and it's true - once you've adopted a common moniker, you
   inherit ALL the people that ALSO share that same moniker to
   those who do not share that moniker. I never liked monikers but
   I begrudgingly accept Agnostic because I can explain myself and
   anybody who says, "Yeah, well what about "so-and-so who also
   says they're Agnostic", I can usually find something ok about
   it. Besides, it's the closest to accurate enough for me for now.
   -- Another one that took me a long time to "get to" is "I'm a
   fan of embodied cognition". It was eye opening to find it, as I
   was teetering around areas like an Ecological viewpoint, which
   is _basically_ a systems view, but it had some 'extras' I didn't
   like... and the Holographic viewpoint, which had a bit more
   'woo' than I'd like... ..and I kept hovering around these and
   other areas, trying to find the "it" that I could stand behind.
   So when I came across the Embodied Cognition family of concepts
   I thought, "Ah! Ok, even though I can poke holes in it like
   anybody else can, I'm ok with the flaws". -- Somebody once ran
   me through the standard 20 questions to try to atheize/theize my
   agnosticism. They _did_ hit upon an interesting point in the...
   conversation, such as it was, though, which made it worth my
   time. I was able to identify Systems as the closest thing to a
   god concept. I'm ok with that. Systems neither require a
   designer for the systems BUT THEY COULD and neither must they
   spontaneously arise due to subsystems nor do they require a
   magical randomness either. In short, God/not-God, wasn't really
   an issue for me as I'm fine with either way. In short, my big
   fat "I don't know" fits perfectly fine there in the inertial
   frame. smile emoticon --