Messages

[likely]

I guess that's the major difference then.  From looking at Frank's posts, it seems highly likely that "Frank Kepple" was his real name.

Perspective really does play games. 

You are right, just look at sports replays.  This was suppose to get rid of controversy however all it proved was that an object data stream (the camera video) will always be subjectively analysed by whoever watches it based on their perspectives.

He sounds amazingly nice and genuine in his interviews.  I will write a review if I check out his stuff.

I was just reading your comment Xanth and something clicked.  No experiences are really "out of body" because even if the data is not from this reality frame (as Campbell calls it) the experience is not the data, it is the interpretation of that data.  And the data is always interpreted inside your brain.  So it's not so much an out of body experience as it is a out of the reality frame data acquisition.  Makes sense why your mind brings so much subjectivity to it when this out of reality frame data acquisition is translated into within this reality frame experiences.

I came across a, seemingly to me, fairly unknown projection author named Graham Nicholls.  I was wondering if anyone has read his works or used his audio aids or just know anything about him.

At first when I came across his page it seemed a little over marketed and honestly threw up a few scam warning red flags in my mind.  The only reason I stayed around was because of a book endorsement by Thomas Campbell.  Basically saying a nice book with real information in a genre with a lot of crap (paraphrasing but you get the idea.)  I don't agree with everything Campbell says but I do think he is genuine and not out to just make money.  I also don't think he would endorse a book unless he really believed in it.  I don't recall seeing him endorse very many.

Nicholls audio aid is about 32.50 pounds (So what 60 bucks or so) which is expensive but it is based not off of binaural beats but neuro-linguistic programming and claims to be able to get people to the vibration stage extremely quickly.  It is called infra-liminal sounds.  He also has a course which is 125 pounds.  The price of his audio and course are largely what threw up red flags but he apparently works one on one a lot in his course to overcome whatever block the individual has and his sound has been in development since 1998.  Maybe total crap but maybe undiscovered gold, who knows.  Doubt I'm willing to spend 60 bucks to find out on the audio, and def not interested at this point in doing a beginners course.  I might pick up his book and see if it is any good though.  Let me know if any of have read it, called Navigating the Out of Body Experience.

@Mustardseed
     Thanks for sharing your experiences with Frank.  It is nice to hear from someone who had direct contact with him, there are not that many still around, 10+ years later.

@Xanth
     I do understand what you are saying but looking at Frank's posts it seems highly unlikely he gave his real name.  A lot of his posts are forever lost but he talked frequently about how he didn't share his obe experiences with even his wife for a long time.  He also talked about how AP was the first place he ever connected with other projectors.  He did give any sort of real email address.  Nothing about this suggests a personality which would just throw out a real name.  Throw in the lack of evidence anything close to a matching Frank Kepple and I think it is highly unlikely he used his real name.  Why he gave any name at all?  Who knows, maybe he felt by people having a name and not just some alias attached to his posts they would connect with him better.  Authors use fake names for any number of reasons.  Honestly if I wish to continue my search the next logic step is to get a hold of eol007 (Stephen) who took the picture and see about chatting with him about that meeting, since it is the only face to face meeting with Frank I know of.

My opinion on RB?  Well he wrote 2 books I know of about projection (AD, and Mastering) at the height of the AP revival and then has not really touched the subject since then.  Also he has 2 versions of that one real substance projection book (AD).  This tells me all I need to know about his motives for authoring in the astral projection genre.  Also most of his truly original ideas in AD are at least in part incorrect or poorly worded.  However if you are looking for a western translation of eastern energy body principles coupled with a very traditional eastern view on projection in an easy to understand language, he did do a great job with that.  He also does a great job describing a very accessible version of visualization.  However I seriously doubt his claim that he came up and developed that method on his own.  I am sure that method has been around for a very long time.  Sure he did develop a very intensive program for it's use (NEW) but the backbone of that program was not original or unique or of his creation.

So I guess in the end it really isn't the information (for the most part, like I said a couple things I think are just off (mind-split)) but the presentation of the information which bothers me.  By presentation of the information I mean claims on originality which probably are not accurate and the fact I think (solely my opinion) he only wrote about projection at all because it was the flavor of the month in "new age" topics back in the late 90's and early 00's.

