Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 17:48:57 (GMT)
From: Feb 07, 2000 To: Feb 16, 2000 Page: 2 Of: 5


Angry -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:42:27 (GMT)
__ Anon -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:01:01 (GMT)
__ __ Mr D -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:41:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ Anon -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:12:03 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:31:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Anon -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:40:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:07:34 (GMT)
__ michael -:- don't like pissing matches myself (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:23:16 (GMT)
__ __ A Customer -:- Same here (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:35:03 (GMT)
__ BJ -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 16:25:28 (GMT)
__ __ Ms. K -:- BJ - Cached version -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:21:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ BJ -:- BJ - Cached version -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:44:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ michael -:- happens to me sometimes too, cache up (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:37:27 (GMT)
__ BJ -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:49:43 (GMT)
__ Marianne -:- I know you, Jim -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:47:34 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- I know you, Jim -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:51:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Marianne and Anth -:- I know you, Jim -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:12:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cqg -:- ...brace yerself Anth (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:52:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Holy fuck! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:17:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Holy fuck! -- NOT -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:22:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Holy fuck! -- NOT -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:24:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- At least not in this room (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:23:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Who's downstairs? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:26:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Baaaaaah humbug. -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:12:21 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:22:53 (GMT)
__ __ Angry -:- Is it important to care what you think? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:36:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Is it important to care what you think? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:52:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mike -:- Sorry for the interruption.... -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:34:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- AND, sorry for the bad spelling/grammar -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:51:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, what did you say? It's gone now -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:54:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- OOPSS! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:54:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Here it is, Jim -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:07:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here it is, Jim -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:36:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Jim, the simple answer.... -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:21:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Care to tell the truth, Mike? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:39:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Well, well, well -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:35:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Mike, please read -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:14:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Mike, please read - CORRECTED -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:17:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ mantis -:- Looks like a rant?!?!?!? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:58:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- a depressed rant, to be specific -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:15:13 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Lower Your Standards -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:59:06 (GMT)
__ __ Angry -:- Lower Your Standards/??? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:06:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Lower Your Standards/??? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:18:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Lower Your Standards/??? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:35:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is that the only voice you've got, Anth? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:02:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- No, you should hear Antonia. -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:27:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- Is that the only voice you've got, Anth? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:18:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Do I know you? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:24:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- Wouldn't have a beer with you.... -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:33:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Again, do I know you or not? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:36:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:47:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:58:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- Thanks VP -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:28:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Thanks VP -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:03:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- A Demonstrated Tendency -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:53:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- A Demonstrated Tendency -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:44:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- being funny -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:15:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- being funny -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:33:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:54:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Great question Jim!...now can you believe THIS? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:13:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Great question Jim!...now can you believe THIS? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:48:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- My, we're touchy today, aren't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:11:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- My, we're touchy today, aren't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:20:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- My, we're touchy today, aren't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:00:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sesame Street Smoko Room -:- !!RROOOOGERR!!!! Jim IS TALKING ABOUT YO0000OOUUUU -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:40:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Fuck off, you anonymous dink! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:53:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Angry -:- Agree with your Logic -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:03:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No tickee, no washee -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:11:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Angry -:- Lower Your Standards/??? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:21:50 (GMT)

VP -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:56:06 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:09:31 (GMT)
__ __ Harry -:- Rationality verses feelin' good :) -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:43:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Rationality verses feelin' good :) -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 14:41:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Harry -:- Rationality verses feelin' good :) -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:25:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Theory of evolution implies God not essential????? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:40:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Theory of evolution implies God not essential????? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:32:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- well I don't know, -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:41:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I hate long posts -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 23:41:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- a short post -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 16:39:04 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:43:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Harry -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:27:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Very funny! :) (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:48:41 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:30:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 23:06:41 (GMT)
__ __ VP -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:24:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Robyn -:- A scientific explanation? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:45:52 (GMT)
__ BJ -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:54:46 (GMT)
__ __ Harry -:- I knew you were going to say that. -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:08:18 (GMT)
__ __ VP -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:57:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Charlie -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:32:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:07:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:39:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Psychic? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:09:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:47:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Tornado blues -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 22:08:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- God and foreplay -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:58:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- God and foreplay -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:00:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- God and foreplay -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:06:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:43:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:54:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 15:11:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- That though occured to me, too -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:07:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- That though occured to me, too -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:45:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- That though occured to me, too -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 15:14:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cp -:- That though occured to me, too -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:50:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- That though occured to me, too -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:11:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Psychic stuff -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 16:17:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic stuff -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:21:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Psychic stuff -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:57:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- Psychic stuff -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:40:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Psychic stuff -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:32:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- love the one you're with ;) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:44:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- love the one you're with ;) -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:08:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- quite a thread -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 03:16:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- wheeeee! and yipeeee! (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 04:37:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 14:36:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:19:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:36:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Time may really just be time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 15:58:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Time may really just be time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:48:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- Time may really just be time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:00:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Time may really just be time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:48:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Time -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 22:44:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ BJ -:- Time -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:36:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- I don't either - but it does sound cool! -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:14:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the Big Bang? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:38:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- I don't either - but it does sound cool! -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:05:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Modern mythology -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:08:43 (GMT)

Jim -:- Truth , communication and double standards -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:18:51 (GMT)
__ Shp -:- Heller's out of his restraints again...male nurse! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:58:24 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- TOO FUNNY, SHP! TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!!!! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:12:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ Shp -:- TOO FUNNY, SHP! TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!!!! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:23:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, Shp. Maybe you're right -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:29:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Shp -:- Right under yer nose -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:56:56 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- uninformed and tired but.... -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 06:11:18 (GMT)
__ My View -:- Truth , communication and double standards -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:49:53 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- And who are you? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:59:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ MV -:- And who are you? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:23:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- And who are you? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:37:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Shp -:- Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:07:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:13:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shp -:- Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:27:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- DON'T GIVE UP ON ME YET, SHP!!!! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:07:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ MV -:- Knew you wouldn't -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:46:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, because you knew you had no right asking -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:50:39 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:25:06 (GMT)
__ __ Disappointed UK -:- Shhh! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:12:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, can I learn to talk like that?? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:28:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Anon -:- Hey, can I learn to talk like that?? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:05:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ BJ -:- Shhh! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:03:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ BJ -:- Shhh! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:22:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ BJ -:- Shhh! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:22:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Apathy -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:42:50 (GMT)
__ __ Powerman -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 23:24:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:37:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:24:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:35:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- RE: I agree -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 06:45:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, this is utter bullshit, I'm sorry -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:49:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- It is bullshit for you -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:34:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Neither do I sb -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 07:34:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:02:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:23:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:53:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- fuck! same post, corrected HTML -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:29:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- Excellent post, Robyn! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:56:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Excellent post, Robyn! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:00:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:13:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:11:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:15:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:17:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's what you all say -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:22:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- That's what you all say -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:29:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's pretty sadistic, Robyn -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:34:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- That's pretty sadistic, Robyn -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:33:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- That's pretty sadistic, Robyn -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 15:29:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- pman -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:26:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- ahem, Robyn? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 20:14:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- what about freedom -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 07:30:09 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- Fuck You = Thanks Mahatma Jim (Fair?) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 22:46:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gerry -:- Look, it's 4:20, Run -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 23:09:37 (GMT)


Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:42:27 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:

Sirs,
it is not like me to butt in, only I am getting the increasing impression that you are slavishly preoccupied by a relatively petty matter. I think it is better for your mental health if you restrain from thus obsessing. I would hazard a guess that this argument of yours has not been a rewarding or engaging one for many here, despite your insistence that there has been some terrible injustice done.
To the contrary, your crusade has served to generate some divisiveness amongst the once glorious and unified Team of Ex-premies, and some yawning besides. Moreover, as an experiment to determine the benefits of dragging out the most tiresomely paltry quibble imaginable, it has even been a significant failure. I for one, despite reading through the posts with propped eyelids, have not been able to arouse myself into any semblance of interest whatsover, not even to the degree that I can now recall what on earth you're on about in particular.

I am in no way guilty of not having made every effort to find the argument interesting or sensible... I have searched for a way in... to become engaged.. but it is not interesting. Your argument is not interesting. It is a very boring argument. In fact the only thing that is slightly interesting is that you have demonstrated a very quirky compulsion to apply your not-inconsiderable talents to matters that are almost absurdly inconsequential relative to those more important arguments that immediately beg to be addressed.

Impressed as I am with your usual content, I am frankly all-the-more shocked at your maniacal stubborness to drop what has all the appearance of being a very dull bone. Please would you stick to exercising your profession on the case of Maharaji and his Followers and not embarass us further by subjecting us to the spectacle of your more personal feuds. Your continued hints that we should share your interest in this matter are misguided.

Disappointed UK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I felt that this post from Disappointed UK pretty much says it all. I feel that the vast majority of participants on this forum agree. I took the liberty of moving it up because I suspect most people will have missed it amidst the drivel.

Thanks D. UK

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:01:01 (GMT)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
Just to clear things up (as there seems some confusion).

Disappointed UK was me - Anon that is.

I thought it would have been obvious from the style... but there you go. Sorry about that. It was indeed a rather mischevous post and was intended to be taken as such.
For future reference, I shall never use another pseudonym other than 'Anon'. Consider this an exception for which I apologise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:41:18 (GMT)
From: Mr D
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Anon
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
I thought that was you, Mr Anon. Very well written I thought and funny too. You've been reading too many letters to the Times, or would that be 'The Guardian'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:12:03 (GMT)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Mr D
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
My late father read the Times. I only read the Sunday Times when I take the kids to my mum's at the weekend. I'm not inclined to read the paper otherwise ..alas no time! Oh except on the train, then it's usually a London Standard left on the seat by someone.
I believe it is a sign of age is when one starts to read the obituries, which I actually find quite fascinating now! Now it's all the WW2 crew who are pegging out. You know it's the..'Major Battersby-Smythe DFC single-handedly wrestled his blazing Lancaster home after being attacked by the Luftwaffe..etc.' stuff.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:31:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Anon
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
Anon,

I really want to thank you for your pretentious comments. Now can I ask you something?

How would you like it if some weirdo was running the recent-exes, private, confidential, welcome wagon and denouncing you regularly as a bully, abusive authority figure, assassin, murderer, cult-leader, etc. etc.?

You know, I faceitously posted some of his comments about me and Shp thought I was bragging! When I told Shp, no, they were Run's ideas, Shp finally saw a comrade-in-arms. This guy -- Run -- is a snivelling little liar and he's using that forum for one purpose only. All those posts of his I cut-and-pasted? Do you think there are a whole lot more on different topics? Forget it! That's the bulk of what the guy's had to say there. There are even more such posts jsut like those. I srue didn't take them all.

And none of the others who post there, 'recent exes' or 'friends of recent exes' ever said one, single word to call him on any of this shit!

So, tell me, Mr. So-far-above-the-fray-you-can-hardly-relate-to-its-paltriness, how would you feel if you were in my shoes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:40:45 (GMT)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
Anon, I really want to thank you for your pretentious comments. Now can I ask you something?

By all means.

How would you like it if some weirdo was running the recent-exes, private, confidential, welcome wagon and denouncing you regularly as a bully, abusive authority figure, assassin, murderer, cult-leader, etc. etc.?

If I suffered the same ignominy you describe, I may well have some similar reactions, however I am certain that I would not react to the same degree.
Besides, being confident that I am neither 'a bully, abusive authority figure, assassin, murderer, or cult-leader', I could easily rest assured that the groundless accusations of such a would-be detractor would fall on disinterested ears. So absurd and far-fetched would his allegations be, that I could never take them seriously, rise to the bait, or expect other reasonably minded people to do so.
If anyone was stupid enough to believe his tales I would welcome them to their delusion.

So, tell me, Mr. So-far-above-the-fray-you-can-hardly-relate-to-its-paltriness, how would you feel if you were in my shoes?

As you may be sensing, I am having some difficulty fitting your shoes to my dainty feet. Anyway, whilst I appreciate that the 'fray' does not seem in the least paltry to you, you can appreciate that I and some others simply don't find the issue very consequential or as stimulating as some other topics. I suppose you have garnered some sympathy by taking issue so vehemently. My intention was merely to say that yes.. your point had been made but that you now seemed in danger of flogging it to death at the expense of the patience of the general readership. A little feedback in other words.

BTW you have succeeded in again arousing my curiosity about this so-called RE forum. Where is it? How does anyone know it exists and, when one eventually does find it, surely the conversation isn't entirely comprised of slander about you? I'm curious now. That would be extraordinary.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:07:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Anon
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
Anon,

Yes, once again, I've proven myself to be a miserable poker player. And that's not a good thing because, as we know, life is a poker game. See, silly me, I thought I could rally the forces to help me eradicate this Jim=cult leader memetic virus. Instead, everyone says it doesn't matter. Why bother?

Okay, I guess.

RE is a private, confidential subset of Forum Five ostensibly created for 'recent exes' although anyone can join if the current members say so. What do they talk about there? Forum Five, of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:23:16 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: don't like pissing matches myself (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:35:03 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: Same here (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 16:25:28 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
I don't get it. My last message took almost two hrs. to show up so I posted it again thinking I did something wrong the post will show up much later I'm sure. Sorry. Just getting the hang of this thing. That's why you all may see 3 posts the same. I will have more trust next time.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:21:09 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: BJ - Cached version
Message:
My quess is that your browser is giving you a cached version of the forum. This happens to me on IE all the time. Check the 'current time' on the top of the forum, and if it doesn't match up with the real time, then you've got a cached version, on which new posts don't show up. Sometimes the only way I can get IE to load the current version is to exit IE altogether - then re-open the browser and load the page again. (I know there is probably a better way.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:44:24 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: BJ - Cached version
Message:
Ms K
TY that was all Greek to me but I printed it out and will ask a friend if they can decifer. Don't know what IE means. Let alone what I see all the time when people say nt or ot.
TY, BJ

And I'll ask what cached means.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:37:27 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: happens to me sometimes too, cache up (nt)
Message:
I need a new computer!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:49:43 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
Thank you again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:47:34 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I know you, Jim
Message:
Hey Jim, by my calculation it is 6 AM up in Canada. Give it a rest! What's Laurie doing right now?

You would like Anth's voice & seeing him in his tutu. He's right here next to me.

Love, your pal & colleague,
Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:51:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Marianne
Subject: I know you, Jim
Message:
Laurie's at home, I'm at my place, because I've got a flu or cold, bad enough to force us to cancel our gig last night. don't want her to get it if she hasn't already. Hows' it going, Marianne? What time is it there and what are you drinking? I'm sipping Nyquil myself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:12:51 (GMT)
From: Marianne and Anth
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I know you, Jim
Message:
No drinking going on here. Anth and I are waiting for Jean-Michel to arrive. Charlie & Lee just dropped me off. I'm having a grand time, as they like to say in Ireland. After Jean-Michel arrives, we're going to get our world map out and plan our strategy for world domination.

I also saw Nigel this week. He was wonderful too, although he forced me to drink so much I had a hangover the next day. Nigel's just as cool in person as on the forum.

Hi Jim, Marianne's telling what she's 'not' doing, but she's definitely not mentioning what she 'is' doing, and perhaps the Forum isn't the place to discuss such matters.

take it easy

anth the ';lskg' eawrkdaT]9p os'dflguh]j9pmwoeto'pmigb

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:52:53 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Marianne and Anth
Subject: ...brace yerself Anth (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:17:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Marianne and Anth
Subject: Holy fuck!
Message:
Hi Jim, Marianne's telling what she's 'not' doing, but she's definitely not mentioning what she 'is' doing, and perhaps the Forum isn't the place to discuss such matters.

take it easy

No, maybe you guys should be taking it easy!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:22:30 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Holy fuck! -- NOT
Message:
There is no holy fucking going on here, sir!

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:24:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Marianne
Subject: Holy fuck! -- NOT
Message:
Well then, that certainly settles that, doesn't it?

Where are you, chez AJW?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:23:32 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: At least not in this room (nt)
Message:
but there are creaking noises coming from upstairs,
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:26:28 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: AJW
Subject: Who's downstairs?
Message:
Is that your mum's room?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:12:21 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Baaaaaah humbug.
Message:
Hi Jim,

No, not my mum, Randy the sheep.

(You should see her leg joints. She looks absolutely fantastic in fishnet and lipstick. I'd send you a picture but she won't stay still on the scanner.)

Anth the Baaaaaaaaaaarking Mad

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:22:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: from Disappointed UK-The Majority Opinion
Message:
What is this? A scene from the Mikado? Now we've got to deal with officious, stuffed-shirt, bureaucratize?

Listen, as I've already said, I'm letting it go. Go, go, gone. Relax. Back to your regular programming. BUT --

you can rest assured that we will always have a weepy-eyed secret, private reception centre, ostensibly for 'recent exes', but really for anyone who's into a little gossip and hand-wringing, where honest confrontation of bullshit will be villified as 'cult-like' behaviour in its own right.

Sorry if I thought that meant something. Crazy me, huh?

By the way, fuck yourself for not having the guts to post under your own name.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:36:56 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is it important to care what you think?
Message:
'By the way, fuck yourself for not having the guts to post under your own name'

This type of behavior is probably why many use psuedo's and many just lurk w/o posting. I am not your friend or enemy. I have no obligation to dance to your music.

Sly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:52:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: Is it important to care what you think?
Message:
That's your opinion. Personally, I think you DO have an obligation to let me know who you are if I already know you by some other name here. But, hell, what do I know? I just make up my netiquette as I go along. Where did you get the official version?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:34:14 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry for the interruption....
Message:
Jim: I wanted to let you know that I have answered your immediate questions below your post, 'THANKS FOR ANSWERING..' I just posted here to get your attention. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt... :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:51:52 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: AND, sorry for the bad spelling/grammar
Message:
Jim: I'm on some muscle relaxers for my neck ache. Unfortunately, it had an detrimental effect on my spelling and grammar in THAT post, please read by those, will ya? :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:54:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: Well, what did you say? It's gone now
Message:
Mike,

I'm sure you had a good reason for waiting a couple of days but that threads caput now. It's in never-never land for now. What'd you say anyway?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:54:12 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim, again
Subject: OOPSS!
Message:
It looks like my answer just, and I mean just, dropped to inactive. If you have any response, put it right here and I'll find it. Thanks!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:07:37 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Here it is, Jim
Message:
Jim: The original 'subject line' was - I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT

HERE IT IS! Oh, yeah, I'll try to fix the spelling a bit, sorry my brain isn't at 100 percent due to the muscle relaxers.

