the words and terms being used at this website

[tania]

I thought this may be good topic for discussion as I've seen this happening here

 

I'm going to tell a make up story first so that people can hopefully see better the issues with this. Say there is website, the website is not a huge website but just a standard website in the internet scheme of things with maybe 15 people who very regularly posted there currently.. and say the people there did not have a term for a type of person so they decided they needed a name for those people.. as they were nice people they were refering too (so maybe there was a little similarity there), they thought let's all seriously call ourselves priests. From now on we are priests... and you know what .. we REALLY ARE PRIESTS.

 

To others then coming to that website they told them seriously they were priests and some people who knew no better thought then they were priests, messing up to some people what that term really was as now they believe it's just these "nice people" at that website (the true meaning is lost and now that person is going to be misunderstood when outside the general community (which is a mix of all different communities) when talking to others who may know what a priest is..  

 

There was also an issue with ones who knew what a priest was..  some were mislead by these people (obviously not intentionally but it was happening all the same) due to the term being used... oh boy.. there were people who even confessed things thinking they were talking to a real priest and told them things they would of not otherwise told them as that person had said they were a priest.

 

My example is actually referring to how the term walk-in is used. This community has like stolen the term from another community and using it for something a walk-in is not and trying to describe something completely different as being a walk-in.  What is being done here is no different really to my priest example.. or if this website decided to call some people gay or another type of person who wasnt that.  Im positive the communities where these stolen terms are coming frrom would not like the fact that it's being taken and changed like it has been as then it confuses people on what those other people (where the original term comes from) are.  As it is they are not a well known group of people though recognised in the proper manner in places like wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-in   

 

How would you feel if you were Native American but then a group online of Australians with no native american blood or bonds.. decided to call themselves Native Americans.. would those who are Native American feel bothered by it.. yes Im sure they would feel bother about it (it just would not be right to do).   It's no different for those who are real walk-ins having themselves used as a way to describe something like intrusive thoughts or something else here.  Why on earth was this done in the first place here?? was someone trying to mock meta groups?  why did they steal terms from there to add to different things here?

 

 It is also damaging science wise to be taking very strong meta terms and trying to make them standard here, whether you like it or not you are making it sound like you are connected to those other meta communities for things no way related to tulpas (before this site and possibly another online community tried to make it so)

 

I suggest that this community rather then trying to steal terms from other places and try to put new meanings onto them.. why not make up new terms instead if they do not know really what the thing they are trying to describe is called.

 

[hidden]

I am a true Walk-in (a walk-in of starseed origins) and have been in this body since around since 1993-1995? (I came here (the body) when this bodie's children were very young) and if I start talking about myself here it is no way related to tulpas at all.[/hidden] 

(im going to call myself a "true" walk-in to try to distingush myself from the ones here who are "not what I am"  and that is the simpliest way to do so without having to go into explanations).  If you are confused by what I am and why I'm different from those who are calling themselves walk-ins here... check out the wikipedia link as it clearly and simply explains it (not refering to the popular culture stuff where people write fantasy books who probably never have ever met an actual walk-in or chatted to one).

 

It's not just that term though.. this community has instead of making up it's own words.. has taken many other words (less offensive as not words which describe what one is) and put it's own new meanings onto them.. there is a lot of misclarity (and confusion for some) about the place on things due to this being done here.  (I guess many on looking at this website would just move on when they saw all made up things here and not even give the site a chance).  I cant remember things here (the website) being like this and this bad back when I was here in 2013.

 

Why has this community gone and done what it has done and confused things so badly by taking on words from other things? esp with the using of very metaphysical words (was this some strange attempt at trying to bury metaphysical things and the meta "non tulpa" community?). why??  Who was responsible for the term "walk-in" being first used here in such a wrong way which led to others using it here?  (I so hope it was not myself who very first used the term walk-in at this website only have others then to start wrongly using the word till it became like a culture here).

 

(im going to try to find out when the walk-in term was used here and in what definition it was used... looks like the term was not used here till 2014 being the earliest form where someone referred to their sentient being as being a walk-in here so when I was here back in 2013.. no-one was incorrectly using terms.. no-one was trying to borrow metaphysical terms and incorrectly using them.. the website has gone downhill).  This site would get more respect from outsiders if it doesnt incorrectly use terms. Looks like a group of kids tried to reinvent the dictionary if you dont mind me saying what this all looks like.. its not good if this site wants to be recognized by science types..and get respect.

