I don't think there's anything wrong with being excessively careful and accepting nothing without hard evidence. A lot of it is me not wanting to even remotely risk saying anything that could damage my career, if ever I were to be found out on here by an employer or something years down the road. Realize that I'm training for a very stringent scientific profession, and getting caught in a place like this, saying anything that isn't up to the highest standards of critical rigor, could spell big trouble. Not only that, if I'm going to succeed in breaking the idea of reincarnation into a professional setting, this is how I have to approach it. I have to stay firmly in line with the "UVA" wing of the reincarnation field and shun everything that could be construed as pseudoscience, or I'm never gonna be taken seriously. At least that line of work is decently respected by scientists, if not accepted; the latter, acceptance as legitimate theory, is my goal, with my current plan being to use modern neurological science to establish young children's PLM's as authentic. Your reality checks are welcome, Ken, and I've always agreed with them; it's NOT going to be easy, I never said it'd be easy, I just believe I can do it if I commit. No one has to root for me, although anyone who supports reincarnation should, right? I think Carol would root for me. I just wanted a place to discuss a subject I'm passionate and excited about, so I signed up here, because such conversations irl are predictably rare. Whatever, I don't want to bog this forum down with bickering, so we can put this to rest. I stand by my answer to the OP; it is a simple and logical explanation for a layman, and does not go against any of the forum's rules or purpose.