So I was thinking and am just brainstorming here, I haven't used this or even created it yet, so I have no idea if it would work at all.  If anyone has tried something like this let me know, or at least let me know what you think of the idea.

I was thinking the other day about how smell is either the number one, or right up with number one, for senses most able to trigger memories.  You get stronger memories from smelling something than from almost any other sense.  Think the smell of grandma's home cookies.  So I was wondering if we could use that to trigger a distance phase.  I was thinking we could combine in it with audio in a method something like this.

Pick out a smell, for this example I am going to use oranges, though it would probably work better if it was a smell you already do not have associated with any memories.
Now find a picture of a Florida orange grove, and spend a few minutes each day smelling an orange and looking at the picture of the grove.
Next create a rundown in which you spend about 10 minutes (maybe roughly between minutes 15 to 25 or the rundown) in an orange grove.
Okay this is the tricky part.  We would need to come up with a way to trigger the smell at the 20 minute point.  Maybe a mister attached to a timer of some sort.  I would have to look into this.
Theory is with you already focused on the same orange grove you have conditioned to the smell or oranges, would this help to kickstart your phase?

Second part is with audio.  Gateway already uses conditioning of sounds to trigger different focus levels so this is just trying to use the same thing to trigger the phase.
Pick out a sound that is unique enough you can tie it to your orange grove scene but not so unique it will affect your meditation state.
Just like with the smell play the sound over and over for a few minutes will looking at your orange grove picture.
Create an audio track that is either nothing or maybe some binaural beats for 20 minutes.
At the 20 minute mark have the specific sound play.
Now you have a double trigger, smell and audio, both associated with where you are in your rundown, triggering at the same time.

Like I said I have no idea if it would work or if it has been tried.  I know audio association has been studied a lot in general with obe but am unsure of how audio cues work with Kepple's phasing method.  If anyone has any ideas for the time release on the smell, something like a perfume sprayer would probably be ideal for a delivery mechanism.

I suppose I see where the confusion arises because if you look at the Pulse forum description for Astral Consciousness it lists phasing alongside meditation and OBEs implying it's an alternative method rather than an umbrella term for them all

And I think it is just naturally confusing also.  It is easy to understand Frank's distance method is phasing.  It is common sense you are here, then there, you phased.  Most of the time with local phasing it doesn't intuitively feel like you went anywhere, or any phasing took place.  When you phase at (for lack of a better term) your current physical position, it is hard to naturally grasp the phasing part of that.  It doesn't stare you in the face like it does with Frank's method.  Just think how long Monroe took to figure this out.  I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure he hadn't figured it out yet in JOB, and he had over 10 years experience with obe at that point (going off memory here, haven't read JOB in a number of years).  Then compound all that with the fact we have separated phasing methods from traditional methods and yeah you have a pretty nice confusion cocktail.

@floriferous
I apologize I should of had something in the first post but I got caught up in the what causes being stuck part (which I never intended on having when I first started writing the post) and forgot to add a disclaimer.  I never meant to imply this was some wild new idea no one had thought of before.  I do agree with you phasing has become a little confusing I think on the internet in whole.  Frank Kepple's method is great but like I said I think calling it the phasing method has added confusion to the basic truth that Obe is phasing, end of story (even your regular old lift out obe).  I also agree with you about the day dreaming, I was just going for a little more powerful example with the half dream/lying in bed scenario but it is the same idea.  It is odd because there is so much out there on how everything is connected and the same but somehow there is a huge disconnect to the fact this applies to a regular old roll out obe projection.  I just wanted to help clarify that, if you go about your traditional obe projections as if they are different and don't involve phasing you will (at least in my view) have a much harder time and create unneeded barriers for yourself.

I will add a edit to the original post about previous work on this idea.

@Xanth
I look forward to reading your more detailed response tonight, and congrats on passing 10k posts.

Have you experienced being 'stuck' before?  I have quite a few times and it feels incredibly realistic. No, its not me attempting to phase while thinking that will happen or even allowing for the possibility.

Sometimes its the head that doesn't want to 'separate' usually its the legs or torso. A number of times its accompanied by rather severe pain in the stuck area, e.g Sciatic Pain down the butt and Hamstring, very painful sciatica I should say. Now I have never suffered from that in the physical reality so....??