 

that's my winge for today. I wish that this site would get back to how it was without all this being made up definitions stuff.  If someone has an intrusive thought.. well dont they just call it that...it sounds more science related then saying you have a "walk-in"  (someone here told me that the term walk-in here is used for intrusive thoughts).

[Tewi]

Huh, I have never once heard a definition of "walk-in" remotely reminiscent of that one. As Bre said in the other thread, the way the term has always been used was to describe a ~tulpa (tended to be soulbonds actually, I think) who just appeared fully-developed in their system one day. We've mostly used the term spontaneous and sometimes natural for tulpas, while "walk-in" came from soulbond-y types.

 

So I guess to address your question of "Why we changed these terms" - we didn't, actually. And I think our system having read every post in every on-topic thread on the forum since late 2013 to today gives us a good perspective of these things.

 

In most (but not necessarily all) of these cases, our definitions are how the terms were introduced to us on the forum. "Walk-in" was used by systems coming to the forum to describe their tulpas(soulbonds or another plurality, actually, the term didn't originate in our own community for sure). Only the very earliest terms were "changed by us" - switching, for example, if it has some history in greater plurality, was changed immediately upon the creation of the forum. Words like "Fronting" have simply snuck their way in by people joining the forum and using the word. Most terms you probably take issue with via origin probably showed up that way - members just joined and brought the words with them, perhaps using them incorrectly already. But they caught on for being useful to describe things we didn't already have words for, and that's why they remain today.

 

For the most part, trying to change the newfound meanings would be too difficult. Some terms like "Walk-in" are just slightly easier to use than existing terms though, and you could discourage their use - we've never described ourselves as walk-ins despite "just appearing one day", again preferring either "spontaneous" or "natural". But I don't think anyone really uses those but us. "Accidental" is the much more common term (especially in years gone by), though some have actually taken issue with being called an "accident" in the past lol.

 

Anyways, it's probably a case-by-case basis for which terms you take issue with. A few were here right from the start and can't be changed, because so many tulpamancers have left the forum and even community still using them. Most terms simply "caught on" as they were introduced to the forum, with Fronting being the biggest and possibly most confusing. But yeah, "Walk-in" was never a tulpamancy term and we simply started using it how many members self-described with it.

 

For the record, since tulpamancy is more or less scientific and cannot assume the existence of souls, the idea you're proposing of switching souls would be adapted into "Permaswitching" with the assumption the original host just went dormant. Still, I have never once heard of permaswitching with a walk-in immediately. Though ""Permaswitching"" as in your case has definitely occurred in some members always well before the rise of modern tulpamancy - problem is, no one's ever given a term for it, though I've also not seen "permaswitching" used either in said cases.

[Ember.Vesper]

Who was responsible for the term "walk-in" being first used here in such a wrong way which led to others using it here?

 

The term "walk-in" as we use it now became popular in the Spring of 2015 and has been used on the forum hundreds of times. It is also well established on r/tulpas. The earlier term, which has never gone away but continued to be used alongside it, is "accidental tulpa". "Insta-tulpa" is a related 2012 term, though it was usually used for the controversial practice of trying to make a tulpa and succeeding more rapidly than most believed was possible.

 

The first use of "walk-in" on the forum as currently used is in this post:

 

https://community.tulpa.info/thread-who-were-they?pid=116606#pid116606

Possibly. In soul bonding they would be referred to as walk ins, or basically temporary tulpas. Sometimes they stick around a while, sometimes they are gone within a week. Sometimes they may be developed as Much as any other tulpa, sometimes they may not even be vocal. Some people distinguish the kind of walk in I described above from the sort of background Npcs you described. Personally, I've only ever dealt with the sort I described, so I can't speak for that. I have had about 10 walk ins that sometimes come back over the years though, not counting my permanent 2-3.

 

Checking the leading soulbonding glossary, we have:

 

http://astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html#walkin

Walk-in - A person in a multiple system which came from outside the body. Often otherkin in a system are walk-ins.

