-mind control propaganda. I don't get why the show has to keep driving a point home that has been made over and over about freedom of thought without being very careful not to insinuate that everyone who follows religion is being brainwashed and mind controlled. My mainstream Protestant denomination teaches freedom of thought. Even modern day Roman Catholicism teaches that. I would think Neil and his producers would know better than to foster an us vs. them mentality between science and scientists in general and religion and religious people in general, but I'm sorry to say that it looks like that to me and several people I know who also accept science but believe in God and are members of modern day mainstream Christian churches, all of whom leave it up to the individual to decide whether they accept science and evolution. In my opinion the show has not just been presenting facts, but slanting the facts and putting spin on them the way that political commentators sensationalize the facts of news to the point where the truth is distorted and it's all about pushing one's particular political agenda. I just think I might have been right in the first place that those who agree with the slant this show is pushing think it's a presentation of facts when I think it's facts plus spin. I also don't see how this show is encouraging any kind of common ground between science and religion or at least a recognition of how they can peacefully co-exist. I think that on the contrary the show is only fanning the flames. The show may not owe it to religion to show a more balanced perspective, but I do think it owes it to the truth. Modern mainline Christianity has not set itself up in any way shape or form in opposition to science. Only fundamentalist Christians have. To drive home points about religion and religious people in general without being very careful to make clear that you're not lumping everyone together is not doing either the truth or any kind of peaceful coexistence any justice IMHO. And rather than repeat myself again and again, this will be all I have to say on this particular subject!

It's not the bringing up of it, it's how I think they take a sledgehammer in every episode and make all sorts of what I see as implications about religion in general as opposed to scientists in general. It's the ideology I see them as pushing. They could tell the story without pushing that ideology. OK, make your point once, but the next time, just tell the story without the ideology. I find it's hard to come away with any balanced perspective on religion from this show. It seems to want to promote that it is nothing but the enemy of all that free thinking, fair, egalitarian, forward thinking people, whether scientists or not, should hold dear. Then again, I am firmly convinced that this is an either "you see it or you don't" kind of thing. The religious people I know generally see it, the non-religious don't have a clue what we're on about. That's OK, YMMV, I have no need to argue about it. Then again, if I were to make a series about the history of religious faith, and I kept slamming the point home in every episode about how in the modern era materialistic scientists and philosophers all but abandoned any belief in the spiritual and reduced every ideal concept like goodness, love, justice and freedom to nothing but subjective human fantasies, which they claim are not verifiable therefore not valid like scientific concepts, and whose materialistic philosophy of science reduces all that is good, noble and moral to all but nonexistent in favor of atoms and the void, thus devaluing all that is ethical and moral, and if I encouraged people to think freely so as not to allow their minds to be influenced by reductionist materialist thinking, I think a few scientists and perhaps a good chunk of the modern intellectual public would get their panties in a wad over it. Meanwhile it may be just as valid to have to talk about materialist scientific philosophy with regard to the issue of religion in the modern day, just perhaps without the slanted ideological sledgehammer in every episode. Note that I only bring this up by way of analogy to what I see as being done in this show from an opposite angle lest anyone think this is what I would actually do!

I'm probably in the minority with this, but what's bugging me about this iteration of "Cosmos" is all the subtle propaganda against religion, or at least against organized religion that supposedly squelches free inquiry and engages in legalism and mind control, etc. OK, I get it, some religions have done this in the past and even today, but why do we have to be hit over the head with it in every single episode? I'm beginning to think that their aim here is to make kids think all organized religion does that, but science does not. There has not been much positive in this about organized religion save for focusing on religious people who weren't afraid to question their particular organized religions in the name of science. The subtle message here is to rebel against religion and embrace science, like they're pitting the two against each other. They're not making enough of a distinction between religions that do and don't encourage a person to think for themselves. I feel like the attitude is that only science can free us from religious mind control and that only organized religion can be guilty of that. Like what is the implication here, that being a scientist makes one above being human and having opinions while religion does not? I am getting that impression from the way this is being framed in just about every episode so far. I personally find that attitude arrogant as well as untrue. In my experience scientists can be just as biased, legalistic and "fundamentalist" about science as any organized religion can be about its doctrines and beliefs. Plus, my particular organized religion does not in my opinion engage in the offenses they keep presenting, but even so I still feel somewhat offended by the general attitude toward religion as put forth in this show.

You're not kidding! Mortification factor 10. The more I see of her, the more pathetic, whiny and needy Pauli starts to look. I thought it was telling that the women wouldn't necessarily want their kids becoming plygs because of how hard it is to do without difficulties. This begs the question of whether they would do it again if they had the chance. Regardless of how they answered the question, I think the real answer would be no. Brady just looks tired and distracted all the time. Even when the wives have time with him he never seems completely invested in it. He actually seemed more invested in spending time with his eldest son. I found it telling that one of their daughters said she was "too selfish" to share her man with other women. Sad that a woman has to think that means she's "selfish". I kind of think of it in reverse, that I am "not masochistic enough" to share my man with other women, LOL.

LOL, that's funny, I think he looks that way all the time!

Hi, another TWOP-er here. How bad could it be living where they are if they left the church 10 years ago and still haven't moved? I think it's just something Brady wants to do now that they have the TLC money. Not that I like to find reasons to defend his creepy ass, but I can understand him wanting to be closer to his family for a change. I am assuming that at least some of the wives are closer to their families in Utah. And his dad is a hoot! I was LOL because he reminded me of some of the wondefully kooky people I've met out West. Being an Northeasterner, I guess I find him refreshing. Of course, in small doses.