I'll go on to say that I'm almost always able to separate in the end, it seems to require a deeper and more fuller 'state' of mind which I accomplish by temporarily stopping my separation technique while focusing on sinking sensations and/or vibrations. Then I tackle the separation again and ....Pop....I'm out

Oh and fear is definitely not causing that for me.

I did not say getting stuck was not real, I said you don't get stuck because you "haven't generated part of your astral body".  I also did not say it was always caused by fear, though it seems odd that you say you are experiencing intense crazy pain but fear is not an issue at all.  If I was experiencing intense pain all the time when I projected it would surely be a cause of fear and anxiety for me.

As Xanth often says it is all within you.  If you think you must have limbs after you project and that those limbs will get stuck then they will.  You are consciousness and once you are in NPMR you are consciousness without a body.  Any body you take with you is your own creation.

Lastly, yes the sensations associated with local phasing or obe projecting, are quite different and more intense than distance or traditional phasing.  This I talked about why I believe this is already in the original post (split focus, RB mind-split).

It seems to suggest there is such a thing as a non-phasing method.  This is not the case.  All methods are phasing, in fact the act of phasing is what makes an obe (or projection, or whatever you call it) an obe.  Therefore all methods work to achieve this phasing.  The only difference is where you phase to.  In "traditional" obe techniques such as rope, log roll, "goto door", floating upward, etc, etc, all you are doing is local phasing.  That is phasing somewhere "close" to your physical body.  With something like the Frank Kepple phasing method you are doing the exact same thing only distance phasing.  It is all the same. No matter your method you are using intent mixed with imagined sensations to switch (or phase) your focus from PMR to NPMR.

This I think is important for two reasons.  First reason is I read people talk about local and distance phasing like they are different experiences.  I have ran into several threads on if phasing even counts as an obe.  Of course it does, the phasing is what makes it an obe, you are just phasing somewhere (by phasing I mean changing the focus of your consciousness) probably not in local 1 (or RTZ, or whatever you want to call it).  Second point is often, especially new learners, treat traditional obe techniques like they are something other than phasing.  I read a funny post about an interview by Campbell where he states people often read Robert Monroe's Journeys and then go try to roll out of their bodies all night.  This will get you nowhere.  People think they need to learn some magic trick where they roll out of their body without moving or even being aware of their body.  Of course this isn't going to work.  You are simply thinking about having the focus of your consciousness roll out of your body, which (just like any phasing technique) causes your intent to be outside your body and leads to a phase.  Even if you are "in" or at the same location as your body when you project you are still phasing, as you are no longer in PMR, you must necessarily not be in the same place you were before phasing.

This leads me to something else.  Several authors write about "partial projections" or getting a limb stuck.  This is crap, you don't even have arms and legs in NPMR so the notion you can get stuck because you didn't fully create your astral arm is nonsense.  I believe there is two reasons this sensation happens.  First is the fear barrier, you see your body floating outside where it should and so your natural response is to hold on with anything you have left.  In other words you create the sensation of being stuck.  The second has to do with what RB (Astral Dynamics) calls the mind split.  Now I think the theory behind the mind split is either very poorly explained or just plain wrong, but the actual experience of it is real.  Xanth and Frank and many others I have read talk about how your focus is never fully in one place.  This is true, everyone has experienced it.  Just think of a time when you were half asleep and you were having a dream but at the same time you were also in your bed and aware of your body.  This is what I think sometimes happens when you do what I call local phasing projections.  The closer you are to your body the harder time your mind has with accepting the phase and you end up with a split focus, Eventually one wins out and either you are off to have an adventure or back in your body.  This I think this is much more likely than the complicated shadow memory multiple feedback mind-split RB talks about.

So to sum up my belief is all projections are a "phasing method" using the same tools (intent and sensations or perceived sensations) in order to cause a change in "where" your focus is.  Hopefully some will find this helpful.

EDIT:  This post is to help clarify how phasing relates to "traditional" or local obe projections.  I do believe the concept that all obe's are a form of phasing is the best current model we have for understanding obe, I however cannot take credit for coming up with the idea myself.  Many people (probably going back thousands of years) have thought of obe in this fashion.  The modern term phasing is thought to be coined by author and TMI founder Robert Monroe.