 

The definition of walk-in can be a little vague and hazy. People have used "walk-in" to mean channelled spirits, people you were in past lives, inhabitants of other worlds, soulbonds, or fictives, or introjects, angels who come in to help, or just visitors -- people who show up briefly in your group and then leave, or come and go. As with possession and fictives, some multiples believe in the reality of these things and others do not. The only standard accepted definition is that the walk-in is not a split or aspect from a "main personality". More about the history and background on walk-ins here. (Spiritualism, popularized by Ruth Montgomery, late 70s)

 

Astraea's Web goes back to 1995, so I decided to check on how long they had been using the term. The earliest archive.org recording of the glossary is from January 2003:

 

Walk-in - A person in a multiple system which came from outside the body. Often otherkin in a system are walk-ins.

 

The definition of walk-in can be somewhat nebulous -- it has been used to describe people thought to be channelled spirits, people you were in past lives, inhabitants of other worlds, soulbonds/introjects, and so on. As with possession, some multiples believe in the reality of these things and others do not. The only standard accepted definition is that the walk-in is not a result of any event physically experienced in the earth world.

 

It appears that most of the terms you have problems in our community were adopted, not from singleton New Age/occult/esoteric/spiritual communities, but from older plural communities. And it appears that, no later than twenty-ish years ago, when plural communities started organizing online in a big way, that they augmented spiritual terms to better fit a plural context. After all, what if someone suddenly walks in and the previous inhabitants don't walk out?

 

Earlier plural communities, other than the DID community, were not founded with a dedication to psychological explanations of plurality. So there was a mix of skeptics and spiritual believers, with the believers usually being dominant. They seem to have used the terms they were familiar with, not intending to override the established singleton uses.

 

(someone here told me that the term walk-in here is used for intrusive thoughts).

 

It's used specifically for headmate-like presences who appear, potentially at full strength, complexity, and responsiveness, without having been planned or forced. Intrusive thoughts is one possible explanation, usually used to justify ignoring or suppressing them. But "ordinary" intrusive thoughts seem to arise from a person's fears and anxieties, use more simple imagery, and lack the level of intelligence and responsiveness of a walk-in.

 

The principal problem with referring to an unwelcome walk-in as a spontaneous, natural, or accidental tulpa is that tulpas are regarded here as people in their own right deserving of respect as such, in-system and out. So referring to walk-ins as tulpas may grant them legitimacy and encourage them to stay. If the system has decided not to expand, it is helpful to have a term that depersonalizes them.

 

[EDIT -- Errata: Astraea's Web is a website dating from the "empowered multiple" movement among largely endogenic and quiogenic systems. It has been an important destination for soulbonders for a long time, but predates foundation of the soulbonding community in 1998. The actual most important remaining soulbonding glossary is probably this one:

 

http://soulbonding.tripod.com/soulbonding_glossary.htm

 

which has many of the same entries but omits walk-ins. It lists "tai'morende" as a potential but disparaged term for a temporary soulbond or guest, as opposed to "dar'morende" for a permanent soulbond.]

 

[EDIT -- Addendum: I've been scouring the web for surviving early plural uses of "walk-in" for a headmate that just shows up. It appears in multiplicity.livejournal.com dozens of times prior to 2008, with the first use being in May 2001:

 

https://multiplicity.livejournal.com/3196.html ]

 

-Ember

[YukariTelepath]

Before I joined the community I only knew walk-in according to tania's definition. I just adapted to this community's definition. I don't think the community stole the word, it's just an easy way to describe a headmate showing up, or "walking in" out of nowhere. You can look at it as a homonym. [Edit: Ember tracked down better information on the history while I was reading and replying] I think a lot of headmate walk-ins are from intrusive thoughts, but I wouldn't say they all are. As someone who hasn't experienced any type of walk-in I can't judge or determine what's actually going on in someone else's head.

 

For the record, since tulpamancy is more or less scientific and cannot assume the existence of souls, the idea you're proposing of switching souls would be adapted into "Permaswitching" with the assumption the original host just went dormant. Still, I have never once heard of permaswitching with a walk-in immediately. Though ""Permaswitching"" as in your case has definitely occurred in some members always well before the rise of modern tulpamancy - problem is, no one's ever given a term for it, though I've also not seen "permaswitching" used either in said cases.

I don't think it's a good idea to try and redefine tania's walk-in as permaswitching. They sound like very different phenomenons. I don't even know if I've heard of a case where the host who no longer fronts is truly gone.

[Tewi]

Very nice post, Ember.