Jim: You said, 'Again, Mike, how do you FEEL about him running anything around here? Do you trust him? How would you FEEL if you were in MY shoes?' (Emphasis on word 'FEEL' is mine!)

Jim, I'm trying to take the 'feel' out of it. I prefer to 'think' about it. I think you expected me to make a snap judgement based upon 'feelings.' I wasn't going to do that and will not do that (to the best of my ability)!

SO what I'm going to do is answer each question in turn, although they are interrelated, in as non-emotional way as I can:

(1) If by 'running anything,' you mean ADMINISTERING the RE forum, I don't have a problem with RUN doing it. Why? Because he has never once prevented the free-interchange of ideas about M. If he DID prevent, or attempt to prevent that interchange, I would want him run-off in a heartbeat. HE HASN'T! Yes, he has posted a bit about flaming (not a bad occasional subject), but so have 'I.' Does that mean I should be run-off, too? Quite frankly, Jim, when any 'personality' is brought into the picture, I generally don't read the missive. Why? Because I don't want to wade through a pile of crap to get to a pearl. I REALLY don't care what people-who-dislike-each-other say about each other. I don't listen to it when two of my 'divorced' friends try to do it, why on earth should I do it here?

(2) On the issue of trust, YES, I 'trust' him to ADMINISTER the forum in a fair manner and to respect/enforce the forum rules. So far, I believe he has done so. Again, I don't like 'personality' posts much and you are quite right when you say that the same yardstick 'should apply to our dealings with premies.' I've been as guilty as anyone, in this regard. Calling SHP 'stupid' is counterproductive..... calling his IDEAS stupid, is right on the money..... and there IS a major difference between picking on the personality and picking on an IDEA! Does the simple FACT that we've ALL made that mistake make us 'unfit' for forum ADMINISTRATOR duties? NO, I don't think so.

(3) I will answer your last question with some 'feeling' since this really IS an question of emotions and not thought. I think that I would, very likely, 'feel' pretty pissed. No argument with you here, Jim. It hurts when you find that someone just 'doesn't like you.' BUT, after a bit of time, I would hope that I would realize a simple FACT: People, and by this I mean fellow posters, would realize that this person 'had it in for you' and would just 'turn it off' to the point of not reading ANY of their posts, if it got bad enough. 'I' ask a simple question, 'who wants to wade through a pile of shit to get to the real pearl?' NOT ME, it usually isn't worth the effort! I doubt if anyone else would, either. (THERE ARE PLENTY of posts that speak to this simple truth!)

NOW..... having said all the above, can I ask a question (in semi-jest)? Why have YOU been EVADING MY QUESTION? Ah, ah, ah.... YES, YES you have evaded my request. In a post that has long-ago dropped to 'inactive' because of these off-topic threads, I asked you to quote me chapter and verse from PINKER, remember? Now how am 'I' supposed to 'feel' about you blowing-off my request? Should I feel slighted? Should I feel insulted? NO, maybe I should realize that you got so wrapped-around-the-axle on this 'RUN' thing that you just forgot to answer..... sometimes, 'evasion' isn't, Jim. Sometimes people are THINKING about an answer, 'something else' or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. In MY case, I was 'thinking' about my response to your questions. NO easy task since it's such an emotion-charged issue for the immediate participants.

So, did I answer your questions?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:36:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: Here it is, Jim
Message:
Mike,

Still haven't had time to look through Pinker because I've been sick home and the book's at Laurie's.

Mike, look, I've read those threads over on RE. Run says the most over the top stuff imaginable, all the shit that Shp says but worse. How, sleazy lawyer that I am, I misuse words, irrationally attack mercilessly, kicked shp like a mugger, knocked him unconscious and kept on going, dropped napalm on little village kids, was a rapist, murder, assassin. How I was tantamount to a cult leader, exerting unhealthy control over my 'followers' and how he, Run, was so disinclined to get into personality-based disputes, etc.

And not once in any of those threads did you or any one ever challenge a single thing this stupid twerp had to say. Not once.

So go for it. You've got about as much of my respect and trust now as you would expect to have in the circumstances. What do you think about that?

-- no, no, I'm cutting this off too early. There's more.

Run's lied his motherfucking pants off here and you know it. He lied about annswering me and he lied about provoking Roger. Worse, he suggested that anyone who couldn't see otherwise was under my sway or simply incapable of reading through my many posts for his carefully placed words of wisdom. In other words an idiot. Now how do you feel about someone with that character running the RE welcome wagon? Or, if oyu prefer, what do you think about it? I thought you were all about high standars and all that shit? What's up, Mike?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:21:26 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, the simple answer....
Message:
Jim: The simplest and truest answer I can give is as follows, I DON'T READ THE POSTS AFTER I FIND OUT THEY ARE ABOUT PERSONALITIES! I just flat DON'T!

Don't you get it????? I DON'T READ THAT SHIT!!!!! I KNOW that there aren't any 'pearls' in them, so why bother? I can usually tell from the subject line and that's enough to shut-em-down. I can't defend what I don't understand because I don't bother to read the SHIT! Get it? Understand? Simple? You BET,it's a simple solution. I use it on this forum all of the time! I use it on the AG forum by not going there in the first place! Trying to find a pearl there is LITERALLY like finding-a-needle-in-a-haystack...... and that's assuming that there really is a 'pearl' in there in the first place..... a HUGE assumption, IMHO!

For all I know, or care, there could be all kinds of SHIT said about me, personally, on AG..... I don't give a damn! I really don't. Get it? I'm secure enough in 'who I am' to know that there are going to be things said about me, over which I have no control..... so what? Do I think that readers there will think less of me here because of ANYTHING they read there? NO, I give the people here alot of credit for being able to tell the difference. I think the people here are alot more discriminating than that; and a hell of a lot more intelligent!

Now, if this particular 'quirk' of mine, to avoid places/threads where I have to wade through a pile of SHIT to find anything useful, is enough to have you lose respect/trust in/for me, well I guess I'll just have to live with it. If you actually think that I'm stupid enough to fall for, or give ANY credence to, the bullshit that I've heard people say about you (or ANYONE else), then you've NEVER had any real respect for me in the first place. If you think that others are that stupid, too, then you have no respect for them either (and NEVER did!) I make MY OWN judgements, MY OWN way, from EVIDENCE THAT I SEE! I know who the bozo's are.... I don't have to wave a red flag for others to see it, either (it's obvious enough, based on its own merits). Reacting to their 'shit,' usually makes it worse, not better. Paying no attention to the 'meaningless' threads gets the message across better than anything I could say. ESPECIALLY when I've already determined that the feud is 'personal in nature' and not based upon an argument about M (the PURPOSE of the forum, as I understand it). If the thread were about M (which gets my attention) and someone said that YOU believe M is god, not only would I would I correct that misunderstanding, I would get into the 'god' argument.

Threads about personalities don't get my attention, plain and simple Jim. They are ALWAYS, and I DO mean ALWAYS, BULLSHIT! Not that it probably matters, but HONESTLY Jim: I don't, personally, think any less of you because you disagree with my stance nor because of ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE HAS SAID ABOUT YOU! If I were to EVER think anything less of you, it would be because of something I experienced, PERSONALLY, not due to someone else's biases. Shit, Jim.... gimme some credit, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:39:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: Care to tell the truth, Mike?
Message:
Jim: The simplest and truest answer I can give is as follows, I DON'T READ THE POSTS AFTER I FIND OUT THEY ARE ABOUT PERSONALITIES! I just flat DON'T!
Don't you get it????? I DON'T READ THAT SHIT!!!!! I KNOW that there aren't any 'pearls' in them, so why bother? I can usually tell from the subject line and that's enough to shut-em-down. I can't defend what I don't understand because I don't bother to read the SHIT! Get it? Understand? Simple? You BET,it's a simple solution.

Yeah? Then what's this:

Run: I wish the ex's would lay-off you, that's for sure. We can always expect flames (or the fanning thereof) by current premies because they have no real defense. But, I do think that flaming each other is counterproductive. We can certainly have some animated discussions, but flaming 'ourselves' is kinda dumb in my opinion. I've seen it happen time-and-again and it's silly. I don't want to get into particular personalities, but we all know who they are. Considering the average 'displayed' intelligence level of the average posting ex, it surprises me even more! It amazes me because it certainly appears that the 'average ex' is extremely well-educated and, due to this, very sensible and mostly logical in thought. I include those who 'may not' have a large amount of formal education (thanks, in large part, to the hamster), but are obviously well-educated nonetheless.

Some of the most illogical 'flaming' that I've seen has come from those that claim to be the most logical. ATTACKING you everytime you post ANYTHING on F5 IS, in my opinion, VERY ILLOGICAL! After all, a thought is a thought! Discussing the fallacy of any one particular 'thought,' is certainly to be encouraged, but 'flaming' it, just because it comes from a particular individual, is illogical and counterproductive. Case in point: Look at my post, on F5, concerning the 'I-ness' question. Jim hasn't even responded to it (which does surprise me a bit). But if YOU posted the exact same thing, with the exact same language, you would receive a flame that would likely be a close kin to a NUKE! THIS, I don't understand.

I feel the same way about Roger. I'm not sure who-is-flaming-who when it comes to him (or who he's flaming, either), but that doesn't matter. We all know that roger has some issues (like possible 'paranoia.') HEY, after following the hamster, any 'normal' person WOULD HAVE ISSUES! M is a supreme mind-F**K! That, in my opinion, is what we, as a group, should be dealing with and helping with. Even if we aren't trained psychologists, we can certainly be supportive of an individual that's 'scared out of their wits!' Again, I'm not saying that roger is paranoid because 'I' can't make that determination. But we should 'support' each other, even if the crisis is just a perceived one. HEY.... I've got issues! Alot of confusion (to MY mind, anyway). Extricating myself from the 'hold' of lies and a good liar is really tough! Alot tougher than I would have expected! Why am I not being flamed mercilessly for my apparent bouts with confusion (it does come thru in my posts, occasionally)? I don't know, but I wish I did. Not that I want to be flamed, mind you, but if I kenw why then we could figure out a way to stop the 'senseless' flaming and get on with supporting each other and helping fence-sitting-premies to see the 'light!' Flaming those that deserve it, vice the first available target of opportunity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:35:15 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, well, well
Message:
Jim: If you read the entire thread, obviously you have it, you will note that my first post on the subject had to do with 'succumbing' to flaming, myself. That's where it started and that's where I was headed. The 'flaming' issue, all by itself!

As anyone can READ, Jim, one of the quotes which you so deftly skipped in this missive was KEY to the whole thing, to wit: 'ATTACKING you everytime you post ANYTHING on F5 IS, in my opinion, VERY ILLOGICAL!' That is what I was referring to..... the senseless ATTACKS that cause flaming to go on and on. I, as I stated before, am as guilty of this as anyone. Yes, I think the attacks on Run, everytime he posts, are senseless! Right, wrong or indifferent, they ARE senseless! It's pointless to continue a flame-out when one or the other decides to become obtuse.

ANOTHER KEY QUOTE: 'HEY, after following the hamster, any 'normal' person WOULD HAVE ISSUES! M is a supreme mind-F**K! That, in my opinion, is what we, as a group, should be dealing with and helping with. Even if we aren't trained psychologists, we can certainly be supportive of an individual that's 'scared out of their wits!'' Does that sound like blasting anyone, but myself? NO, it's saying that all of these off-topic, inane, illogical and incredibly stupid threads about 'personalities' are getting in the way of one of the avowed missions of this forum. A litte obtuse, maybe, but I was 'feeling' a little stupid for falling for the flaming 'trap' with Eddie..... AGAIN!!!!! So sue me for not being a little clearer!

YES, I mentioned the names of the last two folks I saw flaming (in recent memory); yours and roger's! What's THAT got to do with the price of tea? I realized my error in mentioning ANY names, but I can't pull a post back! I was feeling a bit depressed...Yes, I TOO am MORTAL! In fact, if you actually READ the post, Jim, YOU will note that I was even confused as to the roger/run flame fest..... I didn't know who started it, nor did I know why it started.... Later, I find that apparently Run said something to impune Roger's character. OOOpppsss.... and here 'I' am bringing up the name.... shit!

As you so deftly left out, Jim..... 'I' started my own discussion of flaming because I had just flamed Eddie..... I 'swayed' the discussion in THAT direction. The TRUTH, Jim, the WHOLE TRUTH, not just YOUR PERSONAL and VERY emotional take on it!

NOW, do you REALLY want to know what I think about your very personal vendetta against Run and what I think about Run's evasion? I wrote this a couple of days ago (after finally reading what you two... ahem... people had to say in your miles-long diatribe), but thought better of it and didn't. But, what the hell...Well, if you care to read, here it is..... it's to both of you:

BEGINNING OF POST THAT NEVER WAS:

Jim & Run: this is for BOTH OF YOU! Please read the ENTIRE post for a change before responding (you can pick it apart, later). You guys seem to like flames (with copious use of profanity), so here you go:

JIM first: What makes you think that I need your interpretation of a post from Run. Do I sound that stupid to you? I'm not one of your jury members that has to be led around by the nose to understand the content of a piece of written material. Trust me, I DO know how to read. I am more than capable of reading between the lines and can just as easily interpret what he said, all by myself, thank you! (Translation: Yes, Mr. Lawyer, that means I don't require your help!)

Your insistence on squeezing the last drop of blood out of this turnip looks pretty pathetic, Jim. You had him on the ropes and you had pummeled him pretty well, in reference to the 'evasion' issue. Now, it's like a boxing match where the beaten fighter continues to get beaten just because he doesn't have the room, or the commonn sense, to fall down! Does that make HIM look bad? No, it makes the idiot that continues to beat him look incredibly sadistic and stupid! ANYONE here can see that on the 'evasion' issue, YOU WIN! OK? YOU WIN, YOU WIN, YOU WIN! Jesus Fucking Christ! This isn't rational OR reasonable thought Jim, it's OBSESSION and it denigrates everything that you write when you give in to it! Some might refer to it as 'passion,' but I think it's alot more than the meaning of that rather innocuous word.

Do you realize, Jim, that a PREMIE is the one who originally planted the 'JIM CULT' idea (at least from the time I've been aboard)? Do you realize that you are reacting to something that, ANYBODY here KNOWS, is one of the stupidest ideas ever put forth by the pro-M crowd (or anyone else, for that matter)? Do you realize how stupid I (and maybe EVERYBODY ELSE, too) think it is when someone uses that phrase in a post about you? Do you actually think that we are so blind and stupid that we can't 'see-through' attempts to portray you as the bad-guy leader? With all due respect, Jim (to use your phrase to me) you show us NO RESPECT at all, assuming you actually think that way!

You know Jim, I don't care who is ADMINISTERING the forums, so long as they permit the free exchange of ideas about M. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Katie & Brian say, and yet..... YES, they run this forum with skill, dedication and fairness. Can't you accept the fact that someone who doesn't like you or doesn't agree with you or 'evades' you can ADMINISTER a forum fairly? If they are biased against Jim (or ANY other ex), it will be more than abundantly clear and I won't read their posts, no matter how much good information can be gleaned from them. If I have to wade through a bunch of shit to gather a single pearl, it isn't worth it! They lose credibility with me. AM I the ONLY one that thinks this way? I don't think so!
One more thing, Jim: do you realize that in your haste to beat on Run, that you have EVADED a request? Oh yes, you did! Now the thread that contained the request has, in fact, scrolled to inactive due to the enormous size of this INANE thread. That request is alot more 'on topic' than this shit is! Here, let me help...... PINKER, remember? So, should I now dog you all over the fucking forum, flaming you incessantly, for EVADING my request? NO, and quite frankly, I don't care to receive an answer until this shit stops.

Now for RUN: Show me where you answered Jim's question or where Jim changed the question! Funny, I've looked and honestly can't find it. But that isn't the point, now is it? You're too damned busy playing the 'flaming martyr.' Drawing on a weakness that you KNOW Jim possesses and then crying foul when he reacts! The beaten boxer crying, 'HIT ME, AGAIN' and then yelling, 'HEY REF, HE's BEATING ME!' That's pretty damned pathetic, as well. Hey, if you are on the ropes and getting beaten to the point of insensibility (and your posts seem to bare this out), why not just take the fall? Why is it so fucking difficult to apologize for a statement that you made or some poorly written words that could be misinterpreted to mean something that you didn't really intend! Communication is a two way street and it's the responsibility of the TRANSMITTER to ensure that the message is received, clearly! Is THAT so fucking difficult? Apparently, it is for you!

Jesus Fucking Christ, Run..... If you expect MAHAHA to accept responsibility for his actions and apologize and you can't even do it yourself, what does that make you? DO the words 'FUCKING HYPOCITE,' come to mind? I've done more than my fair share of apologizing to forum members for some of my poorly written posts and emails (that were misinterpreted), it isn't that hard...... try it, you might feel better..... here, take a deep breath, relax, purse your lips and say, 'I'm sorry that something I wrote was misinterpreted, it is my fault for not being clearer in my post' or if you REALLY meant what was said and now you've found that you are wrong, try this one, 'I'm sorry for making an unfounded allegation, I'll try not to do that again.' Since you seem to have a problem with doing it, I won't assume that you know HOW or WHO to do it to: The apology shouldn't go to Jim, it should go to the person offended by the remark. Someone who, to his GREAT credit, doesn't 'appear' to be in the middle of this stupid thread!

One last thing for you, Run: just as I made the argument above, do YOU realize that the 'Jim cult' idea is one of the stupidest things you could have brought up, considering it's original source? As you can tell from this post, I'm certainly not a member of it (and I'll bet you thought I was a charter member!). Nor am I a member of the RUN-FOR-MARTYR campaign (which seems to be made up of a minority of one).