I would be less worried about what the "correct" label is for the experiences you are having and just focus on enjoying them.  If you disregard experiences because they don't fall into a certain predefined definition, you risk losing the opportunities for growth they contain.

I know the difference between an affirmation and a reality check.  I'm not even that far.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would a prerequisite to actually reach the preliminary goal of having an obe before trying to do the same with a specific trigger during the day.  It is a long term goal. 

As it is, I haven't been using reality checks yet, only affirmations.  I probably should put some thought into what my reality checks will be.  Generally speaking, though, I don't dream every night.  I dreamt last, though I couldn't remember beyond the fact that I was dreaming though.  It's a shame, I really liked that dream. 

I don't agree you need to stop just because you have done so many attempts in any set period of time.  If you are feeling overwhelmed by the experiences you are having or just feel like it is wearing on you, or you are feeling fatigued, then yes stop and take a break.  But don't stop just cause you think it is what you should do, at least that is my opinion.

As far as affirmations and reality checks go let me see if this analogy works.  Affirmations develop intent and desire.  It is you saying I want to do this, I am going to do this.  Much the same way a sports player tells themselves they are going to win over and over before a game.  The reality check is the tool with which you accomplish that intent.  If you wanted to play music you fist must develop the desire to learn to play (intent/affirmation).  You then need to pick a musical instrument, or a tool by which you will accomplish that desire (reality check).  You must have them both, the desire to do it, and a way or method in which to do it.  Either one without the other is not very useful.

So I would say yes, if you want to use lucid dreams as your springboard into the world of obe, then you need to do both an affirmation and reality checks each and every day from the start.

You should doubt it, we as humans have a very nasty habit of not doubting and just believing.  Science, history, pretty much anything anyone says we believe as long as we view them as an authority.  Now the truth of the matter, and philosophy has known this for thousands of years, is that nothing can be proved at all, ever.  Even something so basic as physical matter reality being real will never be proven.

In the end you need to evaluate your experiences and decide if it is real for you.  The books paint it as once you see yourself outside of your body you will instantly magical have all your doubts disappear in that one moment.  For some people maybe this is how it is, but probably not for most.  Most of us believe PMR is real because our vast experience in it and the consistency of those experiences.  Of course NPMR is going to also require vast experience before major doubts to it's authenticity can be removed.

I'm working on affirmations to go along with my goals, which to with is to project.  Ultimately, I'd like to be able to use an object to trigger it during the day.  I read about this in one of the guides I picked up.  They have a lucid experience whenever they eat.

But to start:
I am dreaming, and I recall my dreams with total clarity.
I am dreaming, and I know that I am dreaming.

Feel free to pick this apart.  When I achieve this goal, I'll work on a new set.

I could be reading this wrong but sounds like you are mixing an affirmation and a reality check a little.  If someone uses, say food as in your example, as their trigger they would not normally say an affirmation during that trigger.  An affirmation isn't the best way to trigger lucidity.  You would use a reality check.  So instead of saying I am dreaming, and I recall my ..., you would say am I dreaming?  

Personally I don't use 'am I dreaming?' in my reality checks but instead I ask myself is there any reason this might be a dream?  I then ask myself if I can remember how I got to where I am, I make sure I know my address, and then I look at my hands and see if they look odd at all.  My personal triggers are whenever I flip a light switch (I'm sure everyone I meet thinks I'm OCD as I usually hit them in triplets so on/off/on or off/on/off, get into a car, or hear the hour beep on my watch.  Getting a drink and going to the bathroom are probably two of the more popular ones, though I don't personally use them as triggers.

There is no such thing as a bad affirmation, whatever works for you.  If it was my affirmation though I might reword it a little, 'I am dreaming' is most likely just not a true statement, and if you are dreaming an affirmation probably won't be strong enough in my experience to get you lucid most of the time.  You will just say the affirmation and continue with the dream, that is why a reality check should be very engaging, you must force yourself to look at the world around you and really think about if you are in a dream or not.  Anyways a possible rewording might be

I become Lucid in all my dreams, and I recall my dreams with total clarity.  Something like that.  Or stick with what you have if you like it better.  I would separate my affirmation from my reality check though if you are not doing that already.

Hope you find something in here useful.