 

And yeah, no one has ever claimed a member whose plurality predated Tulpa.info had "Permaswitched", except the very few cases where they've chosen to use the term themselves. I was just saying what it'd be if it was described here in modern terms. If you're willing to explain what your preferred term meant or means to you, it's still fine, but going forward new cases are unlikely to use the term like that or even have that experience without being taught about it ahead of time.

[arachnocaccia]

Baker: The same word can be used differently in different contexts. You would never mistake a walk-in at a clinic for a walk-in of your definition. The context given here is a tulpa and tulpa-adjacent community forum. Expect the terms you hear on this forum to be in that sense.

 

Many of the terms are wholly descriptive as well, and make sense to use. A walk-in appears, unplanned. It may be a case of inventing the term parallel to your New Age "walk-in" rather than bastardizing it.

[Ember.Vesper]

Okay, I've been digging through plural community history much of the day and I've dug back as far as I'm likely to manage. The original alt.support.dissociation FAQ, as last modified on September 6, 1994, gives the following information:

 

Q: "I've heard of something called a 'walk-in person', what's that?"

 

Despite the lack of belief many people have for this, there are a large number of multiples who have what seem to be alters that did not originate via a split or creation by the multiple system, but rather came in from the outside.

 

It seems that, when one or more of the alters need help that the system itself cannot provide, sometimes an outside source (a ghost, a spirit, a "mythical" beast) shows up, moves in, unpacks, and says "Where can I start?"

 

You don't have to believe it. But think of it as a kind of guardian spirit, only this one lives inside the mind. (And try not to let your skepticism get in the way.)

 

So a new person showing up out of nowhere to join a system has been called a "walk-in" for at least 25 years. The phrasing reinforces my belief that it is a multiple adaptation of Montgomery's term, since the principal difference is that, even though someone showed up, nobody left.

 

And since it provoked this discussion, let me reiterate -- "intrusive thought" has never been part of the definition of a walk-in in any plural community. Calling a walk-in an intrusive thought is a tool to delegitimize them as people and reject them from the system.

 

-Ember

[Tewi]

Very nice research, I applaud that. But the reason Bre mistakenly said walk-ins are often "intrusive thoughts" is that, here on .info, a lot of immature systems tend to get a vague thought/random voice/feeling or two not belonging to their existing tulpa(s) if any, and jump to the conclusion they have yet another headmate. They didn't, you'd really know if you happened to get an actual walk-in (I suppose I'm free to use that term now). However, believing you did is how you start creating yet another tulpa. And creating more tulpas than you intended generally leads to having to split up time even more than before at best, and the new (or even an old) headmate feeling unwanted or useless at worst.

 

Calling thoughts like these and many others intrusive is wording we use to imply they're unproductive or negative thoughts, but in some cases that's sometimes going overboard (it was in Bre's case in the other thread) and a more neutral term should've been used. Not all walk-ins (or potential new headmates) are innately invasive, it's only an assumption that a system would not want another random headmate. Though here on .info, especially when a lot of people we teach are young teens, sometimes those assumptions are made for their own good. Still, it's an assumption.

[Breloomancer]

I would like to clarify that I wasn't calling walk ins intrusive thoughts, I was just saying that walk ins starting out as intrusive thoughts is one of the common explanations

[tania]

Huh, I have never once heard a definition of "walk-in" remotely reminiscent of that one.

 

And that is the issue, most here who are using the term have not a clue that the term has a well recognized definition outside of this community, a definition which isn't used just in or two websites but one which is recognized right across most of the metaphysical communities. That is what I wanted to bring to peoples attention.

 

 

As Bre said in the other thread, the way the term has always been used was to describe a ~tulpa (tended to be soulbonds actually, I think) who just appeared fully-developed in their system one day. We've mostly used the term spontaneous and sometimes natural for tulpas, while "walk-in" came from soulbond-y types.

 

and that just causes further confusion of people as the true walk-ins are a soul thing seeing it's souls coming and going (with possibly soul contracts involved).. so when those here are saying it's the soulbond thing, it further confuses things with the real definition. This is why I say someone took the real definition and twisted it all up.

 

So I guess to address your question of "Why we changed these terms" - we didn't, actually. And I think our system having read every post in every on-topic thread on the forum since late 2013 to today gives us a good perspective of these things.