So, now what are you BOTH going to do? Should I guess? Get pissed because I won't 'side' with either of you? A rousing chorus of 'fuck you Mike's?' OR.... are you, for just a single mother-fucking second, going to accept the fact that there might be the slightest hint of truth in this post and actually do something that surprises us all!

Now YOU BOTH have MY opinion; not the opinion of a 'Jim-cult' member or a 'Run-lover' member, either! I bring this up because both of you are attempting to 'shame' people into siding with you by using this rather transparent ploy. Again, I ask, how stupid do you think I am?

I value, in large measure, what you BOTH have to say concerning M, but NOT when I have to wade thru a pile of shit to retrieve the 'pearl.' Neither one of you is showing any respect to me, or anyone else, when you get into pissing matches that NEVER, I repeat, NEVER have the intended effect. Name one single time that any of these pissing matches has come to a satisfactory conclusion for either party (much less both).... NAME ONE SINGLE TIME! The topic is: Anything and Everything about MAHAHA, NOT Anything and Everything about JIM or Anything and Everything about RUN..... You guys aren't cult-leaders, despite some stupid allegations to the contrary.

END OF POST THAT NEVER WAS.....

By the way, Jim: I don't really give a flying fuck that you broke into a private forum. It was, and is, no surprise to me. It does prove to me (thru first hand evidence) that you don't have an ethical bone in your body. That's enough for me to say see-ya and let you know that no further communications with you is required or desired. You can blab on and on..... but I don't give a shit! Digging through your cesspit to find a pearl ain't worth the effort.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:14:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: Mike, please read
Message:
By the way, Jim: I don't really give a flying fuck that you broke into a private forum. It was, and is, no surprise to me. It does prove to me (thru first hand evidence) that you don't have an ethical bone in your body. That's enough for me to say see-ya and let you know that no further communications with you is required or desired. You can blab on and on..... but I don't give a shit! Digging through your cesspit to find a pearl ain't worth the effort.

You've got to be kidding. Any private forum that's brooding on my evil ways -- none of which you or anyone else ever even slightly objected to no matter how over-the-top, I should add -- is fair game, buddy. You want to talk about ethics? Again?? After you were just demonstrated as being, well, shall we say human, like the rest of us? Mike, it's not the case that I'm a paragon of virtue. None of us are. The only real problem is when we pretend to be. That's my read on human values. Watch others and watch yourself. Something like that.

Someone turned me on to RE. I read. I fumed. I saw Run laying out that crazy shit and, like I say, NO ONE ever calling him on it. So, yes, in the circumstances, I think I had every right to jump in.

Or let me put it this way? If you thought all along that Run's ideas were whack why didn't you say something? If I was anyone you the lest considered a friend why didn't you speak up for me? Why didn't anyone?

Now, next question: why sould I keep pummelling Run when he was clearly beat? Well, one reason is that he's got his own private forum which more and more people are likely to get involved in -- not me, of course -- where he's going to put his own snivelly spin on things. If I can't get him to admit here that he, himself, was trying to start a fight out of nowhere and lying about it after, that he didn't even have the guts to admit that that was what he was up to when confronted, wouldn't I have every reason to expect that he'd just be back on RE all freshly inspired to spin more bullshit? Now you say you're smart enough to read for yourself. Well, again Mike, with all due respect, you had many opportunities to call Run no whatever you now say you disagree with. Neither you nor anyone ever did. So what was I to think? How was I to know that you were simply patronizing him all along?

I felt that I had to keep going. There's no ref here calling a TKO so I had to go for a knockout. Run continued -- and continues, I'm sure -- to lie about all this. With so little communtiy support it all fell on me to deal with it.

Finally, you say that Brian and Katie run this forum with skill dedication and fairness. Well, first of all, they're no longer the FA's here. Didn't you know that? But, more importantly, do you think that Katie's defense of Run was 'fair'? What's fair mean to you?

If you had strong feelings you should hve expressed them when asked. I've been pretty well pulling teeth trying to get someone to say wyhat you've jsut said here. That Run's nonsense, originally started by a premie, is complete idiocy and deserves absolutely no respect whatsoever. Some, like Jerry and Pman, have called it fairly square. You went with me part way but then deserted the discussion.

As for Pinker, fuck off, Mike. Don't be ridiculous. AS IF I'd even think of avoiding you on that. You know I wouldn't. I alredy explained to you my delay. Had you asked me earlier I'd have said the same thing. Shit like that happens. You can't call it avoidance in those particualr circumstances and you know it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:17:25 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: Mike, please read - CORRECTED
Message:
By the way, Jim: I don't really give a flying fuck that you broke into a private forum. It was, and is, no surprise to me. It does prove to me (thru first hand evidence) that you don't have an ethical bone in your body. That's enough for me to say see-ya and let you know that no further communications with you is required or desired. You can blab on and on..... but I don't give a shit! Digging through your cesspit to find a pearl ain't worth the effort.

You've got to be kidding. Any private forum that's brooding on my evil ways -- none of which you or anyone else ever even slightly objected to no matter how over-the-top, I should add -- is fair game, buddy. You want to talk about ethics? Again?? After you were just demonstrated as being, well, shall we say human, like the rest of us? Mike, it's not the case that I'm a paragon of virtue. None of us are. The only real problem is when we pretend to be. That's my read on human values. Watch others and watch yourself. Something like that.

Someone turned me on to RE. I read. I fumed. I saw Run laying out that crazy shit and, like I say, NO ONE ever calling him on it. So, yes, in the circumstances, I think I had every right to jump in.

Or let me put it this way? If you thought all along that Run's ideas were whack why didn't you say something? If I was anyone you the lest considered a friend why didn't you speak up for me? Why didn't anyone?

Now, next question: why sould I keep pummelling Run when he was clearly beat? Well, one reason is that he's got his own private forum which more and more people are likely to get involved in -- not me, of course -- where he's going to put his own snivelly spin on things. If I can't get him to admit here that he, himself, was trying to start a fight out of nowhere and lying about it after, that he didn't even have the guts to admit that that was what he was up to when confronted, wouldn't I have every reason to expect that he'd just be back on RE all freshly inspired to spin more bullshit? Now you say you're smart enough to read for yourself. Well, again Mike, with all due respect, you had many opportunities to call Run no whatever you now say you disagree with. Neither you nor anyone ever did. So what was I to think? How was I to know that you were simply patronizing him all along?

I felt that I had to keep going. There's no ref here calling a TKO so I had to go for a knockout. Run continued -- and continues, I'm sure -- to lie about all this. With so little communtiy support it all fell on me to deal with it.

Finally, you say that Brian and Katie run this forum with skill dedication and fairness. Well, first of all, they're no longer the FA's here. Didn't you know that? But, more importantly, do you think that Katie's defense of Run was 'fair'? What's fair mean to you?

If you had strong feelings you should hve expressed them when asked. I've been pretty well pulling teeth trying to get someone to say wyhat you've jsut said here. That Run's nonsense, originally started by a premie, is complete idiocy and deserves absolutely no respect whatsoever. Some, like Jerry and Pman, have called it fairly square. You went with me part way but then deserted the discussion.

As for Pinker, fuck off, Mike. Don't be ridiculous. AS IF I'd even think of avoiding you on that. You know I wouldn't. I alredy explained to you my delay. Had you asked me earlier I'd have said the same thing. Shit like that happens. You can't call it avoidance in those particualr circumstances and you know it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:58:22 (GMT)
From: mantis
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Looks like a rant?!?!?!?
Message:
Do we have to rant and rave from time to time? Looks like it. Regarding your other posts - you may not like some of the shit others say about you, who would. Mayhaps, they be malicious button pushers?

Don't let 'them' get to ya! Fucking bastards! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:15:13 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: mantis
Subject: a depressed rant, to be specific
Message:
mantis: You are quite correct, that is exactly what it was. My other posts in the rest of the thread bare this out, reasonably clearly. I had just gotten over a flame-fest with EddieThe.... and realized that I had succumb to that rather than make any sense. I wrote a couple of posts (only the one that Jim wants you to see is here) in that thread while I was feeling a bit sheepish about the flaming issue altogether. My point was that flaming people just doesn't get the job done, nor is it cathartic (IMHO). Anyway, you obviously got the jist..... It WAS a rant, nothing more!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:59:06 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Lower Your Standards
Message:
Dear Disappointed,

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this site. It is a place where people leaving a religious cult can get support and help.

I don't know if you're in, or were ever in a cult, but if you've been brainwashed for many years to think someone is God walking around on earth in all his glory (like Maharaji, Rev Moon, Sai Baba etc), and you were daft, or drug induced enough to get caught up in it, leaving is not like simply walking out the door. Especially when your involvement is tied up with your deepest feelings and highest ideals about life. Lots of people, very sincerely, want to somehow 'Serve God' in what they do and there's always a 'spiritual' person around to take advantage of that, in the form of 'donations' for example.

You claim to be in the majority, but I'd say that 99.9% of the people in this country have never heard of Maharaji's tacky little cult, and have no interest in him, or it, at all, let alone a handful of middle aged old farts who've left it, and are still bitching about it.

Anyway disappointed you may be, but believe me, you're not as disappointed as we were when we realised that Maharaji's feet were made of clay.

Hope you find a site that doesn't disappoint you. (Try model making, chatting about the environment, political prisoners in China or something, or have a nose round Ex-premie.org or the House of Drek [links above]).

Anth the Appointed.

(ps, if this site is so disappointing, how come you bothered to post and how come you've come back to see if anyone responded. Do I sense a premie out there who likes the smell of freedom?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:06:20 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Lower Your Standards/???
Message:
I suspect you didn't read D UK's post in it's entirety. He(she)doesn't smell of Maharaji to me. It is originally in one of the many Jim vs. Run threads.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:18:18 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Lower Your Standards/???
Message:
As frequently happens, I suspect I may have got your message arse about face.

This may be because, as you are using an unfamiliar name, you appeared like a new person on the forum, but now, I suspect you may be a regular, using another handle. Am I right?

Anyway, let's see if I understand you now. Were you talking about this row that is going on, where Jim seems to be having a go at Runamok, when you commented on something being boring?

I'll go and have a look for D UKs post. I missed that bit altogether. Guess I'll have to read your post again too. Shit I should have stayed in bed and read me book.

Anth the Getting There Slowly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:35:09 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Lower Your Standards/???
Message:
I'm getting there Angry, and I think I agree with the sentiments expressed above, now I finally understand.

What threw me was, a strange name, then the post starting by apparently having a go at the reader. As it didn't say 'such and such wrote', it seemed that the post, 'to Everyone' was coming from a premie.

Anyway, it's early yet, and I was up late last night.

Let's see if I've got it. That big post was about the row between Jim and Run'.

I'm trying to sum up my feelings about it. It's like sitting in a bar with these two people, who you don't really know, slagging each other off in really loud voices on the table behind you. Anyone coming in off the street for a drink sticks their head round the door and doesn't get any further.

First, why so loud and so public, as if anyone else give a shit about what Jim thinks of Run or what Run thinks of Jim.

Second, why on Forum5? Sir Dave have set up a site specifically for this kind of personal bickering, because most people find it very irritating when full scale slanging matches break out.

Third, it's unpleasant when people attack each other in public. It's unpleasant for the people involved and it's unpleasant for people around. It turns into emmotional bollocks.

Ah well, glad I got that off my chest Angry. I suspect we see this from the same perspective, ie on the other side of the Atlantic.

It's because they were all brought up on Cowboy movies. They think life is made up of 'good guys' and 'bad guys', it's all the crap food they eat over there and the overload of ads on TV. Not to mention the fascist militaristic state they live in (Yes Jimbo, Canada. Give the Cherokees back their land you imperialist nazis.) Not to mention that tacky little tinpot dictatorship to the south.)

Gorra Go, the drugs are wearing off.

Anth the Libran.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:02:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: AJW
Subject: Is that the only voice you've got, Anth?
Message:
Normally I love your light-hearted, cheery voice, Anth, but right now it strikes me a little shrill and, well, chirpy, you know?

Why does anyone care? Look, for the last time, and believe me I'm getting pretty sick of this shit too -- I didn't like the fact that this idiot, Runanduck or whatever his name is, ... oh, forget it. Who cares? I don't. Let them do whatever they want on RE. Let them have all the secret, bullshit discussions they want there and let them drag my name in particular through whatever mud they want? Why should I care?

And Anth? You're such a nice guy I bet they'd be more than happy to give you an Honorary Password if you ask. Then you can drop in whenever you like and enjoy the 'fun'. But don't forget, you have to promise to keep it all a secret, 'kay?

Fuck you guys for thinking there's no public issue to any of this.

Come on, Anth, what's it gonna be this time? Anth, the 'oops, sorry, wrong room, I was looking for the Latvians'? Or Anth, 'boy, I must be doing something right, cause I've never had an ex call ME a would-be cult leader'? Keep 'em laughing, Anth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:27:54 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, you should hear Antonia.
Message:
Hi Jim,

You should hear my Antonia voice, it's much more shrill, but I only use it when I'm wearing my pink tutu. (Get Robyn to send you the jpeg)

Anth of the Sexy Elbows.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:18:49 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim/AJW
Subject: Is that the only voice you've got, Anth?
Message:
Shame on you Anth. You're disagreeing with Jim.

Don't you know that:

Jim's on a mission
Jim's on a mission
and
He can't help it
He can't help it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:24:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: Do I know you?
Message:
Hey, Angry,

I don't know that song but do I know you?

Hm?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:33:09 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wouldn't have a beer with you....
Message:
..because you don't seem to have any fun. Even your humor,has a sad quality to it.

I do like the shit you write about Maharaji though-much better than the bickering w/Runaschmuck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:36:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: Again, do I know you or not?
Message:
Don't worry about the beer, mate. I don't go on blind dates. Do I know you or not? Do you post here under another name or not, is what I'm asking? And, if so, what's with this bullshit? 'I-can-see-you-but-you-can't-see-me!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:47:24 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob)
Message:
Please, I beg of you, help me to understand your rules. Why is it important for you to know anything more about me beyond the fact that I'm out of the cult.

If you don't like it, register your dislike by not responding to me. We can both survive that, right?
Now, if you are, indeed, the leader of this forum then I must either conform to your will or exit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:58:53 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob)
Message:
Jim is not the leader of this forum. He just posts a lot, ok? Some people are intimidated by him, yes. You can be intimidated by him and leave, or you can talk about what you want. It's up to you.

I think Jim thinks you are an old poster using a new name. That stuff gets pretty confusing. I left here for a while because I couldn't tell who was who. I personally don't like it when people go in and out of too many personas (funny ones like John Hammond Smythe and Minnesota Housewife excluded) Of course, I don't use my real name, but at least I stick to one persona (except when I was trying to be funny once)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:28:11 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Thanks VP
Message:
I agree with you on that and will stick to the name Angry. That is, of course, assuming you are not another of Jim's followers. If that turned out to be the case, (I hope it isn't)I just wouldn't know what to think. This is all so Confusing!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:03:53 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Thanks VP
Message:
I am not one of Jim's followers. Does he have followers?

This is so very interesting to me to see people referring to one another as cult leaders or as having followers. See, I think that is a bit of residual cult thinking. I was never actually in this cult, though I was exposed to it for a long time. In the world I live in, most of the time, I have noticed that unless you are dealing with politics or religion there really isn't that much leading and following going on. There ARE leaders and followers in life, but not to the extent that gets alluded to here.

Of course I can only speak from my experience. In my life I either agree with a point my friend makes or I don't. I don't follow a friend around and make them my guru, ya know what I'm saying?

I think Jim is a very creative and funny writer, but there are certainly things he and I handle differently. That is what makes us individuals. We don't always have to agree and if we don't, it doesn't make me stupid or him a piece of shit, you know? We have certainly disagreed here and he has always been civil with me. He is a person with his opinions and I am a seperate person with my opinions.

I also have to say that Run and I have always been able to talk civilly even though we have had to agree to disagree on some things. I appreciate that from him as well.

Angry, I say just make up your own mind about each thing in you life. What is so confusing about it? Just have your own opinions. It's not all black and white.

Have a good one!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:53:27 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: A Demonstrated Tendency
Message:
Hi-

Since just about everyone hear has demonstrated a willingness to be a follower, doesn't it stand to reason that some have merely moved on to another leader type. It may seem absurd but looking back at it now, following the fat guru was also absurd.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:44:27 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: A Demonstrated Tendency
Message:
No, that idea does not sound absurd. When a person first exits as a follower of a cult, they might try to replace their leader with a new leader. (Afterall, isn't that easier (or so they think) than making their own decisions and rules for their life?)

--but that would depend on the person. Many people here have been out of the cult for a while and aren't looking to replace M with anything. There are several leader types here, but I don't think that means that they have or want followers, ya know? I do think these people have needs to make friends here and to have a sense of a community of ex-premies, people they have something in common with. This shared bizarre experience that makes everyone here uniquely bonded. That doesn't make them cult leaders.

Maybe I have trouble grasping the logic because I am not a great follower. I didn't accept M because I was going to have to have to surrender myself to him. I just wanted knowledge and the meaning of life without having him/devotion as part of the equation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:15:06 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: being funny
Message:
You've only tried once?

Give it another bash VP, practice, like with many things, helps.

Lady Antonia Let's do it again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:33:28 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: being funny
Message:
Snicker snicker, Lady Antonia! :)
I meant to say that I have only used one other alias that I can recall--(Along the lines of Little Yiddish Grandmother, but not her) That persona of mine (who shall remain nameless as they have gone on to a better place, for the time being) only posted a couple of times on off topic subjects. I didn't use that alias to duck behind or anything like that. Hey, I already duck behind 'VP'. That is quite enough ducking for me.
Have a good one.
Love that expression, 'give it another bash' BTW!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:54:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: Clarification Needed(No, I'm not Rob)
Message:
Leader fo the Exes? Conform to my will or exit? Relax, fella. I'm simply asking if you post under another name? Do you?

No, you're absolutely right, you don't have to tell me. But you can't expect me to take you seriously otherwise, can you? Do you ever have discussion with your friends or even people you know, where they call you on the phone but use a voice scrambler so you can't tell who they are? I don't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:13:31 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Great question Jim!...now can you believe THIS?
Message:
Do you ever have discussion with your friends or even people you know, where they call you on the phone but use a voice scrambler so you can't tell who they are? I don't.

