Salam -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:15:23 (GMT)

__ Steve Quint -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:51:48 (GMT)

__ ham -:- Yeah, on a regular basis over the years -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:56:25 (GMT)

__ Sir Dave -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:36:27 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:14:11 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:44:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Anyone been to Nirvana yet? -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:04:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ Stonor -:- Of course not, silly ... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:51:22 (GMT)

__ Daneane -:- God is ho hum. Better to look for Blue Rodeo. -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:44:25 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- Go away you imperialist pommies -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:18:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- The sun never sets on The British Empire -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:01:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ ham -:- Well sod you salam :) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:00:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Well sod you salam :) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:52:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ ham -:- I shall wait until after the shri lanka tour, -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:08:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- I shall wait until after the shri lanka tour, -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:53:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- You're not a bookie are you by any chance Oliver, -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:27:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Dream on -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:44:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Got you rattled already have we salam -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:30:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Salam -:- Yeah sure, we kick your ass anytime -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:11:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ ham -:- In nirvana, again -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 22:46:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- In nirvana, again -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:46:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- I do like someone who uses the subtle approach -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:21:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Give it to me babIe! -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:56:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Give it to me babIe! -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 00:50:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Give it to me babY! -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:11:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- You trying to get me creamy?? -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 23:29:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Crabby are we? -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 02:35:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- In your dreams! No time to clean YOUR house! -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:28:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- That's 'BABY' of course - I needed sleep. (nt) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:27:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- The American to the rescue AGAIN!! :) re: Nigel -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:59:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- nevermind, I see you've found him (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:00:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Thanks -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:22:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- back to Nirvana you sports nuts! -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:55:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Are you American chicks all horney like that -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:16:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Are you American chicks all horney like that -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:05:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Seriously though -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:21:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Seriously though -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:51:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Seriously though -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 16:20:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Seriously though -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 17:10:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Seriously though -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:34:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Very Serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:34:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Very Serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:15:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Very Serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:21:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- not so serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 14:19:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- not so serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:32:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- not so serious this time -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:46:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Cann't remember who am waiting for -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 16:03:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Cann't remember who am waiting for -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 18:01:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Nirvan mail -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:02:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- No, I never reached nirvana, (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:27:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- No, I never reached nirvana, (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:42:20 (GMT)

Salam -:- Brian -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:30:01 (GMT)

__ Brian -:- Salam -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:54:32 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- Clue -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:06:20 (GMT)

Stonor -:- To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 19:41:56 (GMT)

__ suchabanana -:- great story! -nt -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:23:50 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:18:26 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:25:46 (GMT)

__ __ Zelda -:- I really needed this at Christmass time...:)nt -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:58:20 (GMT)

__ __ Stonor -:- Reaching your level of God's perfection! -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:21:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ Cynthia -:- Being Aware and Conscious of Her Needs... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:14:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Call an ambulance. -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:52:22 (GMT)

__ __ Marianne -:- To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:31:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ bill -:- It is a disaster if rawat gets 'better' -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:16:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Couldn't agree with you more, Bill ... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:54:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:59:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:03:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:29:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 15:38:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 19:38:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Searching for Miracles -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 05:03:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Hi Monmot !! -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:25:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Hey Gerry !! -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:01:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Whoa, Stona, girl this one's got teeth. -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:49:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stona -:- 'Religious Aspects of Ideological Totalism' -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:58:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- 'Religious Aspects of Ideological Totalism' -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:27:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Peter Framptown -:- reaching your level -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:59:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- reaching your level -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:33:17 (GMT)

Steve Quint -:- My Status -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:27:21 (GMT)

__ Steve Quint -:- Report From The Front -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:08:00 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- Well me mate -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:51:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Steve Quint -:- Communication Breakdown -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:00:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ gErRy -:- I like your humor, Steve -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:17:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- This is true -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:48:21 (GMT)

__ Robyn -:- My Status -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:02:10 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- My Status -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 20:50:19 (GMT)

__ Tim G -:- My Status -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:56:55 (GMT)

__ __ Disculta -:- Hi Steve... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:22:36 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- The historical perspective -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:03:51 (GMT)

Scott T. -:- Another Prediction -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:14:46 (GMT)

__ Scott T. -:- Another Prediction -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:03:58 (GMT)

__ __ Scott T. -:- Another Prediction -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:41:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- Scott, what are you talking about? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:55:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Scott, what are you talking about? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:30:34 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:41:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:23:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:54:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- More than meets the eye. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:35:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- McPherson, etc. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:03:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- McPherson, etc. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:02:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- McPherson, etc. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:32:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ich verstehe nicht. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:34:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Scott, it's simple. -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:40:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I still don't verstehen. -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:00:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Sorry, I did it again -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:35:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Linkage -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:52:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Graphics -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:52:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Graphics -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:08:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Graphics -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:05:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:36:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:19:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Correction -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:54:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- What Thomas thinks... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:53:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What Thomas thinks... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:43:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- What Thomas thinks... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:50:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What Thomas thinks... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:40:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Thomas does not think -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:04:37 (GMT)

__ Scott T. -:- Briefs to USSC -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:46:49 (GMT)

__ Gee -:- Another Prediction -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 15:56:55 (GMT)

__ __ Scott T. -:- Another Prediction -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:01:10 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- The worst is yet to come -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:31:54 (GMT)

__ Jerry -:- I think it's simpler than that -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 15:01:24 (GMT)

__ __ Scott T. -:- It's that simple, really. -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:31:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jerry -:- Democracy? You see a democracy? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:11:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Biased ballot led voters astray -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 14:14:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Biased ballot led voters astray -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 23:54:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Biased ballot led voters astray -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:12:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Biased ballot led voters astray? -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:09:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Democracy? You see a democracy? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:31:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Democracy? You see a democracy? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:49:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Democracy? You see a democracy? -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:33:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- A paper trail, what a novel thought... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:56:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You guys are smarter than any ten media slugs... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:03:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You guys are smarter than any ten media slugs... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:42:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Something even dan rather would understand -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 16:13:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Something even dan rather would understand -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:35:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oops. -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:46:33 (GMT)