 

yeah I think that that would be the same situation for most here (note the walk-in term wasnt used here till during 2014.. this community went TWO YEARS without using "that" term). The terms were not originally here but then someone brought terms in and not understanding those terms used it and then others who knew no better did the same as I guess the "walk-in" word just sounded like a good word to use. If I had stayed at this forum I would of made sure this kind of error in the usage did not become a common one in this community.

 

In most (but not necessarily all) of these cases, our definitions are how the terms were introduced to us on the forum. "Walk-in" was used by systems coming to the forum to describe their tulpas(soulbonds or another plurality, actually, the term didn't originate in our own community for sure)

 

are you really sure about that, it could well have originated by someones mistake here and then spread to the r/tulpas community.

 

Only the very earliest terms were "changed by us" - switching, for example, if it has some history in greater plurality, was changed immediately upon the creation of the forum. Words like "Fronting" have simply snuck their way in by people joining the forum and using the word. Most terms you probably take issue with via origin probably showed up that way - members just joined and brought the words with them, perhaps using them incorrectly already. But they caught on for being useful to describe things we didn't already have words for, and that's why they remain today.

 

I have no issue with either of those words though the community probably made them up as they were not taken from other things so do not lead to any confusion with meta things or do not play down what someone else may be. They are great examples for how a community can develop new words when they do not have words to explain things. Those words did not come to be here out of confusion or lack of knowledge over something else.

 

For the most part, trying to change the newfound meanings would be too difficult.

 

No not really, I'm hoping that bringing some awareness to this community on what that word truly means will help have people choosing more appropriate word to use. Does a community who wants to be science based really want this meta connection with it. You guys go to lengths to make sure meta stuff is not on the main board.. so it makes no sense that you are bringing confusion to outsiders with inappropriate use of meta words here.

 

Some terms like "Walk-in" are just slightly easier to use than existing terms though, and you could discourage their use - we've never described ourselves as walk-ins despite "just appearing one day", again preferring either "spontaneous" or "natural". But I don't think anyone really uses those but us. "Accidental" is the much more common term (especially in years gone by), though some have actually taken issue with being called an "accident" in the past lol.

 

yeah well accidental is not a good term to use either if it causes offense to something which has sentience.

 

For the record, since tulpamancy is more or less scientific and cannot assume the existence of souls,

 

exactly, so it's best not to be using a term which is strongly connected with that outside this community. That in itself is strong grounds to discourage the walk-in term esp if people want tulpamancy to become a known and accepted non meta thing.

 

the idea you're proposing of switching souls would be adapted into "Permaswitching" with the assumption the original host just went dormant. Still, I have never once heard of permaswitching with a walk-in immediately. Though ""Permaswitching"" as in your case has definitely occurred in some members always well before the rise of modern tulpamancy - problem is, no one's ever given a term for it, though I've also not seen "permaswitching" used either in said cases.

 

Ohhhhh Nooooo. Nooooo. Walk-in in the proper use of the word are not at all permaswitching as the soul is NOT DORMANT.. the soul is no longer in that body, it is no longer an earth bound soul but active then in other planes so not dormant (nothing to do with here). Permaswitching is NOTHING to do with souls and is a tulpa related term and not a metaphysics term and is a correct term to be using when it comes to tulpas to describe what permaswitching is.

 

A permaswitched person has not lost their soul, it is still in their body. I really hope you can see that what I'm referring too is not the same as permaswitching even if you do not believe in souls.

 

thanks for your post

---

Hi Ember, thanks for your post, I did find it interesting the research you did.

 

It appears that most of the terms you have problems in our community were adopted, not from singleton New Age/occult/esoteric/spiritual communities, but from older plural communities. And it appears that, no later than twenty-ish years ago, when plural communities started organizing online in a big way, that they augmented spiritual terms to better fit a plural context. After all, what if someone suddenly walks in and the previous inhabitants don't walk out?

 

 

The terms are older then those plural communities you are referring too.. they were being used in metaphysical groups WELL BEFORE internet. I've been into meta things since I was 19 and I'm almost 50 now and have been part of many not online groups. You do have a point there of "what if the previous inhabitant doesnt walk out?" It is true that there can be two real beings in one body (by that I mean two beings who have souls)... you get that in cases of spiritual possession where one gets in and tries to take over the other (something the catholic church even believes in and they still actually do do exorcisms in rare cases).