Jim,

I'm glad you brought this up.
Now when I was dealing with Amtext, I could swear there were times when I phoned the office, and they would answer my calls using phoney voices that for all I know were scrambled.
So, you're probably asking yourself, why? Why would those fine folks at the Amtext office answer tha phone with fake voices, especially when I would be calling? And how did they know it was me who was calling?

Well they had their caller id, we know that, even though noone from Amtext would ever admit it. But still, why would they answer the phone in fake, disguised voices?
My guess is that it was for the pure joy of fucking with me, once I had become a 'dissenter' within the world of Amtext. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, those guys were so playful!

Ps: My own take is that ANGRY is a legitimate new poster on the forum who's chosen to post under an anonymous handle. I may be wrong about this, but I see no abuse of anonymity in this case as I do in other, more obvious situations involving your friend Roger.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:48:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Joey
Subject: Great question Jim!...now can you believe THIS?
Message:
Joey,

The last time you mentioned my name you called me a 'stooge', if I recall. Why in the world, I don't know and didn't. I tried to call you but you never returned my calls.

Now what was it you want me to comment on?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:11:32 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My, we're touchy today, aren't we?
Message:
Jim,

The last time I mentioned your name on this page, I DID NOT call you a 'stooge', and you in fact DID respond to me without referring to any previous insults that may have been exchanged in prior posts.
If you now want to bring up this grudge, and not respond to me on this page until I return your phone calls or whatever....that's fine with me.
I think I can live very well, thank you, even without your feedback.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:20:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Joey
Subject: My, we're touchy today, aren't we?
Message:
Joey, it was just that that comment and your renewed hatred for Roger seemed, to me anyway, to come from nowhere. Why didn't you get back to me?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:00:58 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My, we're touchy today, aren't we?
Message:
Well 'that comment' and what you call my 'renewed hatred for Roger' did not come out of nowhere.
Roger and I believe Gerry too were both making sarcastic comments about the
'Unholy Alliance' that they were part of along with yourself (even though you were quite absent from the proceedings at the time), as they were relentlessly pursuing Runamock and indirectly everyone participating in the recent exes forum.

Furthermore, regarding Roger, I've already spelled out on AG where I felt it belonged, how he was carrying on in a boorish manner with anti-semitic overtones in his bloated, swine-like laughter at the joke of the 'jewish girl' who was raped.

Then of course there was the matter of Roger coming out of nowhere with his attacks on Katie and Brian, alleging improprieties on their parts which noone else could understand or agree with. Sure, Roger backed off eventually, but alot of us thought his attacks were senseless from the word go.

Now rumour also has it that a snitch passed on the password from the recent exes forum to Roger, and that he and Gerry took advantage of the opportunity to eavesdrop on these people. If this is true, then certainly you should be able to understand how there may be those who are less than enamored with your pals. This is a very serious accusation IMO.

In any case I hope I've given you enough to tear apart::)) Please note that I haven't even begun to deal with some of the outright bullshit thats been enshrined in the House of Drek. We can't deal with everything at once. At,least I don't have the time. I do hope however that at the minimum, I have given you some explanation why my anger at Roger doesn't really come 'out of nowhere' as you suggested. I believe, there are valid reasons.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:40:28 (GMT)
From: Sesame Street Smoko Room
Email: None
To: Roger
Subject: !!RROOOOGERR!!!! Jim IS TALKING ABOUT YO0000OOUUUU
Message:
Up above.
He did!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:53:28 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Sesame Street Smoko Room
Subject: Fuck off, you anonymous dink!
Message:
Now, whoever you are Sesame Street Smoko Room, YOU'RE an example of anonymity being abused on this forum and being given a bad rap.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:03:56 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Agree with your Logic
Message:
That sounds good to me but as I said you don't appear (on the surface of the internet anyway) to be someone I would choose to be friends with. You certainly have demonstrated that you will stab anyone in the back if it helps you complete your insane mission. A voice scrambler appears to be necessary in this case.

Do you accept the idea that a vast majority of posters here want you and Run to cease and desist?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:11:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Angry
Subject: No tickee, no washee
Message:
Sorry, my friend,

I already told you I wouldn't talk any further to you until you tell me truthfully if you already post here under another name. If you're not prepared to answer that, quit asking me anything further. Waste of time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:21:50 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Lower Your Standards/???
Message:
Yes

No problem but just remember when you're driving(hope you're not) home from the bar tonight that you guys drive on the wrong side of the road! Have fun!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:56:06 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
'Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.'

I wanted to throw this out for discussion--just for fun in the spirit of our old discussions here. What do you people honestly think about the possibility that someone could be psychic? Can people really tell what is going to happen in the future? In my opinion, most people who call themselves psychics are frauds, but there are a few things I cannot explain away--yet anyway.

For example, how is psychic Sylvia Browne able to locate missing persons dead or alive) Have any of you ever seen her solve missing and murdered persons cases? Why do police departments, doctors and psychologists hire her (she is 700 dollars a reading--I am in the wrong business)

It's very tempting to see her as just another fraud since money seems to be her main motivation. The woman has 'marketed' herself commercially in every sense--books, magazine, tv shows,and products for sale on a web site (More stuff for sale than Elan Vital!) Yet, the woman has done things that seem to defy explaination.

Even if we can explain her away, (and John Edwards and others) how is it that I have had these type of experiences myself?(smaller scale,though) How is it that I knew I was going to have a major car wreck 10 minutes before it happened? (I asked the driver NOT to go down that road, but he did anyway) Why did I dream that I was at my Uncle's funeral the night before he was killed in a freak accident? (Coincidentally, another family member had that same dream on the same night.) I had similar dreams the night before two other family members died. Are these type of things simply coincidences?

Who has an explaination? Can anyone suggest any good reading on this topic? (Pro or con--no pun intended on the con part--snicker)
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:09:31 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
Hi VP,

On the inside jacket of 'The User Illusion, Cutting Consciousness Down To Size', this is written:

During any given second, we consciously process only sixteen of the eleven million bits of information our senses pass on to our brains. In other words, the conscious part of us receives much less information than the unconscious part of us. We should trust our hunches and pursue our intuitions because they are closer to reality than the perceived reality of consciousness.

Maybe psychics just have stronger intuitions and hunches, and are able to discern things from them that normal people aren't.

Really can't explain it, either. But my favorite way of looking at it is the adage, just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that it's supernatural. It's just something that no one can explain just yet. Someday, I figure, the secrets of psychic abilities will be clearly understood and they won't seem so supernatural anymore. Just a hunch.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:43:56 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Rationality verses feelin' good :)
Message:
Awhile ago I was talking to a buddy about creation, God and stuff like that. I was talking of the possibility of the non-existence of God. He looked at me kind of funny, then he laughed and put his hand over my heart. Harry, your thinking like a white man, your thinking with your head. Stop and listen with your heart instead.
He's right you know. Life is a big, glorious mystery; or it can be. A person may be doing it hard, but that doesn't stop it being a 'glorious mystery'. There's a way of looking at things that makes them shine, that makes them almost perfect, that makes us laugh like a child; be it a simple blade of grass, or the eyes of a person that lets you in. Deconstruction runs the danger of taking the magic out of existence for the deconsructioner. That almost deserves a smiley face hey.
Then there's the chance to develop things like compassion, selflessness, the ability to give and recieve love. You wouldn't be dead for quids hey.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 14:41:47 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Rationality verses feelin' good :)
Message:
I was talking of the possibility of the non-existence of God.

Harry, I believe in the existence of God on a metaphysical scale. Logically, the theory of evolution has proven that 'God' is not essential for existence. But throughout history, people have had experiences where they 'feel' that they are in the presense of God, a living being, as real as you or me. Now these people, mystics they're called, could stop right there and take their experience at face value, and believe that there is, in fact, a God because of such experience. Or, if they were more knowledgeable about the mechanics of consciousness, they might begin to question the experience, and wonder if 'God' existed only so far as their consciousness did. In other words, without human consciousness, could God exist? Is he independent of it? It's a good question and one that I personally find very stirring. Why? Because the truth may very well be that God, whether we feel his presense or only think that 'there's just gotta be one' may very well exist only in our minds. And hearts, if you insist. But no further than that. If that's the truth, I want to know, because, Harry, I love the truth. Knowing it makes me feel real, real good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:25:28 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Rationality verses feelin' good :)
Message:
Jerry

I'm glad knowing truth makes you feel good. There's truth and truth I guess. There's little bitty truths and big Absolute ones, but what happens if truth isn't absolute?
It seems to me that the only people who believe that they are in possession of some 'Ultimate Truth' are rigid fundermentalist types. No person with a fair and open mind (like yourself), is ever going to find the big T 'Truth' using his or her head. IMO, listening to, and following your heart can make life a meaningful, sometimes magical, sometimes painful, journey. But it can take one on a journey, beyong the confines of 'me, me' and into things like compassion and selflessness, which may after all be what life, was intended to be about. You know, making a difference and growing. Then again, maybe it isn't.
Harry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:40:29 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Theory of evolution implies God not essential?????
Message:
Let me first say that I believe, but do not know, that we descended from lower life forms, and that mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, catastrophes, and some other factors of evolution have been identified. At its basic level, evolution is a useful scientific theory backed by evidence.

Jerry wrote:

'Logically,the theory of evolution has proven that 'God' is not essential for existence.'

G responds:

I disagree with that assertion on logical grounds.

There is circular reasoning involved because 'God is not essential for existance' is assumed as part of the particular 'theory of evolution' espoused in that statement. To have a valid logical proof, nonessentiality must not be already assumed. There is no leeway here.

The circular reasoning involved is like saying that:
1) there is no scientific proof of statement A
2) so we can assume statement A is false
3) other assumptions
4) blah blah blah
therefore statement A is false

Or simplified, no scientific proof of A logically implies NOT A.

That is a false statement.

Where is the logical proof that 'the theory of evolution' implies 'God is not essential for existence' and what is meant by that statement? The statement needs clarification.

First, it would more exact to say 'the theory of evolution' if assumed true implies.... Notice the use of the word 'theory' instead of 'fact'.

Second, what exactly is meant by 'the theory of evolution'? This term has different meanings, depending on what is assumed. I take it that you mean a strong form of the statement. There are several assumptions, each would need to be proved.

1) we descended from lower life forms, descent with modification
2) mutations are a factor
3) natural selection is a factor
4) other mechanistic forces are factors, these should be stated
5) all mutations are totally 'random'
6) all mutations are 'blind'
6) natural selection is 'random' and 'blind'
7) the other factors are 'random' and 'blind'
8) the assumed factors are the only factors in evolution

The words 'random' and 'blind' need to be clarified. Can they be formulated without assuming nonessentiality? If not, there is circular reasoning. I would suggest using www.dictionary.com to look up 'chance', 'random' and 'blind'. The clarification of these terms is a complex issue. For instance, only recently, a new mathematical definition for randomness has been formulated, one that involves incompressibility. See Randomness and Mathematical Proof.

The words chance, random, and blind have been used in a superstitious, unscientific manner (similar to 'Lady Luck') when talking about evolution. There is a superstitious notion of 'Chance' -- or 'Luck' -- as being a force. You might as well say 'God', they both mean something unknown.

Where are the measurements of mutations that have occurred through time? What assumptions are realistic about them, without assuming nonessentiality?

Where is the proof of the sufficiency of natural selection? It is not enough to show that natural selection might explain some changes, that is a weak argument. 'might explain' does not mean 'does explain', 'some changes' is not the same as 'all changes'.

Third, what exactly is meant by 'God' in that statement? the Big Daddy up there past Alpha Centauri who has a huge beard? the cause of all existence? the source of awareness? the essence of existence? everything? everything and more? the only reality?

After assumptions are stated without assuming nonessentiality, then a logical proof needs to be given.

If 'God' means the essence of existance, then the statement 'God is not essential for existence' is by definition false. One could claim that existance has no essence, but such a claim is very dubious and defies common sense. Also, if 'God' just means essence, then you could say that 'God', by definition, does not exist as a form.

There is this strange court of law wherein the general concept of 'God' is guilty until proven innocent. If someone wants to live in such a strange state of mind, go ahead, but don't call in science, and don't call it logic. It isn't.

Thinking and logical reasoning are not the same thing.

Scientists are justified in excluding the notion of God in their theories. What I object to is the use of a perverse distortion of science as a weapon in spreading atheism, creationism, or any other philosophy.

Who is really knowledgeable about the mechanics of consciousness? I say no one is. Consider the tool 'Arguments from authority carry little weight' from Sagan's baloney detection kit. I have seen this kind of argument several times at this forum. It's baloney.

When discussing consciousness, one thing to seriously consider is the quantum observership problem. No one knows what is behind it.
What about the numerous incidents that suggest esp? Is it logical to just summarily dismiss them due to preconceived notions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:32:08 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Theory of evolution implies God not essential?????
Message:
Can I have your baby?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:41:49 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: well I don't know,
Message:
I think we should get to know each other first :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 23:41:57 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I hate long posts
Message:
That was a long post, G, so you're getting a long one back. Hope you can read all of it. Most people here, including myself, don't bother with anything beyond three paragraphs.

The circular reasoning involved is like saying that:
1) there is no scientific proof of statement A
2) so we can assume statement A is false
3) other assumptions
4) blah blah blah
therefore statement A is false

I meant 'logically' in the context of 'reasonably', as in there is no evidence that God is an essential factor in the theory of evolution,(which in my mind is the best theory yet for existence), so it's reasonable to assume that he's not a part of it.

.... Notice the use of the word 'theory' instead of 'fact'.

Lame. And old. Scientific theories aren't given much credence unless they have a lot of FACTS to support them. The theory of evolution is based upon a lot of facts, so many, in fact (heh, heh), that most scientists agree that evolution itself is a fact.

There are several assumptions, each would need to be proved.

You make it seem as if there's no evidence at all to support the theory, that it's all been 'assumed'. If anything has been assumed, it's that there is a God. While scientists can give a wealth of evidence on behalf of evolution, how much can you give on behalf of God?

The words 'random' and 'blind' need to be clarified.

It means it could have happenned this way, it could have happenned that way, with no overseer running the show. Personally, based on my own humble knowledge of the subject, I'm not so sure it was random. If all things are subject to the laws of physics, as far as I can see there's no randomness there, just obedience to law. So things worked out as only they could, no other way. Even when you roll dice, it's already been determined, by the laws of physics, how they're going to come up even before they've left your hand; by their position in your hand before you throw them, the force you throw them with, the surface they land on, how they land, the shape of them, the effects of gravity on them, etc. etc. Every step along the way, it's been determined, quite specifically, what the next step is going to be. So where does randomness come into play? Just some of my own thoughts about it.

Third, what exactly is meant by 'God' in that statement?

It means God the creator. Interesting how you point out how God could mean numerous things. It seems whatever people fancy God to be, that's who he is to them. Why doesn't God have a very definite identity the same as everything else in the universe? How come God's identity can be amended everytime it seems foolish to hold on to the current one? Whatever happenned to Zeus? Where did Odin go? How's about the idea that God is consciousness? What's he going to become when they figure it out just what part/parts of the brain are necessay for it to exist? What identity will God be given then? Even the notion of ONE God, as opposed to many is a fairly recent development in humankind's history.

Where is the logical proof that 'the theory of evolution' implies 'God is not essential for existence' and what is meant by that statement? The statement needs clarification.

God, as has been believed BEFORE Darwin, created things whole. There was no consideration that things evolved into what they became over long periods of time. God created things, and he did it in just seven days according to the Judeo-Christian belief. There are plenty of other myths about how God did things but I don't think it's necessary to get into it. The point is that the theory of evolution shows how intelligent life, all life in fact, all THINGS in fact, could come to be through a slow process of evolution that merely obeys the mindless laws of physics. No God required. Of course this doesn't prove that there is no God, and if there is, obviously he WOULD be essential for the existence of things. But he's yet to be discovered as an essential factor in how things came to be. When's he going to be? Ever?

Thanks for the links. I've bookmarked both of them and will read them when I get the chance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 16:39:04 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: a short post
Message:
Jerry wrote:

I meant 'logically' in the context of 'reasonably', as in there is no evidence that God is an essential factor in the theory of evolution,(which in my mind is the best theory yet for existence), so it's reasonable to assume that he's not a part of it.

G responds:

That proves my point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:43:16 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
Dear Jerry,
I guess I don't see it as super natural. I think it is something that all have the potential for and with effort those that it comes to naturally can work to develop it although I am not sure how to go about that or I would.
What is super natural, sci-fi? If it happens to people then it is natural not super natural, IMO.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:27:34 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
YOU MAY NEED A NEW PSYCHIC IF...


* He keeps shaking black crystal ball and says, 'Ask again later.'

* Every time you draw the Death card, she yells 'Go Fish!'

* Looks suspiciously like that guy who fixed your muffler last week.

* His idea of an 'out of body experience' involves whipped cream and women's clothing.

* His spoon bending requires two pliers.

* Sign in window: 'As Seen on '60 Minutes.'

* During card-reading, asks if you want to 'hit' or 'stand.'

* Insists that your astrological sign is 'The Armadillo.'

* Psychics Magazine rates her just below fortune cookies, just above your mom.

* Repeatedly attempts to read your palm with his genitalia.

* Shakes her crystal ball, then predicts a large snowstorm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 00:48:41 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Very funny! :) (nt)
Message:
agetq
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:30:55 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't say what kind of 'bits of information' could be involved. In many cases, it doesn't seem that the intuitions could be derived in any way from information optained from our known physical senses. However, it could explain some cases, e.g. a hunch about someone's character. Seemingly precognitive experiences are harder to explain. It could be that reality is actually very different than what we think and perceive. We may only have a superficial view.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 23:06:41 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
G,

I agree that it's unknown what that information is, and at best I'm offering a lame explanation for psychic abilities. The point is that there's a lot, A LOT, of information flowing into our brains that we don't have conscious access to but certainly must be important in some capacity. It must be influencing us in some way.

It could be that reality is actually very different than what we think and perceive. We may only have a superficial view.