Even what Xanth just said was making it seem much less messy than it is.  It is not if the molecule moves right or left.  Think about a single electron, that electron can be anywhere in its cloud, and actually has a low probability of being outside it's cloud.  According to the many worlds there is a reality for every single location it possibly can be.  This is the same for all particles.  So for a single atom, at a single moment, the number of possible realities is beyond comprehension.  Now add in all the possible probabilities for all of matter and all of time.

Just a few observations based on my experiences,

1.  Eyes
 This happened to me a lot when first starting.  I am not sure why this happens but my best guess is simply your mind has a hard with the notion you are actually trying to stare at something with your eyes closed, so it is trying to help you out by opening them.  If you think about it prior to this you probably never had a time when you actually tried to stare at something with your eyes closed, as you practice and your brain gets  used to the idea they should stop opening, at least mine did.
EDIT:  Actually upon reflection of this I think it might be not that your mind gets use to the idea but more you tend to be a little too ambitious with your staring when you first start out.  So it is more of a looking and paying attention at the blackness, not staring in a strict sense, when you actually stare at something your eye muscles tense and this would cause your eyes to open slightly.  Yeah I think that is probably more accurate, it's not your mind getting used to you staring with your eyes closed as much as it is you learning to pay attention to your closed eyelids( the blackness in particular) without staring.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?

2.  Chakras
 Very much have to do with OBE but you may find many people call them energy centers instead, not wanting to bring along all the traditional eastern baggage the word chakra carries with it.  Most of my knowledge on energy centers came from Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce and reading through forum posts.

3.  Visualization
 For me visualization isn't visualization.  It is more about the sensation of the experience I am imagining and not the image.  This concept I first heard way back in A.D (Astral Dynamics) as well and it helped me greatly.  It seems some people get better at "true" visualization and some don't.  I focus on feeling the sensation of the touch, smell, sounds, etc and not as much on the traditional visualization part of the experience.  This is what has worked best for me.  Oh, when I say traditional visualization I mean actually seeing a picture of the image in your minds eye and not imagining the image.

 As far as the visualizations when you first wake up.  My guess would be it is because you are actually kind of dreaming and the images you are seeing are dream imagery.  Someone with more experience might be able to confirm or rebuke this statement, hard to say for sure with the information you gave.  All I can say is for me usually the early morning vivid images are see seem to be due to a partial REM overlap.

4.  Time Travel

 Not gonna touch this one, I have not decided exactly what I believe on this and there are many schools of thought.  I'm sure several others will give their views on the topic though.

 I hope you find some of that helpful.

I just thought of the brilliance of John Titor.  I haven't read all the actual posts so I don't know how he presented it but if he simply was telling what happened in his future, that doesn't mean he was predicting what would happen in ours.  By being covered under the many worlds argument it will never be possible to show he was a hoax.  Even if what he told us about his future doesn't happen, it simply is because we are not "his" future, this in no way could lead to the assumption he was not from a different 2036.  I don't know who he was or if it was hoax or real, however, putting that fail safe in against the future ever proving you were a hoax was brilliant.  Certainly he was very smart whoever he was.

John Titor's model makes it so that he is both correct and incorrect in his predictions.  Many worlds says everything that will happen, does in some reality.  Therefore any prediction that is made, as long as it is a possibly, will happen in some reality, even if it is not our own.  If this theory is correct anyone can tell the future because anything you say that is a possibility will be fulfilled in one reality or another.  The idea of predicting the future in a many worlds model really makes no sense.  There would be no way of knowing if that future was going to play out in this reality or not.

Xanth, I think what you just said ties directly into the other post on the double slit experiment as well and how it makes sense existence would be a probability wave until it is needed to be "rendered" into actual physical matter.  It appears to me, at least on this issue, you and I are coming at the same conclusion through similar logic though from completely different directions.

I did not mean to imply that the double slit was the only, or the best, research to support consciousness, only that it is the most widely known and the validity of the double slit experience is pretty much universally accepted in the scientific community.  I believe there is value in that.  The double slit has been around for over 50 years now and science has failed to come up with a (valid) explanation for it.

Also thanks for the reference I have not seen this before.

