IT’S THE 3/4                    YEAR REPORT


What have we been up to?


[For MORE use the DOOR]







In Response to Questions and Puzzlements…


(1)  Our Purpose?

First, whatever it really is, it’s weakly focused. We knew that when we started in Feb. 2013.  “Key words,” if there are any, seem rubbery. They bend this way and that, confusing search engines and robots that look our way.  Can’t be helped as we see it.

(2)  If forced to come out of the closet, then what are we doing?

 The 2 lines under the picture say it quickly. To add to that: We observe that many think from an essentially secular, or nonreligious framework. We think that sometimes doing that causes missing important things. We strongly believe in, and value, the Christian God and the Bible as well a science, philosophy, and other things. While we’re often trivial, we try to underline things we think matter. However, we continue a special ongoing series that has posts which are triple-archived: philosophy/religion/science (29 of them so far) that attempt to provide “stepping stones” to developing a meaningful modern worldview. You can chase this series through our site by typing in numbers 1 through 29 with just the number in a “brace” in the SEARCH BOX (upper left). For example the first one is {1}.

(3)  “We”?

We is essentially me–the John who wrote the books on the right¹. But I’m helped, advised, and bedeviled by an enviable bevy of consultants including 3 college professors, a brokerage house web designer, an undertaker, 4 kids and a wife who sometimes run for cover.

(4)  How many featured posts so far?

About 120. The goal we projected was 3 per week–on M, W, F. So far we haven’t missed a deadline.

(5)  How many “visits” per post?

From 1200 to 2500. And people are landing on old, archived posts all over our site. Yes, we can track this. This brings us to a clarification–and observation which I’ll save for a footnote². “Visits” include many robotic trips to our site. How many?  Hard to say. The handlers of the robots keep their “testing criteria” secret, always changing them because if a formula is discovered, webmasters will write to the formula or use key words over and over again to attract visitors. We hope, for example, the words in red above don’t attract robots zeroing in on porn or out-of-bounds sex. We’ve no interest in that. Really. Robots have no sense of context unless they’re given one. I’m reminded of my adventures years ago in doing a search for articles on “fencing.” I pulled up a series of articles on the sword fighting sport I was looking for–and they arrived all tangled in the history of barbed wire. Robots often, but not always, are extreme fundamentalists.

(6)  What matters to us?

We’re trying to answer for ourselves (myself) those 3 important questions:  (1) What is?  (2) What matters? and (3) Then what should I do?  [See “*  The Hard Questions  {26}” our post on Sept. 13³.] And to encourage you to do the same. Those 9 words are worthy of a Post-It for your bathroom mirror.

(7)  What do we want from you?

Your comments and reactions, specifically to the article if possible. Let us know if you’re having trouble with our site. Otherwise, we’re clueless as to who–or what–is out there. We’ll assume you can do a simple math problem before you can comment. But robots are learning fast! Tell us what we need to hear.

(8)  Why all the “numerals” in the text…and writing lessons?

Using 1, 2, 3… 7…9 in sentences is usually considered poor form, but we do it here to help speed reading along. We (I) used to teach English and writing along with science. I can’t get writing out of my system.

(9)  Why “a dozen seconds” when it often takes longer to read?

1. Read faster.  2. Skim the slow parts.  3. Let the DOOR stop you if our ride isn’t headed your way…but come back next time.

(10)  Do we want your money?

No.  But you can buy the 2 books to the right.  Christmas isn’t far away. Reviews of the books can be easily found. Electronic versions are cheap.  A third book is in progress…


¹ For more about “John,” go to the johnknapp2.com website and click on the bio tab. There’s a short version and a narrative version. Both will tell you more than you want to know.

² Here’s the lesson from this observation: When a person “visits” a piece of information, a post for example, a record is made that the document was seen–and sometimes for how long. A record cannot be made as to what happened when the observer looked at the material. Did he like, hate, understand (and to what extent), laugh at or ridicule it. Did the content stay with him 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 days? Did it change his thinking or behavior? Barring some check-off list or 1-to-5 scale, there’s nothing that can be said about the effect of the content had on the person. Reductionist attempts to explain such effects fall flat. This echoes the importance of the human consciousness, or mind, that we’ve mentioned often, and that Keith Ward has talked about extensively.

³ An easy way to quickly locate this post is to type just   {26}   exactly that way.

Author: John Knapp