Did you see 'The Matrix'? Great movie if you didn't. It's all about this guy who is taken from his dream, the matrix, into the real world. At one point, his mentor, Morpheus, says to him, 'What is reality? Is it what we see, touch, hear? (something like that), because if it is, than reality is only electrical signals interpreted by the brain.' He's right. Reality, as we as humans are able to experience it, is completely dependent upon how our brains represent it to us. So what is REALITY? Can we even know? Is there a reality that extends beyond us? Again, how can we know? We can only know what our consciousness allows us to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:24:53 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
Hi, Jerry
Did you see the autopsy results on Albert Einstien's brain? I can't remember specifically what distinguished it from, say, my brain--I think his brain had more surface area due to more grooves. (Anyone remember specifically?) Anyway, I read it a while back which is why I can't remember.

What stuck with me was the fact that there was a physical, measureable scientific explaination for why he could think they way he could. His brain had a different design and was efficient in a much different way than most of our brains are. Maybe someday they will find out these 'psychic' things are due to something physical and measurable that enable a person to perceive things differently. Sort of like the way I have perfect eyesight but my partner is practically blind without contacts or glasses. It's a difference in perception based on a physical difference.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:45:52 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: A scientific explanation?
Message:
Dear Veep,
Just wanted to say hi and that this is a great (ot) thread with no flaming! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:54:46 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
HI VP,

Being an experienced person in psychic matters maybe I could help alitle.

In reality there is no time - truly. Everything really has already happened. When we are being 'psychic' we are just tapping into the reality that we are in touch w/ everthing.
If we see the accident that is ten min away. Its bec it already happened and we are given a glimpse of that.

The man that is in the mental hosp. thinking he's Jesus or Tom Jeff
really is Jesus and Tom . He just is not realizing we ALL are Tom and Jesus and George Wash.

That's the wonder and magic of the insane person and the saint. The saint realizes ,yes he's Tom and George and Jesus and everyone is in him and he in everyone. The nut behind bars doesn't pick up on the divine part.
That's all for now

TY,BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:08:18 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: I knew you were going to say that.
Message:
The world according to Harry

I think that God is everything that is, including us, and the universe (God) is expanding and growing and there is no future, 'cause it just hasn't happened, and it could be any of million different possibilities. IMO, we only have now, an endless succession of nows, and our actions now, create our future, the future.
Have you heard of the monkeys in Japan that lived on an isolated island? One started to wash it's food in a certain way, and then another and another. Soon monkeys on other islands that had no contact with the original monkeys started to do the same. That's how we create our future. The group consciousness of all creation creates our future, so if enough of us are trying for positive change, then anything's possible. That's my story anyway

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:57:13 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: Psychic?
Message:

I understand these phone psychics who just give people general statements about their lives. (Scripts someone has handed to them to read with general information that could apply to almost anyone.) It's not to hard to see how Madam Anna down the street can figure out what your issues are by looking at you. (Or by looking information up about you ahead of your scheduled appt.)

What I can't figure out is how someone who has never met you can say, 'Your father who is missing has been dead for six months. You will find him 15 miles south of his house in a shallow body of water.' Then when the police search they find the body exactly where the psychic said it would be. It's the specific stuff that I can't account for.

Even if the person could be getting a glimpse of something that already happened, as you stated (I can't GET that...Einstein, I ain't!) HOW do they get that glimpse? And why?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:32:19 (GMT)
From: Charlie
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Maybe the cops should arrest the psychic as it must have been them that put the body in the water.

Flippant, perhaps..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:07:37 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Charlie
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Charlie responded:
'Maybe the cops should arrest the psychic as it must have been them that put the body in the water.'

G responds:

What assumptions and logical reasoning are you making that lead you to this conclusion?

I also have had many psychic experiences and have heard many people tell me experiences they have had. These are people who are very sane and have no reason to lie. Particularly around the time of the death of a loved one, many strange things happen. Some people automatically dismiss these experiences because of a preconceived notion that esp and other 'paranormal' occurrences are impossible. This notion has not been proven.

To say that 'all claims of psychic experiences are either lies or delusions' is an ad hominem logical fallacy, i.e. it is 'to the man' or attacking the arguer and not the argument. This type of so-called argument is often used against opposition toward the party-line atheistic view of evolution, e.g. likening the opponent to a child who believes in Santa Claus. Such arguments carry no real logical weight, but rather an emotive weight.

We have a very incomplete view of reality. Leading physicists now speculate that there are more physical dimensions than the four dimensions of time and space. If a physicist said that decades ago they would have been laughed at. There are many anomalies that physicists know about but can't explain, which shows that the current scientific view is incomplete. We do not understand what underlies our physical universe. String theory is a current theory proposed by physicists. It says that particles of matter are manifestations of 'strings' that 'vibrate' at different 'frequencies'. Does anyone understand this?

Just because there is not a scientific theory to explain esp doesn't logically imply it is not real. If anyone wants to challenge me on this, go ahead, I dare you. All that I ask is that you strictly stick to logic.

You can't logically say that a proposition is false if it has not been proven. If fact, Godel showed that in any adequate axiomatizable theory there are statements that are true but not provable in the theory.

Here is just one experience I had. I had a dream where I was in a small room. I noticed there was an opening in the wall, I looked in the opening and saw a rodent-like animal much larger than a mouse. I held back the animal from moving forward with a stick. There was a feeling of fear. The next day before I left work, I decided to tell the dream to a coworker. As I was telling it, she said 'You were in my kitchen last night'. I didn't know what she meant and continued. Again she said the same thing, then told me that she was in her kitchen the prior evening, noticed a hole in the wall, and a big rat scurried out. It freaked her out.

If such experiences rarely occurred, you could maybe just say it's coincidence. But they happen often, and it's not just how often they occur, but their quality that makes them significant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:39:38 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Dear G,
Once when I was a premie I was drive alone to my home town and I kept 'seeing' a friend that moved away in highschool, laying in the sun by the pool of a mutual friend's house. Instead of going home I first went to the friend's house with the pool. Her mom was like a second mother to me and greeted me at the door with suprize and told me that my friend Karl was staying there, up for a visit. Karl is who I visioned. The were out bowling so I went there, snuk up behind him and covered his eyes. When her realized who I was he said he'd been out by the pool that day and kept seeing me pulling into the drive way. It is these experiences that make life worth living, little treats by that god who has neglected me on that foreplay issue. :) Sorry but that just cracks me up. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:09:13 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
That is a cool story.
Remember the Violet thing? (We can't tell the whole thing here, but it was certainly weird, wasn't it?)

I wonder if we will ever have definitive answers about why these things happen. I like hearing the different opinions people have about it, anyway.

I also like what you said about it being 'normal' instead of 'para-normal' Good way to look at it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:47:06 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Dear Veep,
Yeah, Violet brought us together in a now long standing friendship. Happy V-day sweetie. :)
I heard about your weather woes this morning on the news and then read your post here. Glad you and yours are ok!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 22:08:01 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Tornado blues
Message:
Some people died last night. We were the lucky ones, as a tornado did pass this way. My roof is leaking which sucks, but it could have been worse. This kind of thing always puts things in perspective for me. That and Charlie's moanin' and groanin' post, too.
Happy Valentines day and friends always,
VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:58:08 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: God and foreplay
Message:
This talk about foreplay reminds me of an erotic painting by Correggio entitled Jupiter and Io, where Jupiter disguises himself as a cloud and makes love to Io. He has to disguise himself so his wife won't find out. Io has this ecstatic look on her face.

I can see why a woman would want to fantasize about God as being a man, but why would a man want to?

One reason that I believe there is a God is women. They are just too beautiful to have just been made by accident. Thank God for women!

G

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:00:54 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: G
Subject: God and foreplay
Message:
Okay, okay, the foreplay part got my attention!
Great painting, too. I have always liked that one. Thanks for putting it here so I could see it again.

Who says God has to be a man? You know, I liked the Greek (or Roman) model of God myself. Those Greeks were real equal opportunity employers in the religion category. Their Gods were both sexes, adulterous, lecherous, jealous, etc. Somehow they had a more realistic picture of what 'in God's image' might suggest-ha ha!

It's not my image of what I think God might be, but it's amusing and interesting. It also shows how faddish religion is. An idea is here today, gone in five thousand years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:06:58 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: G
Subject: God and foreplay
Message:
Dear G,
I am just enjoying this train of thought, a little to much perhaps. :) Really though I don't even think of 'it' as god, thus the small g. Nice thing you said about women though. :)
Thanks for the link to the pic. Jesus, if those are Jupiter's hands that Io had her work cut out for her!!!! YIKES! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:43:03 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Charlie
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Hey Charlie,
I hesitated to post this here but seeing your post I had to. :) I have had phycic experiences some like the ones VP mentioned about preminitons of events and once even I had a physical reaction and KNEW who started a huge fire that was in a nearby town. Days later I was to find out all the weird events of that day in the lives of the person who started the fire, and the people around him, including the fact that he had burned down his last ex-wifes home. The guy was someone I didn't know beyond knowing who he was. A woman I knew who lived near the fire but up a steep hill had a CB radio and she called me all the time which I hated but on this day each time she called she'd comment on what she could see, the flames up so high or whatever, and things she'd heard on the radio. I lived way out in the country then about 15 miles from this town but in the dark outside I could see the fire as it lit up the night sky.
During one of her calls I started to sweat profusely and hyperventilate. I could hardely speak but kept saying, I know who started it. It was wild!
I have also had mental telepathy with friends far away that just came out in a phone call or a letter, things I hadn't seen as significant but when I mentioned them the other person also had
an experience that connected.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:54:50 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Hi Robyn,

Did you have any insight as to how or why you had this exp. Did you feel you were given a gift or that it was a bad thing that u could see all this stuff? Any insights.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 15:11:49 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: Psychic?
Message:
Dear BJ,
I didn't see it as bad but not really good either since I knew but also knew that if I went to the police they'd dismiss me as a nut case.
As I said I've had lots of psychic experiences and I think it was just the constant barage of information on the fire from that woman with the CB that brought it out. The reaction I had was while I was on the phone with her. This fire lasted close to 24 hours and she was calling me over all that time.
The man was the recent husband of a friend of mine's mother. My friend was an adult and didn't live with or even near her mother but I had met the man briefly once. He wife threw him out that morning or the morning before, can't remember now and he got his 2 nephews and beat up my friends adult brother beyond recognition, and tried to get 2 or 3 of the sisters fired from their jobs, I think one was on welfare and he tried to get her in trouble for fraud that the guy fabricated. My friend was one he tried to get fired and she worked right next to the abandon mill that the guy started the fire in. She worked for an electric company and I couldn't get a hold of her for a few days, I think she worked 36 hours straight as she was on duty when it started. There was a gas station right behind the elec co and there was a big concern that the fire would reach it.
So I think it was a combination of things, mostly the constant interjection about the fire from the woman on the phone and also possibly my personal connection to my friend at the elec co. Just to clarify I didn't see anything I just had that physical reaction accompanied by a KNOWING.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:07:57 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Charlie
Subject: That though occured to me, too
Message:
ha ha!

I guess no one wants to talk about this subject here--fine. I'll go hunt down a psychic forum...snicker


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:45:04 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: That though occured to me, too
Message:
Even gettng a glimpse of someone else's ..say father buried 12 miles away...is the same premise as I said before. Everything is laid out before a clairvoyant. Since everything has happened already even future events. A client of mine lost her gold necklace her dead father once gave her. It was missing for two months. I had her call someone 50 miles away and the psychic described a shelf in her bathroom exactly and said it's behind the marble box and of course it was. Later when she lost it the psychic said you'll find it in 2 months. She did in her sock.

I know this is just a story but my psychic acquaintance at no charge by-th-way----'saw' the whole scene bec of what I said earlier. It's already happened.

Now 'Why' can they 'see'?? Well,now is ita gift from the Creator? Did they develope this skill or ability threw past lives? Is it a curse bec of past lives?

All for now
BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 15:14:57 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: That though occured to me, too
Message:
Dear BJ,
Why do you believe everything has already happened. At the best I could see thinking that is a possiblity, of course that is my way, not really believing more then the possibility of something but that seems pretty far fetched to me.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:50:35 (GMT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: That though occured to me, too
Message:
Please may I jump in here.
BJ- in my experience, asking about the why of all this stuff is superfulous.
If you just except it and refine your own integrity to equal the responsibility that goes with the territory, you are much better off. What I mean is we each have our own moral or ethical code when it comes to the more worldly plane, but this is unchartered territtory for most of us.

You will find thousands of theories, and no answers unless you face it head on and work with the psycic knowing or intuition. After you decide to do that then you can use you intuition about the theories and discipline your approach.
Or just reject it and go play golf.

I use the term 'you' above, because it sounds like you speak about yourself somewhat.


Robyn! its me of old.
lost your email address

cp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:11:17 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: cp
Subject: That though occured to me, too
Message:
Dear cp,
I wondered if it was you! :) Good to hear from you again. Hope you are well.
my email:
sundogs@hotmail.com
I would love to hear from you.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 16:17:50 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Psychic stuff
Message:
Robyn,
That was a great question.
Why do I think everything has already happened?

Well, first off the top of my head bec of my own exp. Doesn't say much to explain, I know.

But when I have had my many insights or psychic exp. along w/ them I also can 'see' where I'm 'seeing'. Like seeing the red ball at the bottom of the well - I can see the whole darn well.
It's like 'Oh,I see'. How can I explain that. Hmm The wisdom that follows is hard to put into words.

Like how do you explain TIME. I say Time is God's Foreplay.
Why do I say that? My exp and revelation and divine insight.
It's a toughy to explain.
Love the question, tho TY.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:21:16 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: Psychic stuff
Message:
Dear BJ,
I appreciate the attempt to explain but don't really get it. I am glad to read that it comes from your experience though and not from a book.
You may just have given me the best reason ever to believe in God, that time is his foreplay. Shit if I knew there was an orgasm in it for me... :) I feel all religous all of a sudden. :)
Enough lievity, have you ever heard of people having psychic exp. without 'seeing' like I did?
I also have what I call daytime visions but they seem of a more spiritual nature to me. They happen while I am doing normal daily tasks not during meditation.
Nice chatting with you BJ.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:57:23 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Psychic stuff
Message:
Robyn,
By 'seeing' I guess you mean a visual quality.

Yes, a close relative told me he felt the presence of another close relative who died. He said he was absolutely certain. Also, many physical things happened related to my relative's death that I have no explanation for, and I wasn't looking for them to happen.

One time I was driving and heard Jonathan Winters read 'A Christmas Carol' on the radio. I knew that it would end as I got home. A few seconds after I got home, it stopped.

I've heard of experiences where people experienced a smell (like a perfume) or heard something.

'time is his foreplay', I like it.

G

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:40:21 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Psychic stuff
Message:
Yeah, I have had lots of psychic experiences, too. There are all kinds of theories about them. I for one don't care too much about the why of them. I have learned something that works (usually) for me. When I have a 'prophetic' dream, it doesn't have to come true! I had one years ago that predicted I would get a ticket for bad equuipment. I did. I learned that the dream was a warning. I could have avoided the ticket by taking proper action. Sometimes, if I simply adjust my thinking or mind set, I can 'control' the outcome of the dream. Interesting.

God's foreplay? Robyn, my my my ;-) Thought it was me you lusted after! :-)

Peace - Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:32:59 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: Psychic stuff
Message:
Dear Michael,
'God's foreplay? Robyn, my my my ;-) Thought it was me you lusted after! :-)'
You are to far away, god is everywhere! ;)

My dear friend's son drowned in 1990, she had a dream that he did but how would you know that it was a warning. Some dreams have different meanings then their surface meaning, you know. I wish my 'gift' was more under my control and understanding.
Love,
Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:44:04 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: love the one you're with ;)
Message:
You wrote:
My dear friend's son drowned in 1990, she had a dream that he
did but how would you know that it was a warning. Some dreams
have different meanings then their surface meaning, you know. I
wish my 'gift' was more under my control and understanding.

Me, too. You know, it isn't just so called psychic powers that are mysterious. How about genius, especially musical genius? Where does that come from? Or, empathy? Or, understanding? Or, anything? Oops, getting a metaphysical hardon again!

Gotta go!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 21:08:53 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: love the one you're with ;)
Message:
Dear Michael,
'Oops, getting a metaphysical hardon again!'
All I can say is the phrase that now takes on new meaning for me...
Go with god! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 03:16:46 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: quite a thread
Message:
bWA HA HA!! Glad to see this thread is a more elevated one than others here lately--from a link to a master painter to God as our masturbator!! Seriously I am enjoying every minute of it from VP's first opening quote to the idea of time being God's foreplay. Well well well, lots to think about there.
Love
Helen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 04:37:11 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: wheeeee! and yipeeee! (nt)
Message:
now that's enjoying life!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 14:36:03 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: anyone
Subject: Time
Message:
Gee, you guys not to be weird or anything... but what did you all think Time was? I mean if you do think about it and some have seemed interested to say they would - I mean of course that's what Time is. It's just all his enjoyment as he slowly reels us in. Ever, ever so slowly. It's not as lowly as masturbation and that's such a crude way to put it and offends me. It's the Divine Dance . My experience was Divine Foreplay. Maybe that word offends some, sorry. It is hard for me to joke about it. It is the Holiest. And I am humbled by the insight I was shown.

Thank you all for showing so much interest.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:19:22 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: Time
Message:
Dear BJ,
Sorry to have offended you. It was never my intention. I stand corrected.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:36:44 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Time
Message:
Oh didn't even notice or remember who it was.
You're still a sweety.Like Harry said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 15:58:13 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: BJ
Subject: Time may really just be time
Message:
SOrry if I offended you with the word 'masturbator', BJ. I was trying to find a rhyme for the word 'master painter'. Well, it was sort of a slant rhyme. ANyway I was just trying to express how much I enjoyed the thread and maybe got a little carried away. I do understand that if this is one of your spiritual beliefs my use of that word may have been offensive indeed.