 

The principal problem with referring to an unwelcome walk-in as a spontaneous, natural, or accidental tulpa is that tulpas are regarded here as people in their own right deserving of respect as such, in-system and out. So referring to walk-ins as tulpas may grant them legitimacy and encourage them to stay. If the system has decided not to expand, it is helpful to have a term that depersonalizes them.

 

That one is a whole different issue. I never said I agree with calling those accidental tulpas. Violet my first was an accidental tulpa with my meaning in that is I was thinking about how I was going to make her and what traits I wanted her to have etc "when" I was ready to make her.. and I accidently made her in the process of thinking about making her before I meant to make her. (so in Violets case she was created but accidently before I meant to). She was not a mistake and make to be even if it didnt have the planned timing. I think those who are walking in who are not walk-ins as such should have their own name (maybe the community can think something up to call these ones).

 

Walk-in - A person in a multiple system which came from outside the body. Often otherkin in a system are walk-ins.

 

 

that is interesting as I was in a mixed community in which otherkins were also a strong feature (as I have not just been human in my other lifetimes) and there was lots of these for many years and not once did I hear someone who believed they were otherkin say they were a walk-in. So yeah I find it very odd what this other otherkin community walk-in definition said there.

 

The term "multiple system" can be used though in many ways too.. those who believe in souls may also believe in soul groups and souls which split off from higher souls. so it can also represent for some, ones of the same "soul" family using a body (but usually in that case one completely leaves and another takes over via soul contracts).

 

I personally hate term multiple system as it's used in so many different ways that when one sees this term it is hard to exactly know what is meant but yeah I though do not have any issues with others using that term.

 

The definition of walk-in can be somewhat nebulous -- it has been used to describe people thought to be channelled spirits, people you were in past lives, inhabitants of other worlds, soulbonds/introjects, and so on.

 

Though not common, I know some spirit channellers have called the spirits (they are souls too so it's still connected to the soul thing) they bring in to channel (walk-ins) at times (the being is only there while the channeling takes place and then leaves... I've actually seen this myself when watching a person who was channeling and saw the being/spirit leave her through the top of her head). I actually studied spirit channeling for quite a few years with a teacher and class mates learning too.. and in that time I did not hear anyone refer to the spirits being channelled as walk-ins. (we called them "guides" which is the normal term those channelling spirits use except the one's who channel starseed beings in rather then the standard spirits.. those are more likely to refer to those beings as walk-ins but the beings do not stay in the body and become part of a plural family).

---

Baker: The same word can be used differently in different contexts. You would never mistake a walk-in at a clinic for a walk-in of your definition. The context given here is a tulpa and tulpa-adjacent community forum. Expect the terms you hear on this forum to be in that sense.

 

yes true that different words can be fine used in different contexts... one is not going to confuse "hares" with "hairs"..no issues with that due to there will be clear differing context when it's spoken about.

 

the issue is the walk-in definitions can be confused as both things coming into the body and in both the term soulbond may be used (eg the soul leaving may have a soul contract and soul bond with the other soul which left the body... interesting with that meaning the two words are not put together as in "soulbond" but always put separately). Someone can say "I am a walk-in" and how does one know which they are...if they are outside this community.. .. the person may turn to somewhere like wikipedia to find out the standard use of the world (obviously there are some forums using the term differently but they are not the standard thing).

---

Baker said - "A walk-in appears, unplanned. "

 

No.. as it's a soul thing, it is usually it is a soul contract thing and PLANNED. (thou I got lost and ended up in this body.. it would of been planned as it just could not happen otherwise). You are trying to compare me as a walk-in with something I am not.

 

See there is heaps of confusion around how the two ways this word is being used. Just like your soul coming into this world into a fetus was planned by higher sources. No soul can incarnate upon this earth without it being planned by higher forces, their higher soul etc

 

This is an example of how confusing it is for people when the same word is used for two different things. As I said I was a walk-in Tewi even confused me with perma-switching j(which I found shocking as I am not a tulpa but just as you original hosts are though I are not the original one here, I incarnated here just like you, if I left, this body would die). Even when I tried to explain the difference of the two ways walk-in was being used. The difference between the way walk-ins is being used is huge though they may appear to similar or the same to ones who don't know as I said it causes confusion for people. And I can not call myself anything else as I am a walk-in and since the other left and I came in, I am this bodies host. It is my spirit keeps this body living.