__ __ Marianne -:- I think it's simpler than that -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:32:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- I think it's simpler than that -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:43:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- I think it's simpler than that -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:30:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I think it's simpler than that -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:09:48 (GMT)

__ bill -:- sounds right-nt -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:34:53 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- And may ALLAH be a witness..nt -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:44:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ bill -:- Are you sure that is it's name?-nt -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:18:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Salam -:- Why do want to know -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:43:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Why do want to know -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:07:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Why do want to know -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:15:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Why do want to know -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:46:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Why do want to know -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 00:45:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Why do want to know -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:30:16 (GMT)

Tim G -:- Lotus Harangue @ Wembley -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:58:48 (GMT)

SongBird -:- Penny Eveleigh...anyone has contact details??? -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:53:45 (GMT)

Forum Administrator -:- Warning -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:27:43 (GMT)

__ Didyoudothatfart -:- Warning -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:01:23 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Then wipe that guilty look from your face -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:16:00 (GMT)

AJW -:- Happy Birthday Mr Rawat -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 09:39:31 (GMT)

__ jondon -:- Happy Birthday Mr Rawat -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:29:41 (GMT)

__ Bin Liner -:- Best Rawat birthday I've had in years burp (nt) -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 23:29:21 (GMT)

__ Kelly -:- Happy Birthday Mr Rawat -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:36:21 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- Happy Birthday Mr Rawat -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:43:23 (GMT)

__ __ Stonor -:- 'EX'-slave, Cynthia! (damn typos! ;-) (nt) -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:30:18 (GMT)

__ Divine Encarnation -:- Happy Birthday LARD !!! -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:15:00 (GMT)

__ Stonor -:- He's 43, Anth.(nt) -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:00:34 (GMT)

__ __ Wf -:- How old is his wife? (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:39:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Sir Loin -:- 8 years older, so about 51 (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:54:06 (GMT)

__ __ Kelly -:- He's 43, Anth.(nt) -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:52:50 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Thanks Stonor -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:46:20 (GMT)

__ Tim Matheson -:- Happy Birthday Lord Maharaji -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:29:03 (GMT)

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:15:23 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

Just wondering. Someone must have. Thirty years should be more than enough to do so. If you have please let me know. Also anyone knows where god is? I've been looking for him lately? If you see please also tell him to contact me, I want to have a word or two with him Thank for your cooperation. Salam@rawat.sucks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:51:48 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Salam Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

Yes. It's an East Indian restaurant a few blocks from my previous residence. My premie friend likes it but I never found the food that great. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:56:25 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Salam Subject: Yeah, on a regular basis over the years Message:

but I never met god there, rumour has it he's had a breakdown, and is in bigtime therapy. The other rumour in nirvana was that all is one, so talking about god is ridiculous since we are all aspects of the whole thing, so we are each god, we just posit the name on something other cause we haven't got the courage to take responsibility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:36:27 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Salam Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

God is everywhere, so I'm told. And you'd better not call God a 'He' here because you'll have the lesbian feminist lobby coming out in force to castrate you. Actually, just between you and me, God is a He but just to humour them, I call God an 'It'. I mean, how many women do you see with long beards? They've turned Nirvana into a shopping mall with on-site parking and creche facilities. It's the only way they could get people people to go there. .. Dave

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:14:11 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Salam Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

Hi Salam, There are two Nirvanas- like there are two London's, two Romes, and two Paris's. When I used to live in Paris, Americans would say, 'Where do you live?' I'd say Paris. They'd say, 'Do you mean the capital city of France, with the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, a thousand art galleries and a population of 11 million? Or do you mean that grotty, fly-blown dump in Texas with a drug store, gas station and population of 212? Which Paris?' It's the same with London, 'The one with the Queen, Buckingham Palace, Tower, and Thames in England- or the one with the hardware store and greasy diner in Indiana?' And with Nirvana- there's one in California, surrounded by a high security fence, with guard dogs and racist thugs on the gate, and there's one in Wales- where the Ice Cream Parlour is owned by a living Buddha- the birds chant sutras, thousand petals lotuses are opening all over the place, and the postman had got a halo made of 7 rainbows. The ice-creams taste of ambrosia, and there is no such thing as guilt. My brother works in the booking office. If you'd like a holiday there, send me 1000d ollars deposit and I'll sort it out for you. Anth, shares available, enclose sae.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:44:31 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: AJW Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

Anth, Are you an iguana?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:04:46 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Salam Subject: Anyone been to Nirvana yet? Message:

No...but I smoked one once. It gave me a headache and green scales on my tongue. Anth the Mammal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:51:22 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: Of course not, silly ... Message:

Anth's a chameleon! And I can make you a copy of Nirvana and send it to you. It's 'Unplugged', unlike you, Guru Nerdjii!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:44:25 (GMT) From: Daneane Email: None To: Salam Subject: God is ho hum. Better to look for Blue Rodeo. Message:

They are in Canada.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:18:41 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Daneane Subject: Go away you imperialist pommies Message:

I am really serious. I want to know if anyone has reached Nervana. I mean what does it take? What about all those boofhead premies that have been meditating since time stop way back, surly someone know. I am sure rawat sucks, oops, I mean rawat reads this forum, he can come undercover and tell us how he realized no-lig in a month. But then the options are there are not they. Plllleeeaaaattttzzzzzzzzzz I WANT TO KNOW, someone (not a pommie) tell me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:01:37 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Salam Subject: The sun never sets on The British Empire Message:

I've got a high from doing meditation, at some times. But I wouldn't call it Nirvana and if I locked myself out of my house and left the keys inside, the high went immediately. I've experienced a stillness from the third technique, at times. But it wasn't Nirvana and if some descendent of a criminal called me a Pommie bastard, my stillness evaporated in an instant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:00:53 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Salam Subject: Well sod you salam :) Message:

I was gonna go for it on this one wid ya, but no pommies eh, you wait for the test matches next year and see Steve Waugh REALLY freak out! Ha!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:52:42 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: ham Subject: Well sod you salam :) Message:

G'day ham, You may have not noticed that the Aussies just broke the record for the number of consecutive wins in Test cricket while led by that genius Steve Waugh. I too am looking forward to when we next do battle with you Poms for the Ashes and, being a betting man, am prepared to give you odds that the Aussies will come out on top. Interested? I'm offering 2/1. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:08:04 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Oliver Subject: I shall wait until after the shri lanka tour, Message:

but if after 30 years they really have relearnt THE way to play cricket, ie without sledging, (I know you aussies can't help it!) I might take you up on a bet. At least it won't be a slaughter this time. And if I remember rightly you lost your last series in Pakistan, and jeesus, even we beat the windies last summer. I reckon your lot could blow a few fuses when we don't just roll over in the first storm. What's your new quickie Lee like, is McGrath over the hill, and is Mcgill(??sp?) a worthy replacement for Warne? I genuinely think wer're in with a chance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:53:08 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: ham Subject: I shall wait until after the shri lanka tour, Message:

Our new quickie Lee is very, very good but unfortunately he is sitting out the next Test with a sress fracture in the lower back. McGrath is as good as ever, evidenced by his figures in the last Test against the now easy beat West Indies when he got a hat trick. He also seems to have the wood on Lara, which speaks volumes for his abilities. McGill will never be as good as Warney was but he is good enough to give the Poms a bit off curry. Time will tell if Warne will come back to the heights he once managed and I suspect that he won't. But no matter, there is still a wealth of talent waiting in the wings straining at the leash to have a go at our favorite opponents, the bloody Poms! Best of British in Sri Lanka but no similar sentiments when your blokes next come up against our world champions. As for the bet, all I can suggest is for you to bet early, bet big and bet often.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:27:35 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Oliver Subject: You're not a bookie are you by any chance Oliver, Message:

shame on you! But the fact that you need to state your 'world championship ness' suggests to me you already know we are gonna be much more awkward this time, if not tough. And there are weaknesses in your team now, if not that many.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:44:37 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: ham Subject: Dream on Message:

Your having a nightmare.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:30:23 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Salam Subject: Got you rattled already have we salam Message:

Now it gets interesting ha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:11:48 (GMT) From: Salam Email: salam_au@iprimus.com.au To: ham Subject: Yeah sure, we kick your ass anytime Message:

Am not a real Aussie, I have been living here for the last 12 years, can not remember who am I. Waht, someone says my grandma is Indian. Aaaaannnntttthhhhhhh, get me out this locker I want to kick his ass. p.s. since you bunch of pommies are ganging uip on me me, does anyone knows were that Nigel is hiding. Get him to e-mail me

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 22:46:10 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Salam Subject: In nirvana, again Message:

Just heard we've won the last test in Pakistan, good ole Nasser, at last after thirty years an England cricket team that remembers how the game is supposed to be played! Ha. But getting back to the topic salam, I seriously did experience my own personal nirvana for years pretty regularly. I actually left gm because it became obvious he wasn't as serious about knowledge as I was, and had no intention of really giving everyone the opportunity to experience it. I also experienced nirvana less regularly before k, mostly on acid, but also sometimes as a kid. Quite happy to discuss it further if you want. Whether it was the classical def of nirvana as in buddhist lit is debateable, but I was more than happy with my access to it (understatement of the year), and reacvhed states that I had received k to reAch. By the way salam, have you ever done stand up comedy, I think you'd be good. And as for a fake aussie whupping my ass, dream on!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:46:41 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: ham Subject: In nirvana, again Message:

Well, I am all ears. GIVE TO ME BABE.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 00:21:52 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Salam Subject: I do like someone who uses the subtle approach Message:

Well where to start. Suppose at the beginning really. I'll list the events in my journey toward my version of nirvana (1) As a kid, a certain feeling that used to come occasionally of connectedness and wholeness, a good vibe/feeling which could be while on my own, or through ghood social/entertainment stuff. (2) On acid, every trip after my first, always at some point regularly during the trip, would reach a headspace where everything became very connected, felt UNBELIEVABLY alive, present to the moment as though for the first time, even though the experience fely VERY natural, I felt complete. VERY electric, visually, and in the clear way my feelings were flowing. It usually came with a strong feeling of love and the moment, felt as though I had tapped into something that was always there, not in a mystical god way, but naturally in a zen in the body as is way. During these states music was a key component, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, hippy nation shit, acid indian raga tripped out telepathy so it feels no need to speak, eyes say it all. The songs all talked about this state. Pulse was everything, including the way pulses linked togetrher. After a while we all called that state, 'knowledge'. Ironic or what. Three years later after checking out other possible ways of reaching those acid states without drugs, and after checking other routes got into knowledge as a meditation route. A bit odd someone into zen should be on a bhakti yogas route, but there ya go. Six months after meditating when I wanted to, started to kick start some chemical changes in myt body. Started feeling lightly stoned regularly, although doing no drugs at all during that period. Started finding my internal and external lives were finding the same route of expression. Really appredciating the moment, feeling really good, eating reAlly well, loads of walking, no work pressure. Started feeling gorgeous. Every dAy felt like a complete flow. Every thing I did, try to do it with real concentration and good intent. Meditation (formal getting more & more gorgeous), start finding myself doing intuitive massge and healing from seemingly nowhere, again not perceiveds as mystical, just natural expressions of passing through certain frequency in the head territorys. . Lots of shit kicking off, weird hard to explain experiences. By now, 85, obvious he has no REAL intention of trying to sapread this knowledge, decide to check out what the fuck IS going on around gm etc. Dysfunctional organization etc. Nirvana no longer my main focus then til.... (3) House music, drum & bass, sub-bass, excellent-vibe crowds where's it's easy to find the right crowd for you Ecstacy, sweet vibes, lot of openness, love morew unspoken, no need to make a deal of it. Very post-modern zen ikea minimalism approach to what would have been perceived as spiritual before, no longer the case. Could go much further on this but don't want to bore the pants off you, when we were getting along so well ohh gorgeous one