Anyway I was not intending to besmirch your ideas about time. When you say time is 'God reeling us in' do you mean that at death he/she (?) reels us home? This is too abstract a concept for me to grasp. Concepts like this always used to (when I was a spiritual seeker) complicate things further for me, because I couldn't see it concretely. But if you have been shown this through some kind of awareness/consciousness/ revelation who I am to argue with that?
I do beleive that there are certain psychic experiences, I have had a few myself (and prophetic dreams too) and it is the QUALITY of these experiences (as G said), plus the fact that the psychic impression came true, that seem to differentiate them from normal experiences. Now whether these are powers that we all have in our brains, or whether there is some kind of divine frequency we are plugging into, I am not sure. I do beleive in God and beleive that there is something out there greater than us.

But I have never seen God and I do not claim to know what happens to us after death. So the best I feel that I can do to express my belief in God is to try to respect all life, including my own, and try to appreciate the time I have here on earth (since this may be all there is--and that's okay with me too).

SO this idea of being reeled inby God or time as God's foreplay doesn't fit in particularly with my personal philosophy because it suggests that our physical life here on earth is but a 'prequel' to what's to come. That kind of thinking has always seemed to me to denigrate all of the richness of life here and now. ANd if it is a false premise, and there is nothing beyond this life, it would seem to me that one could waste alot of time thinking this life is some kind of illusion and not really living it.

Feel free to disagree or comment. I am NOT into flaming etc.
Take care
Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:48:26 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Time may really just be time
Message:
Oh, you all are just so sweet to even respond and be interested in anything I post. I'm honored.

I don't have alot of time to concentrate on an ans. for you Helen just at the moment. But may I say that no I wasn't talking about death or anything. Each moment God's reeling us in ...with the sound of the birds or the smell of baking bread or the death of a loved one. I mean all of it is to teach. Of course sometimes it is to bring us to our knees rather abruptly, too. But we'll talk later,ok?
{The words philosophy or beliefs or 'what you think' don't mean alot to me. I must say. I resonate w/ 'experience'.} Just mentioning.

TY all again - getting on w/ a beautiful day here in Colorado.

Check in later, BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:00:19 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Time may really just be time
Message:
At the risk of being flamed as somekind of new ager: I agree with your view that the concept of this life being a trial for entrance into the next life is absurd. There is nothing wrong with this life and being physical creatures. Sure some people seem to think that thier purpose in life is to make it a living hell for other people and to control them. But, life is still good and the entirity of existance is in and of itself rather miraculous.

I have had and expect that I will have many so called psychic experiences.I also expect to see many more sunrises, hear children laugh, hike in the forest, get caught in the rain, see a movie that blows me away and have tons of beautiful experiences. You know what? It is all too too too beautiful.

But, I do not believe in god. That is, the idea of a big handsome fellow sitting around on clouds directing my life. What a crock! But I do know that there are many other dimensions than the physical. And So What? Who cares? I've known people with many gifts on many levels. Some of them were kind and loving people and some were ignorant jerks! I have known people that could attain such blissful states but you would not trust them with your lunch, let alone your life! They were just to spacey!

It is a BIG UNIVERSE. I am glad to be a part of it.:-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:48:22 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: michael and BJ
Subject: Time may really just be time
Message:
I like the Buddhist idea of God being 'the ground of all being'. But there are many times I also feel like I am 'being reeled in by God', BJ, so I DO know what you mean (now that you have clarified it). I find that when something really tragic happens to me or my loved ones is when I do pray on my knees to God. I would be a liar to say otherwise. So I do know what you are saying BJ.

I guess I am a little skeptical of spiritual language because I thought I knew so much about spirituality for so long, yet I was amoral for so many years of my life. I had no compass. Now I finally feel like I have my priorities straight and I am really enjoying life for the first time. Alot of it has to do with taking my destiny (career-wise) into my own hands, doing what I want to do with my career. Is it easy--NO!! But I feel like I am doing what I was meant to do. So while I am following my 'dharma', I also am taking control of my life more than ever before rather than 'letting life happen to me' which I spent so many years doing. How's that for paradox. Is it God, is it zen, I don't know but there is something creative in the universe. Maybe spirituality is being in tune with the 'core of excellence'(as RObyn says) within each one of us . To me that is not a blissed out feeling but a feeling of well being and coziness and felling comfortable with myself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 22:44:45 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Helen et al
Subject: Time
Message:
The physicist Stephen Hawking proposed a way out theory (which may not be strange enough to be true) that in the very very early history of our universe, time was more space-like. Also that there was no 'before' the Big Bang because time did not exist.

It could be that esp is due to a connection with omniscient Being that, being both beyond and in time and space, is aware of all things and occurances.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but it sounds cool.

I'm no expert on 'God', but when I feel reverence, it feels right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:36:55 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Time
Message:
OK twins.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:14:01 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I don't either - but it does sound cool!
Message:
I do not believe in the 'big bang' theory. I am not a scientist or a physicist (sp) or a mathematician. It just seems no more or less plausible than the idea of a creator god. I mean a primordial basketball sized sphere that contained all of the matter in the universe was just floating around somewhere? Then it exploded? Sheesh! What the hell was around this ball? Might as well believe that the christian bible is the absolute word of god! Load of crap. Don't put no beans on my table! Even if it is true!

Don't freaking care!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:38:32 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: the Big Bang?
Message:
You're right, it doesn't put any beans on the table.

Actually, they think 'it' was either 10 to the minus 43rd of an inch or 0 inches. In terms of what was around it, nothing, not even space, there was no 'around it'. There was no matter, it had not been formed yet. Weirder yet, they think 'it' was an 'unstable nothing'. And they think 'God' is a weird idea!

There is some empirical measurements that the 'expansion of space' theory predicted, but no one knows. It's all too much to comprehend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:05:30 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: I don't either - but it does sound cool!
Message:
'DOn't put no beans on my table'--ha ha! I liked that!! sounds lke a bunch of old truckers hangin' around shootin' the shit:

'A big sphere containin' all the primordial matter in the universe, my ass!! YEAH!! And I have a Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell ya..down in Florida, yeah!!' (scratches his armpit)
' Yeah, as IF!! And I have a date with Cindy Crawford!'

It just goes to show that the theories we hold as true are a little preposterous. So maybe it's not so far-fetched that Mohammed channeled the Koran or Moses got the ten commandments straight from God himself--
NAW!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:08:43 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Modern mythology
Message:
Modern myths:

'Lady Luck' caused evolution.

The universe came from a 10-dimensional 'unstable nothing' that was very very very very very tiny, which split into the 4 dimensions of time and space and 6 unseen dimensions and expanded very very very very very fast.

Consciousness is just 'brain shit'.

You're just hallucinating that you are real. Consciousness doesn't really exist. But you should believe that matter is real, even though consciousness, which isn't real, is the only thing that lets us be aware of it.

There are all these 'other universes' out there, loads of them, even though we can't see them. This explains why our universe isn't really fine-tuned for life, even though it seems like it is. It's just one of many universes, all different. 'God' didn't do it, 'Lady Luck' did it! Surely many many many unseen universes is a simpler explanation than 'God'.

All these people who say they experienced something that we can't explain (esp and all that crap), forget about it, they're all lying or crazy, we KNOW. We KNOW just about everything, cause we are sooooo smart. Yea, people said that before, but it's different now, this time, we really do. We have KNOWLEDGE.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:18:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Truth , communication and double standards
Message:
This whole Run question's been pretty revealing. What's show? That there's a big double-standard here. Premies lie and obfuscate, they get fried. The straight-talking ex-premies want the 'truth' and won't countenance bullshit. But if an ex does the same thing, few, if any care. What's it matter? We're all exes, right?

Here's Katie finally offering her opinion on whether Run lied about answering me:

Jim -

You also wrote:
Okay, LET'S be realistic. Do you think Run lied about answering me? What do you think of his calling anyone who thinks otherwise my 'follower'?

OK, Jim - I just read that WHOLE thread again - it's gone inactive and is about to get archived. Here is what I got from it. I think Run is saying that he answered you when he said 'I get more kicks from scholarly discussions...'. Yes, this is very oblique. He says it's an answer, you do not. Is Run lying - NO. Do I think it was clear what he meant - NO. Does that answer your question.

I also never read anywhere in this thread that he called 'anyone who thinks otherwise' your follower. But there may be some posts I don't remember in total.

Here's where Run used that phrase in his posts to me:

Jim, wake me when you leave
I get more kicks from scholarly discussion, which at one point I thought you were capable of. I respond to false accusations in order to set the record straight, but it's a bore.
I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?

Try reading the reply, Cap'n Q
Becausee I absolutely did answer your question. I get more kicks from a scholarly conversation. Sorry you can't opt to request to treat me as a hostile witness to get my answer into the perfect yessir/nossir form due to a person of your social rank. Nonetheless, it is an honest endeavor by a competent intelligence
to deal with the question. Surely kicks corresponds to frisson, no?
But wait! What about my previously stated question:
'I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?'

With all due respect to Katie, I say that it is patently absurd for anyone to think that Run is in any way answering the question I kept asking him, i.e. were you trying to provoke Roger when you posted [that post about someone pulling 'high-school pranks' by using Proxomitron to spam Selene with anonymous email and 'someone' not giving us the proper warnings about the program itself].

So, relax, if you're with me this far I won't bother going into proving my case. All I get is called 'obsessed', so I think I'll just leave that alone and cut to the chase.

Runamok, is every bit as bad as the worst premie here in terms of clear communication. He's evasive and he feels that he's never obliged to answer questions directly. That's one thing he has said clearly. And he's a major hypocrite. Over on RE he pontificates about how one should 'name names'. See, in the onll real topic that seems to interest him, 'flaming, guidelines, our own 'cult-like' behaviour -- he encourages poeple to 'name names':

I also think it is necessary to name names. I cannot usually decipher posts that attempt to deal with these issues but will not name someone's name specifically.

and:

Personally I think if you are talking about someone (i.e., Jim or Mary) you should just say their name in this forum.

And of course I'm paranoid to think that this is all a part of his wanting to drag my name through the mud as much as he can in the private, secret RE discussions. Yeah, sure it is.

Anyway, anyone sincerely interested in the truth of this matter can see what's what. Runamok's staked out a private, but semi-official forum where certain principles are promulgated:

The first is: No one is ever obliged to answer anything they don't want to.

Run has made this point again and again. Maybe that's why he and Katie get along so well. Thus, in his mind, he can say whatever he wants, advance whatever innuendo he wants, and is never accountable to answer for himself. Never.

The second is: 'Flaming' consists of swearing or denigrating comments

I don't have to elaborate. That one's pretty straight-forward. As I explained a couple of days ago, I think that's extremely facile as swearing might be nothing more than a natural response to a disgusting lie or evasive manouevre. In such cases, the swearing issue is trivial. The real issue is whether or not the 'flamee' has, in bad faith, already sabotaged the discussion.

But Run doesn't see it that way. He joins Mel, Shp and all the rest in denouncing strong confrontation of premies in the strongest possible terms. Not only am I a bully, I'm an assassin, a rapist, a murderer, I've stomped Shp in the head when he was down -- stomped him defenseless. There's even one post, which I could find it, where I (or anyone, really, who might 'qualify') am like an American pilot dropping napalm on little Vietnamese village kids.

Shp could not have said it better himself.

(Of course there's the side issue of Run's own jaw-dropping hypocrisy here. In that whole conversation with Run wherein I tried to get him to 'name names' and say whether or not he was trying to pick a fight with Roger, I tried to just keep directing him back to the question. Here are most of the things he called me:

'Lord of denial', an 'asshole ... [whose] gutteral shrieks and shouts stun and amaze the spectators' [whose] decimating 145 decibel message, complete with unintelligible vocals nevertheless will fascinate the psychologist/anthropologist in anyone a grown man insist[ing] on a plethora of schoolyard games?, 'Captain Q[uigley] ... no longer capable of intellectual discussion .. a sellout', 'Mahatma Jim ... Paragon of Virtue', 'Matt Drudge', 'Warner Erhart .. jabbing a pencil in his eye', someone whose 'game [is a] ruse'.)


The fourth and most interesting, nay, bizarre, principle Run would advance is: Heavy confrontation is itself 'cultish' behaviour. Those that engage in it are in a cult of their own. Jim Heller's a 'cult leader' because he does it most prominently:

That ultra-heavy anti-premie thing is straight out of the cult itself. It's 'heavy satsang' pure and simple.

or:

I am interested in the topic of communication and aggression. Some people have suggested to me that we're still looking for abusive authority figures and that we have people who are more than willing to do get verbally abusive on the forum. You know, like we didn't get enough of that from M'ragey.

or:

What is it that makes it so hard to intervene when someone is flaming? It's impossible to tell anyone to just cool it.. what is up with that?

Really seems pretty warped. Not a minor prob but a MAJOR prob. Gets up there with cult behavior.

Okay, so what's this really all about anyway? Is this just about me and my ego? Is that what you think? You could think a little harder if it is (notice how I didn't say 'You can go fuck yourself if you do? Great, eh?).

What I see is that there is a very ugly double-standard here. On the one hand, most people here really aren't interested in taking shit from premies. Am I right or wrong on that? Anyone? See I always got the impression that we cared about truth here. And that that meant that, if in a discussion some premie they shucked and jived, they'd get called on it. If it got ugly, it got ugly. Big fucking deal. At least it's honest.

But some, for whatever reason, want to create some sort of 'comfort zone' at least for the exes, if not for premies too.

Well I say that sucks.

And I also say this. If that's the standard you guys want, great. But as long as I stay here I'll be damned if I won't speak up any time an ex tries to squeeze a little honesty out of a premie if I don't think they treat exes the same way. Guidelines, anyone? Well those are mine.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, am I right to be concerned about a guy with Run's character and 'philosophy' running the Ex-premie welcome wagon, the private, secret welcome wagon? Well you can call me whatever you want. I think it's sick. I think it's sick that Katie could give such a bullshit answer as she did above and sick that she needs to do that to justify her continued support of Run running RE.

Of course Mike and Selene, the only other people to bother to give their opinions on whether Run was telling the truth about ahving answered the question in the first place, agreed with me that no, he didn't. But I'm not holding my breath for either of them to debate the point with Katie. After all, Run's an ex, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:58:24 (GMT)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Heller's out of his restraints again...male nurse!
Message:
'Premies lie and obfuscate, they get fried. The straight-talking
ex-premies want the 'truth' and won't countenance bullshit.' -JH

~I see. You have the corner on truth. Premies lie and obfuscate and ex-premies are straight talking and want he truth and don't cotton to bullshit. Yours is a monochromatic universe, isn't it? Do you want to have your crayons and paper now, you megalomaniacal, self righteous, bastid of a legend in your own mind? See, I can bless you and tell you off too!

'I've stomped Shp in the head when he was down -- stomped him defenseless. There's even one post, which I could find it, where I (or anyone, really, who might 'qualify') am like an American pilot dropping napalm on little Vietnamese village kids.
Shp could not have said it better himself.' -JH

~What a revealing comment...let's take a closer look at it.

1) You have 'stomped me defenseless' when I was 'down'.
Sounds like you just got a bad worm in the last Cuervo, Skippy.
Try lots of fresh warm water with a little oatstraw tea in in...up your ass! Oatstraw enemas will help to release the toxins in your brain.

2) You compare yourself and your modus operandi to a child killer. Hmmmmm.

3) The U.S. was in Vietnam to obtain the natural resources from the land...tungsten for lightbulb filaments, copper, and other natural resources that are in abundance there, not because Vietnam was a threat to U.S. national security. The powers that controlled it all didn't give a shit about the Vietnamese people. Likewise, you are here to strip people here of their energy, their natural resources, and engorge your ego with your 'kill'. You don't give a shit about the people involved, you just want their energy. And also, like the US/Vietnam scenario, there was never really a threat to your security, you just overreact your ass off and do selfish things for your own self-aggrandizement.

It's not about Maharaji/Maharaji-not here on this page. It's about how you manifest, which is pretty sick by your own admission. Maybe that's lawyer locker-room type jargon, but in the real world, it sure looks psycho to me. Anybody else see this too?

'What I see is that there is a very ugly double-standard here. On the one hand, most people here really aren't interested in taking shit from premies.' -JH

~THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE JIMBO. THE DOUBLE STANDARD HERE IS:
YOU DON'T WANT EXERS TO TAKE SHIT FROM PREMIES, YOU WANT THEM TO TAKE SHIT FROM ONLY YOU. EXCLUSIVE SHIT-ON RIGHTS, WHEREVER YOU GO. YOU MUST HAVE A REAL HARD TIME DEALING WITH YOURSELF WHEN YOU LOSE IN COURT, I'LL BETCHA.

~If this doesn't ring a bell, then you're missing that little piece that hits on the inside. I respect your right to your existence and your beliefs, but I don't happen to agree with them. But as for the way you manifest, hooo momma. Have you got alot to learn about communication. I really think that if you were not a lawyer, but let's say a veterinarian or an artist or a maintenence man, you might be more able to express yourself without being an asshole. Nothing against the legal profession, but hey let's face it. Lawyers learn how to verbally eviscerate people to make money and win cases, not necessarily to uphold the truth.

~You choose to be a particular kind of asshole, you know, the gruff tough rude guy who reaches in his pocket to help another person with a little cash, and then 'napalms' his conversants.
You are legend in your own mind. You have the raw material to be
a great advocate of whatever you choose, but you are very rough around the edges and will scare away many of even those who agree with what you are saying by your poor attitude and poor communication skills and your propensity for anger.

~Nobody likes a mean drunk. And don't tell me you haven't had a few before you go on your tirades.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:12:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Shp
Subject: TOO FUNNY, SHP! TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!!!!
Message:
Oh Shp! I love you. You're hilarious.

Listen, idiot, those weren't things I was saying about myself -- althat mugging, rape, murder, assassination, napalming shit. That was what Run was accusing me of.

This is great!

What else you got?

This is almost better than this weeks Onion

Almost but not quite. Check out that story on homosexuals? Hilarious!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:23:25 (GMT)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: TOO FUNNY, SHP! TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!!!!
Message:
'Oh Shp! I love you. You're hilarious.
Listen, idiot, those weren't things I was saying about myself -- althat mugging, rape, murder, assassination, napalming shit. That was what Run was accusing me of. This is great! What else you got?'