So all this talk about Titor and time travel made me think about something I came across a few years ago.  We often are at odds with proving consciousness from a scientific viewpoint but we do have one piece of ammunition.  It is the double slit experiment.  Now I had heard and read and watched in documentaries probably 10 or more explanations of the double slit experiment and it never made sense to me.  I always thought I just must not have a deep enough math and physics background required to understand it.  Until I came across this great youtube video from an amazing British physicist who explains it plainly.  Basically what the double slit experiment shows, or at least lends strong support to, is the notion that conscious observation and recording changes the way physical matter behaviors.  More than that, it actually changes reality from a probability wave into physical matter.  Einstein once said he preferred to think the moon was there whether he was looking at it or not.  This is probably not the case, in that if no one is looking at the moon it most likely only exists as a probability wave and not actual matter.  This opens the question of did the universe, time, and physical matter reality actually exist before consciousness.

Anyways I thought it might be nice if anyone wants to be able to back up their claim for consciousness with some scientific data.  Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

Well according to Titor the many worlds approach seems to be proven in his time period.  Although I am not a theoretical physicist I do enjoy the field as a hobby and based on Titor's paradox explanation it would make no sense for his government to send him back in time because he would simply be going back into another of the "many worlds".  Therefore by going back and getting the IBM 5100 and returning he would be returning to a different year 2036 and not his original one.  They would know this and not spend the money to create a time machine or at least they would not do it with the end goal of him bringing back a computer as his interacting with the past would shift him into a different version of reality and it would not be them who received the computer upon his return.

Personally I do not believe in the many worlds approach for the following reason.  It has to do with the paradox of infinity.  In the many worlds approach every outcome that can happen, does happen, and happens an infinite number of times.  If every outcome that can happen does happen, and each happens an infinite number of times, than all outcomes should be equally as likely.  We don't see that with quantum mechanics, we see very set probabilities.  I simply have never read anything which has been able to convince me that if every possibility happens an infinite number of times it would be possible for there to be anything by equal probabilities for all possible outcomes, which like I previously stated is not how it is.

I view this type of book a little differently.  I go about it the same way you should go about reading one of those science articles on CNN.  You know the ones where eggs are good, wait no bad, no no good, or whatever month it happens to be.  Truth is that article is a review of a hardcore science research paper which is done by a journalist with most likely either a communications or English degree.  Now if you haven't read a lot of scientific articles they are pretty much their own language.  So does this mean there is no truth in the CNN report?  No, there probably is some truth in the actual data but any conclusions drawn by the author should probably either be taken with a grain of salt or not taken at all.  Because frankly I would rather not get my Nutrition advice from a journalist who read through a Biology/Nutrition science paper and decided he could understand it because he is the department expert due to the fact he took one intro to biology course as an elective.

Like Xanth said, I've heard the name a lot, but I'm still relatively new to the astral pulse and I've only read a couple post so far about him (still got the pdf files on my computer for further reading when I'm bored).
But I need to add something, I don't know much about what truly happened, how he disappeared all suddenly, all I can say is sometimes, when someone has a really good influence (take all the celebrities that died, Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morisson)... Sometimes when your work is done you leave no traces...
It's even more true about spiritual teachings, it's how things works, sometimes you need to disappear to show people that you were there. The Tao in action... The only way to be visible is to go invisible.

Good post.  For me I love doing this type of stuff.  Chances are I will never find out who Frank really was, but for the time I am having fun looking and honestly when I do research like this the trip ends up rewarding you with knowledge you never would have found otherwise.  I have learned about riots in Nice, France around the time of his final posts which started with the police killings of two youths.  I learned about the House of Lords act of 1999.  I find it fascinating people still had a seat in the upper house in England based totally on their hereditary title all the way up until 1999.  Just to name a few things.  And who knows, however unlikely maybe in the end we will actually be able to confirm his identity.

Hi

I read a thread yesterday about moving your eyes up to your third eye area to get s/p.. Then I read Frank Kepple. And today I read this.. do any of you guys have a link to his old forums he used to post? For some reason I have a interest in what he posted thanks to you guys sparking my interest.

Sorry to interrupt the thread.

No problems, yes there is a great Frank Kepple resource which Xanth and then I believe Gandalf put together which has all his best posts.  Xanth also put together a pdf of all his surviving posts.  The resource is a much easier read and can be found at http://www.astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html.  There also is a modified pdf by category I like the best but I don't know what the link is for that.  Perhaps Xanth has it.

If my search ends up doing nothing but introducing a few new people to Frank's old posts, I'm okay with that.