Jeff, What I find rambling may be different to you. What you find rambling may be different to me. Point taken? I have had focus cudgled into me because of my life experience. Self-admitted geniuses? Please quote the text where I said I am a genius. Frankly, having taken psychometry classes in my youth and having considered a career in the field, I understand quite well that IQ is highly culturally biased (see Chitlins test for an example) and I used to remonstrate gently with my advisor that if I were so bloody bright why I had such problems with math - and he humorously reminded me that potential is not performance. My nephew has a very high IQ, his sister a 100 IQ - she is far more educated and successful that he simply because she tries harder. Doesn't make her better or happier - just better educated and a real go-getter in terms of hard work. Just because you don't like not having the upper hand in a debate does not mean I won't challenge you when you are casting groundless apsersions. Throwing down a gauntlet to someone to "prove it" is one thing in court, where one has an obligation to develop legal theories and support them with evidence of one kind or another, but quite another in a conversation or a verbal debate. In court, one can testify to personal experience. In this forum you appear to discount personal experience but wish to go with skeptic.com and scientific papers of various kinds. That is not the be all and end all of things and we should be thankful for that or there would be no planes because everyone knows that humans cannot fly. (smile) Actually, Jeff, in multisate tort law, there is no obligation to save someone unless one has some specific skills, however, if one begins an attempt to save someone then there is an obligation to carry through. Hence, if one sees another drowning but does not begin an attempt to help and has no specific duty to help such as being a parent or someone who threw the other in the water, then one does not have to begin a rescue. Also, if one would also endanger themselves (they cannot swim and would also drown) then that is an exemption from attempting to save someone, although they may be required to at least send for help, but that is not a rescue in and of itself. State laws can refine this a bit and the MN law you refer to has made it a petty misdemeanor not to provide assistance at the scene of an emergency. However, it is not an emergency situation regarding referral of a person to another doctor, it is a matter of judgment - especially if no one is bleeding. At any rat e, Good Sam. laws like those in MN were created to make it easier for doctors and other medical personnel to provide care without fear of being sued. (see below sig line for explanation of statute). As to my superior research skills, I will admit to that after working in Internet research for a few years, including about 2 years as a Westlaw representative. Westlaw is a legal research company and my job was to assist law students learn how to use the program and do rapid research with results that fit their needs. I also do professional research for lawyers and courts. One of my memorandums was revised and just published in a law review. So I will lay claim to superior research skills in that regard and I'm happy to have those accellerated skills. As to being a life coach, I'm not going in that direction, thank you. And being sarcastic doesn't really score you any debating points. I don't watch TV except for the occassional history/weather channel/TLC/Discovery sort of program. Cheers! Slithy (MN law explanation below sig line) Duty to Assist: A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. General immunity from liability: A person who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts of omissions by that person in rendering the emergency care, advice, or assistance, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance. This subdivision does not apply to a person rendering emergency care, advice, or assistance during the course or regular employment, and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering the care, advice, or assistance.