~Run was right on the money and you are still a mean drunk.
He described you to a T.
If the truth is spoken, it doesn't matter who said it.

~You are getting alot of feedback from alot of different places about the same thing,I am noticing. Listen up. You have a sickness. It's got to do with pride. Check it out. Some premies
have it too. It's no respecter of persons. It can destroy a premie's life or an ex-premie's life, it doesn't care. I have told you and now I am free of you. I have loved you like a brother even though you act the way you do. I have cut through all that and told you something that can vastly improve your life. Now I have other things to do. Good luck with you life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:29:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Shp
Subject: Thanks, Shp. Maybe you're right
Message:
Shp,

Maybe you're right. Maybe Run's right. Maybe you're all right.

Okay, what should we do today? We've already had our blessing. Or was the yesterday? How about another blessing first, Shp? Truthfull,y I'm going back to bed in a bit but a blessing would be nice, don't you think? You know, nothing too big that'll make it hard to get back to sleep but big enough to keep working when I get up again?

Got something?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:56:56 (GMT)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Right under yer nose
Message:
Literally.
Blessings with every breath.
Feeding life into you.
And everything that comes with it.
Eat yer greens and you'll get more.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 06:11:18 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: uninformed and tired but....
Message:
Also very little energy.
Please forgive me but I can't read though all the
last 2 days Katie and you and John B stuff. So this will not be one of those
analytical point by point answers.

You read my emails. Your friendship with Roger should
give you some insight into what I have been through at work these last 48 hours.
As I told you Jim, we had a bad crash yesterday and
today. heh, should I start something...??
you see first the routers all over campus got bogged
down really bad. No one is sure why but as a result of the net crashing our online
classroom server crashed and the entire freshman English dept.
that I admin lost 2 days virtual class work.... and we are
thinking it can be traced to... ta da!!....
NO NO kidding!! Really!!
But I have been swamped. The perils of a real job - I missed all the fun here.
OK my new stand. NOT a new one really. Lots of flaming on all sides.
Runamok too. and on and on
and Gerry well Gerry is a confusing issue.
Somebody somewhere a LONG time ago got a PW to RE
and many of you have been reading the not so interesting
posts there for some time.
I had thought I'd help admin but decided a long time
ago not to. Way before this way went full race so please don't take the credit.
I just don't make a good helper on these things.
Not Runamok's fault. I have my own style.
And am NOT at all good at people stuff.
And only wanted to do techie stuff and at that time
you and Roger were mad at me so I thought if I did
anything here it would incite some other battle.

Now I just want out of it all. Ironic isn't it?
You can't rely on me to take over RE.
I do still think it helps some people. I hate to
embarrass SB but she is a good example and you know it Jim.

You know you keep bringing up my loyalties issue.
I have 'known' Runamok online now for about 3 months.
Really I used to skip a lot of the posts before

.. my memory is vague but when Katie had had it with RE I thought I could
do something good somewhere... HA! learned my lesson.

Yes I have seen some weird shit posted on all sides
by all parties. Runamok I'm sorry but it's nothing
I haven't said before to you.
I do NOT think Jim or Runamok or anyone deserves the name calling that
has happened.But it happened.
I also don't think RE got a chance to develop
into anything it could have been.
And now my personal take is it never can.
I don't agree at all about Robyns definition of RE. Also, I never saw it so much a flame free forum. More as a
place for new ex's to ask questions w/o dealing with
this stuff and premies. But that was my personal vision.
I think I wanted to play admin.Don't ask me why.
I do enough of that at work. There was some
mistaken altruism too but this week took care of
that one. Thanks! I'm not quite there yet.
Jim I think you are playing music tonight.
If not I'd like to hear from you. This may not
been specific enough for you but it's the best I can too. I'm wiped!

You too Run. I don't want to people please.
But I'm not trying to take sides. I do see that
you have done your share to add to this though.

Of course I'd prefer email but BOTH of you seem to want all to see this for some reason I don't get.

All this drains my energy but my attempts at being 'nice' fail miserable in the end
anyway. I'm not a natural.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:49:53 (GMT)
From: My View
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Truth , communication and double standards
Message:
Jim,

From my 'humble' perspective the only change that's needed over on RE is to ditz the snitch feeding you messages that may or may not have been edited.

So... Mr Truth, Communication and Double Standard...

Name the snitch please.

I've noticed Run hasn't.

MV

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:59:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: My View
Subject: And who are you?
Message:
If you're a regular, you're a coward. Imagine us all sitting around in a room and you ducking under a table and trying to disguise your voice so you can make this empty comment? Too much.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:23:11 (GMT)
From: MV
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And who are you?
Message:
None of your business who I am.

I ask again, who is your 'anonymous' snitch?

MV

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:37:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: MV
Subject: And who are you?
Message:
I disagree that it's none of my business. I won't even think of answering your question until you take your cowardly mask off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:07:37 (GMT)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM
Message:
You demand MV to reveal his identity?
How the hell dare you?
You are the double standard hypocrite.

And to everyone else who posts anonymously, this could happen to you someday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:13:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Shp
Subject: Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM
Message:
What are you talking about? Do you know? Okay, tell me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:27:37 (GMT)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey double standard boy, yeah you JIM
Message:
Figure it out yourself, genius.
I don't plan to respond to you anymore.
It's like pouring energy into a bottomless pit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:07:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Shp
Subject: DON'T GIVE UP ON ME YET, SHP!!!!
Message:
Come on, Shp,

That kind of talk scares me. It's so final and everything. Pleas, Shp, tell me you'll never quit trying. We're only here for so long. There's all that love in our heart. What can you do but let it flow? And flow like a river, Shp! Let your love flow like a river to the ocean! The ocean? The OCEAN OF LOVE!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:46:20 (GMT)
From: MV
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Knew you wouldn't
Message:
answer the question.

Who's the coward?

And who is the snitch?

Jury member out for tonight.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:50:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: MV
Subject: Yes, because you knew you had no right asking
Message:
Or maybe that's a little incorrect. You had no right demanding an answer, let's put it that way. I don't do 'anonymous' with people I know. Call it a quirk, that's just me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:25:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
This whole Run question's been pretty revealing. What's show? That there's a big double-standard here. Premies lie and obfuscate, they get fried. The straight-talking ex-premies want the 'truth' and won't countenance bullshit. But if an ex does the same thing, few, if any care. What's it matter? We're all exes, right?

Here's Katie finally offering her opinion on whether Run lied about answering me:

Jim -

You also wrote:
Okay, LET'S be realistic. Do you think Run lied about answering me? What do you think of his calling anyone who thinks otherwise my 'follower'?

OK, Jim - I just read that WHOLE thread again - it's gone inactive and is about to get archived. Here is what I got from it. I think Run is saying that he answered you when he said 'I get more kicks from scholarly discussions...'. Yes, this is very oblique. He says it's an answer, you do not. Is Run lying - NO. Do I think it was clear what he meant - NO. Does that answer your question.

I also never read anywhere in this thread that he called 'anyone who thinks otherwise' your follower. But there may be some posts I don't remember in total.

Here's where Run used that phrase in his posts to me:

Jim, wake me when you leave
I get more kicks from scholarly discussion, which at one point I thought you were capable of. I respond to false accusations in order to set the record straight, but it's a bore.
I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?

Try reading the reply, Cap'n Q
Becausee I absolutely did answer your question. I get more kicks from a scholarly conversation. Sorry you can't opt to request to treat me as a hostile witness to get my answer into the perfect yessir/nossir form due to a person of your social rank. Nonetheless, it is an honest endeavor by a competent intelligence
to deal with the question. Surely kicks corresponds to frisson, no?
But wait! What about my previously stated question:
'I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?'

With all due respect to Katie, I say that it is patently absurd for anyone to think that Run is in any way answering the question I kept asking him, i.e. were you trying to provoke Roger when you posted [that post about someone pulling 'high-school pranks' by using Proxomitron to spam Selene with anonymous email and 'someone' not giving us the proper warnings about the program itself].

So, relax, if you're with me this far I won't bother going into proving my case. All I get is called 'obsessed', so I think I'll just leave that alone and cut to the chase.

Runamok, is every bit as bad as the worst premie here in terms of clear communication. He's evasive and he feels that he's never obliged to answer questions directly. That's one thing he has said clearly. And he's a major hypocrite. Over on RE he pontificates about how one should 'name names'. See, in the onll real topic that seems to interest him, 'flaming, guidelines, our own 'cult-like' behaviour -- he encourages poeple to 'name names':

I also think it is necessary to name names. I cannot usually decipher posts that attempt to deal with these issues but will not name someone's name specifically.

and:

Personally I think if you are talking about someone (i.e., Jim or Mary) you should just say their name in this forum.

And of course I'm paranoid to think that this is all a part of his wanting to drag my name through the mud as much as he can in the private, secret RE discussions. Yeah, sure it is.

Anyway, anyone sincerely interested in the truth of this matter can see what's what. Runamok's staked out a private, but semi-official forum where certain principles are promulgated:

The first is: No one is ever obliged to answer anything they don't want to.

Run has made this point again and again. Maybe that's why he and Katie get along so well. Thus, in his mind, he can say whatever he wants, advance whatever innuendo he wants, and is never accountable to answer for himself. Never.

The second is: 'Flaming' consists of swearing or denigrating comments

I don't have to elaborate. That one's pretty straight-forward. As I explained a couple of days ago, I think that's extremely facile as swearing might be nothing more than a natural response to a disgusting lie or evasive manouevre. In such cases, the swearing issue is trivial. The real issue is whether or not the 'flamee' has, in bad faith, already sabotaged the discussion.

But Run doesn't see it that way. He joins Mel, Shp and all the rest in denouncing strong confrontation of premies in the strongest possible terms. Not only am I a bully, I'm an assassin, a rapist, a murderer, I've stomped Shp in the head when he was down -- stomped him defenseless. There's even one post, which I could find it, where I (or anyone, really, who might 'qualify') am like an American pilot dropping napalm on little Vietnamese village kids.

Shp could not have said it better himself.

(Of course there's the side issue of Run's own jaw-dropping hypocrisy here. In that whole conversation with Run wherein I tried to get him to 'name names' and say whether or not he was trying to pick a fight with Roger, I tried to just keep directing him back to the question. Here are most of the things he called me:

'Lord of denial', an 'asshole ... [whose] gutteral shrieks and shouts stun and amaze the spectators' [whose] decimating 145 decibel message, complete with unintelligible vocals nevertheless will fascinate the psychologist/anthropologist in anyone a grown man insist[ing] on a plethora of schoolyard games?, 'Captain Q[uigley] ... no longer capable of intellectual discussion .. a sellout', 'Mahatma Jim ... Paragon of Virtue', 'Matt Drudge', 'Warner Erhart .. jabbing a pencil in his eye', someone whose 'game [is a] ruse'.)


The fourth and most interesting, nay, bizarre, principle Run would advance is: Heavy confrontation is itself 'cultish' behaviour. Those that engage in it are in a cult of their own. Jim Heller's a 'cult leader' because he does it most prominently:

That ultra-heavy anti-premie thing is straight out of the cult itself. It's 'heavy satsang' pure and simple.

or:

I am interested in the topic of communication and aggression. Some people have suggested to me that we're still looking for abusive authority figures and that we have people who are more than willing to do get verbally abusive on the forum. You know, like we didn't get enough of that from M'ragey.

or:

What is it that makes it so hard to intervene when someone is flaming? It's impossible to tell anyone to just cool it.. what is up with that?

Really seems pretty warped. Not a minor prob but a MAJOR prob. Gets up there with cult behavior.

Okay, so what's this really all about anyway? Is this just about me and my ego? Is that what you think? You could think a little harder if it is (notice how I didn't say 'You can go fuck yourself if you do? Great, eh?).

What I see is that there is a very ugly double-standard here. On the one hand, most people here really aren't interested in taking shit from premies. Am I right or wrong on that? Anyone? See I always got the impression that we cared about truth here. And that that meant that, if in a discussion some premie they shucked and jived, they'd get called on it. If it got ugly, it got ugly. Big fucking deal. At least it's honest.

But some, for whatever reason, want to create some sort of 'comfort zone' at least for the exes, if not for premies too.

Well I say that sucks.

And I also say this. If that's the standard you guys want, great. But as long as I stay here I'll be damned if I won't speak up any time an ex tries to squeeze a little honesty out of a premie if I don't think they treat exes the same way. Guidelines, anyone? Well those are mine.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, am I right to be concerned about a guy with Run's character and 'philosophy' running the Ex-premie welcome wagon, the private, secret welcome wagon? Well you can call me whatever you want. I think it's sick. I think it's sick that Katie could give such a bullshit answer as she did above and sick that she needs to do that to justify her continued support of Run running RE.

Of course Mike and Selene, the only other people to bother to give their opinions on whether Run was telling the truth about ahving answered the question in the first place, agreed with me that no, he didn't. But I'm not holding my breath for either of them to debate the point with Katie. After all, Run's an ex, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:12:30 (GMT)
From: Disappointed UK
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shhh!
Message:
Sirs,
it is not like me to butt in, only I am getting the increasing impression that you are slavishly preoccupied by a relatively petty matter. I think it is better for your mental health if you restrain from thus obsessing. I would hazard a guess that this argument of yours has not been a rewarding or engaging one for many here, despite your insistence that there has been some terrible injustice done.

To the contrary, your crusade has served to generate some divisiveness amongst the once glorious and unified Team of Ex-premies, and some yawning besides. Moreover, as an experiment to determine the benefits of dragging out the most tiresomely paltry quibble imaginable, it has even been a significant failure. I for one, despite reading through the posts with propped eyelids, have not been able to arouse myself into any semblance of interest whatsover, not even to the degree that I can now recall what on earth you're on about in particular.

I am in no way guilty of not having made every effort to find the argument interesting or sensible... I have searched for a way in... to become engaged.. but it is not interesting. Your argument is not interesting. It is a very boring argument. In fact the only thing that is slightly interesting is that you have demonstrated a very quirky compulsion to apply your not-inconsiderable talents to matters that are almost absurdly inconsequential relative to those more important arguments that immediately beg to be addressed.

Impressed as I am with your usual content, I am frankly all-the-more shocked at your maniacal stubborness to drop what has all the appearance of being a very dull bone. Please would you stick to exercising your profession on the case of Maharaji and his Followers and not embarass us further by subjecting us to the spectacle of your more personal feuds. Your continued hints that we should share your interest in this matter are misguided.

Disappointed UK

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:28:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Disappointed UK
Subject: Hey, can I learn to talk like that??
Message:
That was really great! Do I know you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:05:06 (GMT)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, can I learn to talk like that??
Message:
Yes. See above.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:03:19 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: Disappointed UK
Subject: Shhh!
Message:
MY God who are you. Speaking so much sense to these boys.
Can you boys just get some help. I've spent thousands on therapy. It works. Why expose us healthy folks to your junk.

Pls don't take offense. Just get the help you need. It's fun .

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:22:38 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: D in UK
Subject: Shhh!
Message:
How interesting that bec you have a level head and are articulate that I would assume you are female.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:22:37 (GMT)
From: BJ
Email: None
To: D in UK
Subject: Shhh!
Message:
How interesting that bec you have a level head and are articulate that I would assume you are female.

BJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:42:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Disappointed UK
Subject: Apathy
Message:
Whatever.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 23:24:48 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Jim,
I've really tried to understand this situation that's got you all fired up. Admittedly, it isn't interestng enough to keep my attention for long but I've tried. The best I can understand is that Runamok is a low-level putz trying to tarnish you. I can see how that would be infuriating, particularly if new exes are turned against you.

But I think the most effective thing you could do at this point is ignore the guy no matter what he says or tries to do. There just isn't enough interest in the situation to actually do anything about it. People will judge you by what you say, not what Runamok says about you.

And yes, I've thought about what I would do in the same situation. At most, I'd address him about it, even if excessively, and leave it at that. It's just too much of a tangent to expend this much time and energy, even yours.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:37:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Powerman
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Thanks Pman for at least looking at this. I guess I just got particularly incensed having this creep preach about how 'cult like' we are here and how I think I'm sort of cult leader ('Mahatma Jim'?). I've been over to RE and no one there ever took issue with him on that. It was like, of course, 'tsk-tsk, what can we do?' and then Run would ... well you read it.

So are you telling me that you honestly think I should just let it go? So what if this dingbat's hosting the ex-premie welcome wagon? So what if all that goes on there (once they get off paradise and on to a new, more secure forum) is private and confidential? I shouldn't think about it?

And really what a big joke it all is anyway, right? Check out the new Shp thread where everyone enjoys taking turns taking a piece out of him for posting his cult-soaked drivel. What ex wouldn't enjoy slicing into that angel-food cake? None. That's why Run's right in there with the rest making fun of Shp and his new-age benediction.

But you say let it go. Fine. And you honestly think it's okay for Run to run RE? Cause I respect your opinion. I'm open. What do you think? Honestly?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:24:34 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Well, if I understand things correctly, a new ex comes here first. Then they hear about the other forum which excludes 'flaming' and cursing and 'negativity'.

If I was a new ex and felt I needed that kind of mollycoddling, I'd go over there and get some hugs and listen to what they had to say. When I actually got serious about making some real moves to leave the Guru, I'd come back here.

First of all, I'd be bored to death by Runamok and the rest of them, and second, when I realized what the Guru did I'd be livid. And we all know RE isn't the place to be livid because it's wimpy. So I'd come back here.

Meanwhile, I would have heard about Jim, whoever the fuck he was (no one at this point), and then I'd notice his name over here and I'd read his posts. I'd see he had some real thoughts to offer about what had happened to me and about who did it and why. That would be really satisfying.

But at this point, Jim would just be some guy who I'd heard about, who not only wasn't so bad after all, but really had the good shit.

Then I'd realize who Runamok was... one of those guys like Dog who the world's filled with. Guys leaving jelly all over the tables they're supposed to be wiping.

The real points here are that considering the lack of control you have in this situation, and the amount of time and energy it would take you to have any effect at all (which is really doubtful), the best thing to do is just let things work themselves out naturally. And that is what I'd do. Just drop it.

And the main reason is that the offense by Runamok is just too small and inconsequential, and requires too much laborious scrutiny over boring details to address.

Any premie who is at all serious will find their way out without us having to make sure every tack is removed from the floor. The alternative is to spend most of our time on our hands and knees with our asses in the new exe's faces trying to remove tacks off the floor. Meanwhile, the new exes are bored to tears and Runamok prevails in the end. Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Powerman
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Thanks again, Pman,

You know I'm pretty much inclined to concede. It sure doesn't seem like anyone but me cares about this shit, that's for sure. But this has left a bad taste in my mouth. You know, I often get a real kick out of chasing premie dissemblers. It's like hitting practice balls for a tennis player. I argue for a living; so I can argue here a bit and submit my hours to bar association for CLE (Continuing Legal Education) credits. This year alone I've been able to avoid two Saturday seminars on the basis of my arguing with premies. :)

No my point is only that I hate dissembling. In premies, exes, anybody. It makes communication impossible. But, no, it won't kill me if RE becomes an entrenched bastion of hypocrisy. Whatever, right? I can just do my thing and forget about it.

Shit, now I'm really mad at whoever gave me the password!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:35:06 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Pman,
Your delivery is amusing but I'll offer one correction, chosing my battles. RE is ONLY no Flaming, cursing is allowed as is negativity. Lots of negative stuff comes out when leaving the cult, about yourself and m. I know this from reading some people's posts here and there as well. The only difference is you won't find drawn out bull shit like this over there. Also all contributors are there but also here not one or the other. That is just a place to go with stuff you don't want slammed down your throat or to continue your analogy, it would be like being on the floor with the tacs but racing around on your hands and knees sticking the new exes with them relentlessly.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 06:45:49 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: RE: I agree
Message:
Robin wrote:

Pman,
Your delivery is amusing but I'll offer one correction, chosing my battles. RE is ONLY no Flaming, cursing is allowed as is negativity. Lots of negative stuff comes out when leaving the cult, about yourself and m. I know this from reading some people's posts here and there as well. The only difference is you won't find drawn out bull shit like this over there. Also all contributors are there but also here not one or the other. That is just a place to go with stuff you don't want slammed down your throat or to continue your analogy, it would be like being on the floor with the tacs but racing around on your hands and knees sticking the new exes with them relentlessly.
Robyn

That is why RE should continue existing.

SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:49:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: SB
Subject: No, this is utter bullshit, I'm sorry
Message:
What the fuck are you guys talking about? No one has chased new exes around 'mercilessly' except for this last stupid foray of Gerry's into the land of weird conspiracy thinking. Gerry gave Shifting a ridiculous hard time because he somehow got it into his head that she was, as he put it, a ringer. That was entirely unfair and irrational. As I've already expressed, my personal condolences to Shifting. I've discussed the matter with Gerry who continues to believe this crazy idea. He's told me he's finished with all this ex-premie shit anyway so it looks like he's gone in any event.

But you can't tell me that this has been anything but an honest, friendly environment for new exes or old over the past few years. Getting stuff 'slammed down your throat' .... being made 'race around on your hands and knees on a floor covered with tacks' ... christ, are you mad? No wonder Run's having so much fun over there? What about the assassinations, muggings, rape, murder and, yes, my favorite, the napalm bombings?

Oh sorry UK exes -- this has nothing to do with you! Oh, so sorry for boring you all! What was I thinking?

This is craziness. Craziness, hypocrisy, really low-grade thinking and apathy, all muddled together. Okay, fine. I'll play too. By tomorrow, I won't be able to see what's going on over on RE anyway. I won't be able to hear them sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya telling ghost stories about the ugly cult-like behaviour over on THIS VERY FORUM!! --BOO!! Scared you, didn't I?

Oh, sorry, I don't mean to intimidate by sarcasm. Maybe Run can prepare his next private, secret sermon around this theme.

Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:34:39 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It is bullshit for you
Message:
It's your perception, that is all.You cannot understand 'those' others, that is all. And that is fine. People have different needs. Not everybody can have the strenght you have, while being followed around; RE is fine, just another place. Is a waste of time to fight, to me. But I wanted to tell you and final, in this one I disagree. Don't try to convince me of the opposite. I have made up my mind, I understand. You don't, just because you have something against Run, maybe? Who cares about the feelings you have have for each other? We cannot solve your differences even if we try. I don't. That is personal between you too.

RE forum is just fine. You heard this before but is hard for to receive it; I'll say it again, last time. The fact that people have different needs and each have their own pace, maybe a laughing matter to you, not for others. What about compassion? Can you honor that?? Because of your mission you can't think further? If some people around here have forgotten compassion, or what is like for some one just leaving the cult, then, there is no argument. We are just different kind of people. Is that to difficult for you to understand!! And many of you can make fun of me in this subject, thinking that I say what I say because myself, I am a pretty-new RE, but My defense toward the existence of Re forum is because I do think of others too. I do still feel compassion for others, and Run doesn't have nothing to do with it: It me, who I am.

I will unswer your mail soon and I appologise for the outcome of it. My son gets the PC on weekends. He just went to the bathroom. :) So, I do it when I can.

Love,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 07:34:16 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Neither do I sb
Message:
But there are practicalities
RE was hacked because there was so much personal
vendetta directed against the forum admin.
And also because it was password protected.
I really think that was it. That simple.
Now let's say you take away the vendetta.
Will they stop hacking it? I want to believe.
Do I? Well I'm in a cynical phase at the moment.
Have you read the comments ?

But I do hope you are right. I am not advocating
that it go away SB. I just don't want to see people
get hurt again. That's all.
What happened was inexcusable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:02:46 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
By negativity I meant being 'negative' towards a poster. The trouble I have with no flaming is that it really means 'no confronting'. An even bigger problem I have is that it's even more censored than this site. As far as I'm concerned, the less censorship the better. But whatever, knock yourself out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:23:08 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Pman,
Do you think the only way to confront is to be antagonistic and mean? Do you really think all the posters there think the same and agree with each other all the time? Impossible. I've posted there once in a long time, Jim can tell you it's true. I am not defending my or anyone's involvement just stating some things I see as factual. Unless nonsense from here spills over to AG I like AG best because I am not to into m and that is no censorship so I sure don't have a problem with that I just think all this going nowhere fighting and attacking serves no purpose except to give premies and m a good belly laugh if they read it. Usually the fighting takes over the whole thing even obliterating the original issue. I think, from reading your other posts here that you agree to a lot of what I am saying. RE isn't so much censorship as being a group of people who all chose to speak without getting side stepped into this on going, going no were battle that is taking over this forum at the moment, which including my part in it, below, is really just so much worthless garbage.
Hey, I think I've come a ways since I would have been devistated by Jim's attacks and needed a cursing coach to deal with him but I'd still rather just communicate like a person with a brain if possible.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:53:01 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
My problem with this thing about Runamok isn't because it's mean or rude but because it lacks meaning and relevance. It's also unlikely to result in anything.

Yes, really confronting someone who's brainwashed requires being tough. They'll do anything to hang on to their delusion and the only sane reaction in the end is to tell them they're toad-sucking pond scum.

RE isn't just a group of people who've agreed to communicate in a certain way. It's a group that excludes those that don't communicate in their way. That's censorship.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:29:17 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: fuck! same post, corrected HTML
Message:
Pman,
I am not talking about this nonsense with Run. I am talking about the reason there is a RE and it sure ain't for Run to dis Jim for god's sake!
Let me use an anology from the physical world. Could be a highschool or a bar. Either would make sence because a highschool is for learning as these forums are for enlightening people about m and hopefully carrying them through the passage of changed thought and perception and it has been compared to a bar in posts along the way.
I'll just use a school. Say there is a tough highschool in NYC with violence and gangs and teachers carrying guns, who are so stressed out from it all they've given up or never cared in the first place and of course there could be a few that still have some hope and are there getting through to some of the kids that want to learn or breaking through with some that were just into the violence and all of that.
Now the kids are also a mix of human bodies filled with anger, the bullies, the indifferent and a few kids that do want to learn and a few kids from the other groups who somehow break through being in any other groups to find that they value the learning that can happen.
Some of these kids that are into learning and not all the violence and indifference can learn in this atmosphere and some are so terrified that their development is stymied by the brutality around them and live in fear of becoming a target, some are challenged by that same situation and feed off proving they can suceed in that environment. It is hard for me to imagine but maybe some that do want to learn even like it there, thier friends are there, they have a good teacher or two, whatever.
For some of the kids that the situation just doesn't work for, there is the option to go to a school, a private school that doesn't allow all the violence and intimidating bull shit. Is that censorship, well maybe but why is it right to offer no alternative for those kids that can not deal with that tough environment and also for some that can take it but find it easier to learn in the place that censors against intimidating behavior. Why should they be forced to stay in that place with the lowest common denominator?

This quote from VP's post above is great, thanks VP! :)
'Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small
minds discuss people.'

There are not always choices in this life but when there are why not use them or create them, why should people be forced to deal with bullshit just because it exists? I mean even in the highschool example the kids have to go home to thier crappy environments when school is out, they don't get to hide their heads in the sand from the starkness of the world but they may benifit and that benifit may just make the difference for them to be able to learn new ideas and change their lives for the better, to see a way out for themselves.

Look at you and I here. I respond to something you've posted then you respond to my new input and then I again to you. It is a normal exchange of ideas, do you feel this exchange is somehow lacking because we aren't all caps typing fuck you's and asshole at each other?! Some people respond well to the the environment here but others do not. I have been writing to a man for a year and a half that I met here, he was here on 2 different days for a short time each day. He called himself a premie so you know the reception he got. He has a dignity and decency about him, a strong sense of self and wouldn't expose himself further to that type of treatment. It didn't take long for him to see that although he did continue to value meditation that he was not any longer a follower of m. Granted that doesn't happen often in that way, the point is that it takes 'different strokes for different folks' so why not allow for that instead of forcing everyone to conform to one mold which is just what we want to help people break free from thinking in the first place.
Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:56:08 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Excellent post, Robyn!
Message:
Hi Robyn-

You are absolutely right. Alternatives are necessary for people who want to speak and not have to worry that what they say will cause a personal attack. We have several forums to choose from now and I think that's great.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 22:00:02 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: A Customer
Subject: Excellent post, Robyn!
Message:
Dear Customer, :)
Thank you for your input. You know I look up to you. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:13:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh?
Message:
Robyn,

That's pretty good. Making up an analogy and all. But really isn't it more like there are these two chopper divisisns in the U.S. Marines in Vietnam, and one of them wants to just rape, pillage and napalm all the little kids while the other wants to land and talk to the villagers, maybe hand out some chocolate bars and only do a little shooting? You know. Like some people are into BANG! BANG! BANG! -- block letters and everything -- and others won't use anything heavier than semi-automatic machine guns and prefer, unless they really have to, to stick with regular carbines? Isn't that what we're really talking about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:11:50 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh?
Message:
Maybe what your talking about dork but not what I'm talking about. For a smart guy you are so fucking thick
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:15:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh?
Message:
Ouch! Robyn, I feel like you've just stabbed me with that abusive language. And why? Just because I didn't 'get it'? That' so cruel!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:17:39 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wow, Robyn, an analogy, eh?
Message:
just trying to accomodate you by speaking to you in your native language
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:22:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: That's what you all say
Message:
Funny how Runanduck said the same thing. I guess you could always use that excuse for hurtful language. Load, shoot, drop the gun and walk away. Take off your gloves and say you never touch the stuff yourselves.

But, Robyn, truth be known, you have hurt me dearly. I need a forum I can hide on. Know of any safe forums that might put me up for a night or two? This hurtful shit is starting to ... well, hurt.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:29:56 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's what you all say
Message:
Hey, I didn't know Run ever said that, cool.
If I thought you were really hurt Jim, I'd think there may be hope for you yet but we both know that ain't the case, eh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 14:34:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: That's pretty sadistic, Robyn
Message:
I'm hurting so bad .....

There! Is that better?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:33:31 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's pretty sadistic, Robyn
Message:
Nothing is better Jim you still are and I feel will ALWAYS be an infintial asshole who refuses to grow up.
The point was, ignoramous, that if you felt hurt that means you FELT SOMETHING!!!! Something besides anger and indignation. Talk about not seeing the layers, holy Christ! You are so singularly focused on yourself you make many of us sick to puking over it! You can have 30 people telling you the same thing and 2 continuing to stroke you and you will disgard the TOTAL message from the masses because someone feeds you your needed praise. Once again I say you are a pittiful little man, hopeless, absolutely!
You saw pman, your one of 2 strokers, having a sensible converstaion with me and you had to stop that! Now he wouldn't dare reply, to agree or disagree in normal tone, to me out of loving you. He didn't always feel this way about you and now that you are looking to him for advise he doesn't want to lose that!
There is NOTHING that will change you, you are a stymied old man stuck in anger mode for 30 years, it is sad, sad, sad and pitiful as well. Carry on with your foot up your ass, your really learning how to get around that way, it isn't even shocking to see it anymore.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 15:29:00 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: That's pretty sadistic, Robyn
Message:
You saw pman, your one of 2 strokers, having a sensible converstaion with me and you had to stop that! Now he wouldn't dare reply, to agree or disagree in normal tone, to me out of loving you. He didn't always feel this way about you and now that you are looking to him for advise he doesn't want to lose that!

This is unbelievably dumb.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:26:23 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: pman
Message:
Pman,
I don't think it was dumb, but at some point after shutting down my computer and before I fell back to sleep I knew I owed you an apology. No matter what I felt was so, which is just my opinion, I shouldn't have put it on this public forum.
There are lots of snippy things I think but refrain from posting, just bad form and this is one of those that slipped through.
Sorry.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 20:14:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: ahem, Robyn?
Message:
Robyn,

Hate to tell but .. well, it was a little dumb. Trust me on this one, okay? You know I wouldn't lie to you. I'm not saying it was the dumbest thing you've ever posted. But it was dumb. Honestly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 07:30:09 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: what about freedom
Message:
Pman wrote

RE isn't just a group of people who've agreed to communicate in a certain way. It's a group that excludes those that don't communicate in their way. That's censorship.

You are wrong on those two statements. Can RE be considered to be 'just a group who've agreed to communicate in a certain way'? It's more than that for me at least, and I imagine for others too, who go there once in a while. I agree with Robin's post, to lazy to paste it here. RE has possibilities. It can be if allowed just a little different place where to communicate, for people who for whatever reasons don't feel comfortable posting here. It isn't a big deal as some people want to make it be.

'It's a group that excludes those ...' you say, and how can you prove that. How can you say that, as if that is the way it's? That is your perception, You seem So sure, not even a might. Would you please tell me what is that special way of communicating that bothers you about RE? I haven't notice that people there speak different than here.

I find your type of comments is what causes people to get behind each other here, and this happens all the time, and is ugly. Sombody ask a question and it can end up anywhere? Some are quick to talk and insult others, directly and indirectly, and pass judgements that don't belong here.

Have the meanings of the forums been clarified well enough? Maybe not. The forums suggestions can be stretched to be anything if wanted, because people have rights, that is. Rules say that we can discuss 'anything' on F5, but for some, to what cost?

Somebody said that it looks like a club. Well, RE can be called many things, but to accuse the participants of doing something they are not doing is to create another theme for a new 'fight'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 22:46:04 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Fuck You = Thanks Mahatma Jim (Fair?)
Message:
I guess if you would quote the statements to which I was responding, some of my posts would appear as they are- sarcasm-tinged responses to flames! Yes, tough word, I know. But would some of Roger's posts which tell me to 'Fuck off' and 'fuck you' in three inch, red bold lettering be plausible? Whaddya say, Jimbo? Maybe flames, just maybe? And the sarcasm, well, I thought that was the going currency that you supported.

Your alleged witnesses (i.e., agree-ees), you might ask them again. You had to ask them over and over to find an answer you could post. One posted to your
'thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' (in response to them finally giving you an answer that you considered correct, with,
'reluctantly welcome'

which made me think.

Some of us may have a little more feeling for coexistence as a part of life than you do, Jim. We might sometimes say something because we don't want to hurt your feelings or because the point seems too overblown (you know, 'reduced' in Dawkins' lingo) to be worth arguing about.

By the way, isn't Proxomitron largely used for anonymous email in the first place? Yes, I expect you to think if you are going to question me. When the actual use of the software is to allow hackers (or sales-spammers) to anonymously email, it stands to reason that someone might be upset over Proxomitron's proximity to the forum in general, ripe with premie lurkers and others if you will. People say you are very smart. Can't you connect the dots a bit more (and not everyone, you- you're the one asking me)? But if you're question is only a foil for your own agenda, you can try to claim that I was purposefully obscure.

As to my answers to your questions, you have, on numerous occasions claimed that:
-I did not answer your question
(sometimes you do this by changing the question)
or that
-I am lying
(which I enjoy because implied is you can read my mind).
You do this after I have answered your question. This total distortion of my thoughts doesn't fill me with a desire to cooperate with your latest attempts to interview me.

By the way, I really did think you would match up your own use of the word frisson with my use of kicks but suffice it to say you obviously did not. Perhaps it is another indication that you are not suited to the subtle allusion of scholarly discourse. Whether or not that's correct, in an antagonistic situation, I don't owe you any explanations. If it were two friends, acquaintances or scholars (with some sense of ground rules), more information would be forthcoming on my part. Maybe you the gratuitous use of abusive language makes it harder for you to draw the lines in more polite conversation.

Your stand on RE is that it shouldn't exist in the first place, correct?

I'm sure you'll be glad to clarify that for us, won't you, Jim?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 23:09:37 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Look, it's 4:20, Run
Message:
Hey listen up pal. Proxomitron is an, er, interface between your computer's browser and the web server you are visiting. You 'filter' how the Internet looks to you by using it. It doesn't have anything to do with e-mail. You can't spam anyone anonymously or otherwise using Proxomitron. That's about all I know about it and that's a hell of a lot more than you, right?

May I suggest you hang up your old forum shoes and join me in retirement? Heck we could even trade insults by e-mail if you like.

You are starting to dissemble again and it's embarrassing to see. Your sentence structure is becoming increasingly disjointed and your 'ideas' are getting a little, ahem, 'sketchy.' Breaktime?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index