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:56:57 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: Give it to me babIe! Message:

I think that's the expression, but I really like the image of you saying, 'Give to me BABE!' to hamzen! ChOL (chuckling out loud, and what does 'BT' mean?) And ham is right ... you'd be great at stand up comedy!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 00:50:12 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Give it to me babIe! Message:

I knew something was afoot. I thought you were being mystical for a while. But that is not you, or is it? Did you download that screen saver I told you about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:11:18 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: Give it to me babY! Message:

Well then again, there are the implants the Borg get! (Star Trek reference) You can see the real me over at AG, thanks to Bazza - see 'Shazzam'. Oh, I think you've already seen the two of me... I have 'automatic sleep' on my computer, so I don't use a screensaver, and remember, I'm a MacCat. That other site you sent me reminds me a bit of 'The Way' that is your latest excuse for being so special! ;-) What did you think of it? Personally, you'll never catch me figuring that one day laiens will come and get us out of the mess we're in - more magical thinking IMO. But really, what do I know? I gotta mark and do some paper work in hopes that Friday will be the last time I go to the school until next year. (avoidance is so tempting!) I am NOT 'God' OR 'Satan' - stop trying to categorize me! Anna: a name you can spell backwards, thank 'Whatever-It-Is'! (what was it that you wanted ham to give you?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 23:29:23 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Stonor Subject: You trying to get me creamy?? Message:

Seven of nine?? You're not seven of nineish are ya?? I am, of course, only interested in her mind!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 02:35:34 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Crabby are we? Message:

You telling me off or something? Sorry, wont say a word to you anymore. That's not a promise. Can not remember who ham is, better check with Robyn, she has been my guide for a while. Salam (blo..y women, you give them some leway and they want to clean your house for you, I think.......)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:28:51 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: In your dreams! No time to clean YOUR house! Message:

(having trouble taking care of my own cleanup) And I would NEVER be crabby with you, my Guru Salamjii Nerdjii! Your ever so humble chelajiita on the path, Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:27:01 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Stonor Subject: That's 'BABY' of course - I needed sleep. (nt) Message:

I can't even help you with your spelling Guru Nerdjii! Your VERY humble chela on the path.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:59:31 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: The American to the rescue AGAIN!! :) re: Nigel Message:

Dear Salam, There is a thread way below, started by Marianne awhile back titled, Hey Nigel. Nigel posted there, finally :) and included his email and a request for exes from Oz to email him. Love, Robyn cartographer and party planner :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:00:24 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Robyn Subject: nevermind, I see you've found him (nt) Message:

agam'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:22:54 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Thanks Message:

Now we can finish plan 12#4%5 of the Amoroo project. Salam-undercover

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:55:12 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: back to Nirvana you sports nuts! Message:

Dear Salam, Not a pommie, first off, thought I'd set that straight! :) Is an American much better? Are you hoping if you find someone who has reached Nirvana that you will find it too if you go to their location? :) Don't think I've ever reached it anyway but maybe have seen glimpses here and there through meditation, spontaneous off the wall visions or energy experiences and even a few ultra memorable orgasms. :) If I win, the closest to Nirvana prize, I'm in Pennsylvania. :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:16:04 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Are you American chicks all horney like that Message:

Read my lips. I am a dedicated Nirvana kind of person. I need to know urgently if anyone has it, got it, found it. Am also cracking up. Help me. (man I should not have built this network, I am going crazy trying to figure out which keyboared belong to where. Even if you tell me where nirvan is, I do not think I will be there on time). How is America no a days?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:05:02 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: Are you American chicks all horney like that Message:

Dear Salam, Maybe you are being serious and I am playing, not sure. I did mean it though, that I think I've seen glimpses and really in the ways I mentioned but then I never was a strictly dedicated meditator. I do it because it helps me and is an enjoyable experience, the rest just happen on their own, thank god. :) Not sure if by saying you are cracking up that you are laughing big belly laughs or really losing it because you need an answer to this question. I hope this isn't really getting to you that badly. 'How is America no a days?' Are you asking how long it takes to get here? I don't know but if you are making the trip to find Nirvana time is of no importance. :) You can find America inside yourself. :) Love, Robyn always glad to help :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:21:29 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Seriously though Message:

Dear Salam, You've got me thinking about this. Who knows really, it is kind of like what is beyond death in that way. I think, the experiences I've had that I feel are glimpses of Nirvana are so because in them, I've lost awareness of my body, gone more into an energy state. I hear that energy in combination with white light is even closer to what I think you are asking about. It isn't something I'd want to be in contact with all the time or what would be the sense of having a body/a life but when I have some experience that I deem connecting to that energy that is in all things, it makes life outside of that more enjoyable for me. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:51:17 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Seriously though Message:

We're getting somewhere. But how do you know that all this is part of self realization and the way to nirvana. Maybe it is a hoax? Do you know if god and nervana go together? Do you think the Americans will be the first to discover this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 16:20:25 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: Seriously though Message:

Dear Salam, I guess I think of myself as a work in progress and right now I am leaning toward a no god theory. That all the energy/visionary experiences I have are just a part of being a being that is alive, equal in the respect that we all, animals, insects, even the earth, glaciers, the whole non-alive components as they are in constant motion so that puts them, tentitively in my mind, into the whole group of energy 'beings', all this energy just is. It is natural, as natural as anything we do or can do. Any expectations beyond that are mere speculation anyway. 'But how do you know that all this is part of self realization and the way to nirvana. Maybe it is a hoax?' Don't KNOW, just seems very logical to me is all. I do know it isn't a hoax because I have experienced the things I am talking about. Maybe I am just starting to 'seek' now but never have and am just realizing lately how lucky/grateful I am that I have had the extra ordinary experiences I have had. What I feel I am finally starting to seek is a way to develop the experiences of energy that have just been naturally occuring up until this point. I'll have to see if I think it a valuable endeavor. I do know that when I meditated on light reguarly at least 2 hours a day it did change/develop from blobs of colors to forming and then dissapating patterns, like ink blots of colors so I hypothisis that I can develop my experiences with energy also. For me, now at least, it is just something to work on like learing how to sew or any other skill. I am enjoying our conversation and the thoughts it has working in my head. Thanks. :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 17:10:27 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Seriously though Message:

But how do you know what you experience is true. Again, it maybe a figment of your imagination me dear. What is experience. If I pinch you with a needle(not that I want to do that), you feel pain, is not pain a chemical reaction. If I stick some other needles in you in certain points you want feel the pain, but the pain should be logically there, but seeing that you do not feel it, you think that you do not experience it. So, is not that the same. How do we know that we are not already in nervana, and how do we know that we may never find out? Rawat sucks. Because he ass-umes that he speaks from nirvana(the bastard), but then he is too fat and ugly to really say what it is. We assume that spiritual enlightment is something out there that we need to work for. We assume that by meditating we get closer to it. This is a fundemental question, could you be already 'and advance soul'? If so, you could be wasting your time meditating and trying to be someone else. From where am sitting, you appear to be a complete person. (Oh nirvana, you have eluded me for so long, in the the end I find that you are getting shaffted by rawat). Same question with god. Where the hell is he, or has he/she been shaffted too? Make me happy and tell me. p.s. I am talking in my sleep.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:34:11 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: Seriously though Message:

Yes Salam, you are talking in your sleep. I thought you'd gone to bed! Insomnia? For me, I don't care if my 'experiences' are chemical, all I care is that I have them and they are cool. :) For the record, anywhere you stick me with a needle I WILL feel it so don't go thinking you can go looking for places I won't feel it!!! :) When I was little I use to daydream that I'd stick my mother with pins while she was sleeping because she was abusive but it never would have worked because she was a very light sleeper! Sorry to joke about it but that story kept running through my mind with your little analogy. :) Anyway if you stick me with a pin and I do not feel it then my nerves are damaged or whatever but my physical body still is effected and I need to care for that. I am in a body and I feel that I am a whole, I consider myself that way. Any of my wonderful and out of the ordinary experiences are part of that whole. I don't think we are in nirvana all the time because my understanding of the word is more like the very wonderful feelings I get from these other experiences. We may well never find out for sure, maybe that is why I don't worry myself so much with the labels for them and just enjoy them and feel very grateful that I do have them from time to time. I think I mentioned that I do think any explinations are just spectulation anyway, a way to compartmentalize it and I don't care about that. 'Rawat sucks. Because he ass-umes that he speaks from nirvana(the bastard), but then he is too fat and ugly to really say what it is. We assume that spiritual enlightment is something out there that we need to work for. We assume that by meditating we get closer to it. This is a fundemental question, could you be already 'and advance soul'? If so, you could be wasting your time meditating and trying to be someone else. From where am sitting, you appear to be a complete person.' Somehow I missed this on my first read. :) Lately I am having a bit of a problem with the word spiritual. I use it because whomever I am communicating with then knows what I am talking about but as I mentioned in another post, maybe it isn't spiritualism at all and just a very natural function of our living selves. I know m isn't enlightened on any level, spiritual, moral, human, just so you know how I feel on that one. I am also just recently thinking that I would like to work more with these experiences, make efforts to learn what others say or experience by spending time on them. Maybe it will be good for me and I'll enjoy it or maybe not in which case I'll stop. I'll have to get back to you on this. :) Meditation, for me has been a positve experience. K techniques are calming for me and I have done a few Buddhist techniques I've have found to be very powerful in a very different way. They have helped me get in touch with issues within myself of a more emotional and real world nature and have either given me a tool to deal with those issues or opened my eyes to something in myself, in the one case that needed a lot of time, contemplation and healing(research and understanding toward myself), on my part. I just do what I do, Salam. Sorry to be so vauge but I just don't think about becoming a realized soul or if I may already be and if so am I wasting my time. I just get through day to day and try to face the shit that comes up be it good or bad. That is the crooks of it for me I guess, to face stuff and not to deny or ignore it. I guess I came to this because I saw a lot of hypocrisy in my childhood family and it really pissed me off as a small child. I hated it like some people hate m. I just realized that! That became my life's goal. 'From where am sitting, you appear to be a complete person.' Just had to quote that again because my reply was getting so long. I thank you for saying that though. Seems kind of matter a fact, like, aren't we all but I think I get what you mean and I think it has to do with trying to not be hypocritical in my life. I'd like to say that I feel like I am getting a glimpse of your 'complete person' today, nice. :) I have enough in my life that isn't so 'tidy' as how I feel about these types of things, my trials are in other areas so I am complete but not completely not fucked up! :) I spend my worry on them I guess and not on this stuff 'cause what can I do about the outcome anyway, with the things I fret about I feel like if I do figure something out with them that I can make a difference, a change in my life to make solve these delimas(sp). Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:34:25 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Very Serious this time Message:

You sound like you're a total rec to me. No wonder you do not know where Nirvana has gonne. Yes I can stick you with needles. In fact I can put so may, your never even notice. I should have said acupuncture needles. They make you feel good. You see me dear, the question that am possing here about Nirvan, if there is such a thing, is aimed at trying to understand what is the purpose of life. I think we are dupped in beliving in spirituallit, self realization, god and etc etc. Let us assume for a nano second that what you say about meditation is true. Also let's say that there is such a thing as 'spiritual advancement'. And finally lwt us propose a hypothesis about consciousness, such that we assume that it is a seperate entity, some physical unknow, as subatomic multidimentional worm hole sucker. This so called consiousness, enters the bady when it find and organic matter that it can occupy, and leaves when the organic matter can not support it. I also want to ass-ume that reincarnation works and the consiousness come back again and agian to develope. Look at this as a system, do not worry about how it got there. So what is the purpose of it? Ok, you sit down and meditate for one two or as many hours as you can. Some twenty or thirty years later, you would have become an adept, you can leave your body, fly through walls, go to the moon and check if there are aliens on Mars, or you can see a lot of light, become part of it, come back to earth and have a smoke. Does that prove anything? I do not think so, because the question is still there. OK, look at premies, or for that matter the exes when they where premies. Do they have a freedom of choice, that is to say, can they question their experience? again I do not think so, because once you do, that is it, you've had it, you'll start asking more and more until you realize that you have wasted thirty years of your life, being a total idiot. So what is next. Nothing. You gave it your best shot and you lost. No, I do not understand the reason for having god or the purpose of nirvana, they maybe there, but I think they are usless and taking some valuable space. Last year I wanted to commit suicide because of the last para above. As I came to the conclusion that life is pointless. I did not do it (did not whan to rawart the satisfaction). Know am as happy as a pig rolling in mud. Full stop. What does a pig know about god or nirvana, fuck all, but he certainly enjoys the mud, if there is such a thing as nirvan and god, I will leave them to the belivers. You are a good person to know and you certainly giving your heart out. Double nice. Salam the happy pig.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:15:29 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: Very Serious this time Message:

Dear Salam, So glad you stayed around to spite m! He surely doesn't deserve someone's life!!! Dead or alive. Guess I should have read my post after writing it, I didn't realize I let my 'rec' self come through! :) I have come eons with my mother since I use to imagine sticking her, should have mentioned that. There are reasons I try to be a decent person, you said yourself, it is hard work but I don't do it because I want to find god or nirvana. I do it because it makes the most sense to me. I can see that my life will be better, emotionally anyway, if I don't get so caught up in what the meaning of life is and just try to do my best with it. I ponder it, conjer up my own little reality for it, but don't let it eat at me. So I see you are going to get your info from a pommy. One of the best of them at least. :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:21:43 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Very Serious this time Message:

I think I am lost forever. I think when I die, I'll come back as the 'Phantom of F5'. I WILL BE HUNTING YOU ALL. p.s. wating for Mr. pom to come home. Where is he.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 14:19:14 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: not so serious this time Message:

Dear Salam, I'll stop all the ceremonies I was organizing for your spiritual welcome to Pennsylvania, this holiday season just won't be the same with this dissapointment. :( I'll be waiting for mr pom's dew drops of wisdome, maybe we'll all meet up at his feet! :) Love and peace, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:32:16 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: not so serious this time Message:

izalrightmayt, nod2wory, zantaizcuming, wilsenduaspezalgift luvandhugs p.s. Do you thinK that we have been dupped again? Are there Americans in Pennsylvania?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:46:19 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: not so serious this time Message:

Dear Salam, wilsenduaspezalgift I can hardely wait!!! Send to Lopez, PA USA! :) I think that pommy guru is just making you want it more! That's how those gurus operate you know. :) 'Are there Americans in Pennsylvania?' Tons! :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 16:03:49 (GMT) From: Salam Email: salam_au@iprimus.com.au To: Robyn Subject: Cann't remember who am waiting for Message:

Do you know? I just remembered that I have to be in bed, so if who ever it is shows up, I give you permission to do what you like, I also put my e-mail if you feel like writing. andazthysayhavagodday good night, This is Salam reporting from downunder, up to you Robyn.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 18:01:11 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Salam Subject: Cann't remember who am waiting for Message:

Dear Salam, You are too funny! :) What would you do without your friend in Pennsylvania! :) That is the state saying you know, You have a friend in Pennsylvania. :) Yes I remember dear, hamzen. Hamzen is who you are waiting for. :) Worth the wait too I imagine. :) Silly man, you just remembered you have to be in bed. I see you are a comedian! :) Sounds like you need someone to make sure you get your sleep! Sometimes I need the same instruction. :) Sleep well. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:02:42 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Nirvan mail Message:

At last it's here. No worries. HHAAAAMMMMMMM, where are you, we need a hand, if your listining, stop crusing the world with your rubber dinggy and come here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:27:10 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Salam Subject: No, I never reached nirvana, (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 15:42:20 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: No, I never reached nirvana, (nt) Message:

How do you know that you never been to nirvana if you never seen it? Maybe you are nirvana. Oh holy of all holies Cynthia the nirvana, where do want me to begin kissing you? (man I do not blame anth for locking me in, I think I need sleep, cya tommorrowwwwwww)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:30:01 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Brian Message:

If you did not get that then do not worry. If you did then do not worry either, just mucking around with my lan manager. Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:54:32 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Salam Subject: Salam Message:

I don't think I got it. Or if I did, I may have lost it. I'm not sure what it is, or what it was. But I'll try not to worry :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:06:20 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Brian Subject: Clue Message:

You may have been away and not noticed. But your firewall told me to stick it. check your log.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 19:41:56 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Everyone Subject: To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! Message:

Happy Birthday Rawat Prempal, We are the same age, yet worlds apart in so many ways. Your personal 'cult'ure, like all too many others, is extremely exclusive and elitist. I hope this little story helps you and your followers to realize that there is great potential for reaching your levels of God's perfection in reaching out to ALL others in love and caring. Rather than focussing inward for your own 'enjoyment', and 'encouraging' others to do the same; maybe you could broaden your concept of 'God'. Ghandi said that we can only see God in action - what will your future actions be? Ghandi never occupied any throne, nor did he ever bow to one. Perhaps this is worth reflecting on in this context as well, or maybe during your Birthday Party. 'I live! Life is outside. I live life so long as I am connected with the outside. If life only exists inside me, this is no life at all. When I 'behold myself' I find that I am linked up with the outside world. everything lives after this wise and cannot exist without this linkage.' In love and caring, Anna A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE SENT ME THIS LOVELY STORY...WELL WORTH THE READ... In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to learning disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career, while others can be mainstreamed into conventional schools. At a Chush fundraising dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, 'Where is the perfection in my son Shaya? Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God's perfection?' The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father's anguish, and stilled by the piercing query. 'I believe,' the father answered, 'that when God brings a child like this into the world, the perfection that he seeks is in the way people react to this child.' He then told the following story about his son Shaya: One afternoon, Shaya and I walked past a park where some boys Shaya knew were playing baseball. Shaya asked, 'Do you think they will let me play?' Shaya's father knew that his son was not at all athletic and that most boys would not want him on their team. But Shaya's father understood that if his son was chosen to play it would give him a comfortable sense of belonging. Shaya's father approached one of the boys in the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said 'We are losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning.I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him up to bat in the ninth inning.' Shaya's father was ecstatic as Shaya smiled broadly. Shaya was told to put on a glove and go out to play short center field. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shaya's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shaya's team scored again and now with two outs and the bases loaded with the potential winning run on base. Shaya was scheduled to be up. Would the team actually let Shaya bat at this juncture and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shaya was given the bat. Everyone knew that it was all but impossible because Shaya didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, let alone hit with it. However as Shaya stepped up to the plate, the pitcher moved a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shaya should at least be able to make contact. The first pitch came and Shaya swung clumsily and missed. One of Shaya's teammates came up to Shaya and together they held the bat and faced the pitcher waiting for the next pitch. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly toward Shaya. As the pitch came in, Shaya and his teammate swung at the ball and together they hit a slow ground ball to the pitcher. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could easily have thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shaya would have been out and that would have ended the game. Instead, the pitcher took the ball and threw it on a high arc to right field, far beyond reach of the first baseman. Everyone started yelling, 'Shaya, run to first. Run to first.' Never in his life had Shaya run to first. He scampered down the baseline wide-eyed and startled. By the time he reached first base, the right fielder had the ball. He could have thrown the ball to the second Baseman who would tag out Shaya, who was still running. But the right fielder understood what the pitcher's intentions were, so he threw the ball high and far over the 3rd baseman's head. Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second.' Shaya ran towards second base as the runners ahead of him deliriously circled the bases towards home. As Shaya reached second base, the opposing short stop ran to him, turned him in the direction of third base and shouted, Run to third.' As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, 'Shaya run home.' Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a 'grand slam' and won the game for his team. 'That day,' said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'those 18 boys reached their level of God's perfection.' When will you, Rawat?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:23:50 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Stonor Subject: great story! -nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:18:26 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Stonor Subject: To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! Message:

Hi Stonor, I loved that story, made me teary eyed, too. Recently, I had been feeling quite a bit of angst about which direction to turn in my career. A simple, yet difficult job dropped into my lap three weeks ago and it is caregiving to a 76 year old woman with a traumatic brain injury, whom I'll call Jean. Jean is a small Italian-American who lost her husband to a massive stroke 2 years ago. Three months after his death, Jean was tending to her pure-bred poodles, which she trained and showed, won prizes and traveled the world in the process. That day, she ran absent-mindedly into a thick plate glass door that she thought was open and fell back on her head again injuring it. Without any signs of external injury, she simply went to bed and didn't awake the next morning, thus, she required a craniotomy, and a new life of needing 24 hour care, and being aware and conscious of her needs. It's humbling and an honor to give Jean assistance, care and compassion. Jean is very smart, and cogent at times, yet unstable physically as well as mentally. The duties associated with her care are sometimes very difficult and unpleasant, yet when I'm attending to her needs, she is the one who is apologetic, and then I tell her that it is a pleasure to help her, and she then says back to me, 'well, thank you,' (again). I worked in office administration for years and years. The work I now have the privilege to do is beyond 'knowledge,' it's the ability to do true good, and boy is my back sore this weekend! Phew, I'm having epiphanies about this new work, and it's good. Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:25:46 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! Message:

Cynthia, This story is very touchy. My father had a massive strock some time ago. He was almost totally paralyized and had to be taken care of. He died last year two days before x-mas. There is a lot of sacrifice to be done when one find him/herself in this situation. The person is completly dependent on someone that cares. Must have a big heart. I wish you all well. Love take care Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:58:20 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Stonor Subject: I really needed this at Christmass time...:)nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:21:38 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Reaching your level of God's perfection! Message:

Hi Cynthia, Thanks for your own personal wonderful story in return! That's quite a career change - I'm glad you found a meaningful alternative to the office hive. I've never been able to even imagine working in one. I felt uncomfortable in office-land even when I only went to teach some classes in one! 'Jean' sounds like quite a woman, but what a terrible accident! I noticed that you italicized 'being aware and conscious of her needs.' This is a tough one for many, women in particular, I find. Would you mind telling me about why you placed that emphasis on it? I don't want to read into it too much, but you've triggered a few things with it. Your words bring tears to my eyes: 'The work I now have the privilege to do is beyond 'knowledge,' it's the ability to do true good.' You are something! 'and boy is my back sore this weekend.' This is a problem I am familiar with. If the pain is in your lower back, there is something VERY easy to do every morning that helps me. Just squat on the floor with your arms outstretched ahead (your hands will probabably touch the floor) leaning out over your legs and knees. You should feel the stretch in your lower back, and you can work it a little more by gently extending your arms further and tucking your tailbone under. (I hope I'm not sounding too pedantic here.) Thanks for sharing that, Cynthia. Big hugs to you and 'Jean'!! Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 14:14:15 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Being Aware and Conscious of Her Needs... Message:

Hi Stonor, Jean's traumatic brain injury has rendered her in need of 24/7 assistance. However, she is aware and conscious, she has dignity and her personality is still there (most of the time). Last week was a difficult one for her because she needed more help in the bathroom than usual, she couldn't control her bowels (which isn't usually the case with her), and it was very embarrassing for her, which caused her great despair. That's why I emphasized it. She is aware of her situation, despite her brain damage, and here she was apologizing to me for the unpleasantness of it all. She was in a lot of pain, and because she knew she needed my assistance she was very frustrated. She didn't loose her self-awareness due to her injury...it's pretty sad, yet, I am the grateful one to be able to know her and help. She also has a neat sense of humor, too. Thanks for the exercise, I have others which I do to keep my abs and back muscles strong. This new work is physically hard, so my back was acting up. Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:52:22 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Call an ambulance. Message:

Stonor, Could you call an ambulance for me please. I think I got your exercise instructions wrong and I'm stuck between the tv and hifi, underneath the coffee table. I thought that was a lovely story Stonor- I may steal it one day. Your story, and Cynthias story, reminded me that at no time in the past 30-odd years or so, have I ever heard Rawat say we should love and care for each other- only for him. Hurry up and make that call, my back is killing me and I can't reach the remote control. Anth the gridlocked.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:31:34 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Stonor Subject: To m: reaching your level of God's perfection! Message:

You made me sob. It really is that simple. What a gift those children bestowed upon a child in need and what a lesson they have given us as well. Thank you so much. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:16:24 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Marianne Subject: It is a disaster if rawat gets 'better' Message:

He is trapped in muck and that is perfection. It is not the case that he has the potential to do good. The core of his trip is deviant and destructive and there is no going back. I thought his midlife crisis would end in some better day but he has clung to the hindu/buddhist idea that the oneness is unconcious. There is no god. The master of life has no use in this life. If the breath was something people wanted to feel, the would respond more when you told them you liked to do it. The breath is best left alone rather than have it tied to that destructive hindi/buddhist trip. He has no one to answer to and that is his curse. Any strength or clarity he aquires is only to be used in the continuation of self delusion and the delusion of others. The more crippled and exposed he is, the better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:54:56 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: bill Subject: Couldn't agree with you more, Bill ... Message:

It wasn't at all my intention to suggest that he 'improve' in the sense you seem to have interpreted. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. The breath is best left alone rather than have it tied to that destructive hindi/buddhist trip. This is one aspect of m that I am very critical of, and I tried to express that in my post (which of course was not really to m). I too feel that his 'knowledge' is nihilistic, as I have posted here. And I agree that his concept of 'consciousness' is really 'unconsciousness'. I wasn't aware that he had any strength or clarity, in the true sense of those words. Any 'power' he has is corrupt, ill-gotten, and abusive. Here's another story, which I can easily repost, thanks to Sir Dave's search engine: 'But there are a thousand things which prevent a man from awakening, which keep him in the power of his dreams. In order to act consciously with the intention of awakening , it is necessary to know the nature of the forces which keep man in a state of sleep. 'First of all it must be realized that the sleep in which man exists is not normal but hypnotic sleep. Man is hypnotized and this hypnotic state is continually maintained and strengthened in him. One would think that there are forces for whom it is useful and profitable to keep man in a hypnotic state and prevent him from seeing the truth and understanding his position.' 'There is an Eastern tale which speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where his sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines, and so on, and above all they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and skins and this they did not like.' 'At last the magician found a remedy. He hynotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned, that, on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to others that they were eagles , to others that they were men , and to others that they were magicians .' 'And after this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.' 'This tale is a very good illustration of man's position.' (as told by Gurdjieff in P. D. Ouspensky's 'In Search of the Miraculous.') Of course, m is not the only magician - there are many magicians, and many more 'sheep'. I'm sure you get the point. Thanks for your post. Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:59:20 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

Stonor: Quite a story. Weirdly enough, I inhaled 'In Search of the Miraculous' right before I received Knowledge. Obviously, that particular story didn't make a dent, or if it did, it just put more salt in my water and made me thirstier for the miraculous, which is what I thought M was. Little did I realize that deprogramming myself (about M and a host of other myths) years later would be the real miracle. When I heard about M, I was seriously considering moving to a farm in N.J. run by Gurdjieff people who raised herbs and Arabian horses. Then I heard about M, and Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, horses and herbs were history. I often wonder what would have happened if I had done the farm route, particularly since I was, and am, heavily urban and knew jack shit about herbs and Arabian horses at that time. (I still know nothing about horses, Arabian or otherwise.) Anyway, great story, and it foretells very well the story of global corporatization where we're told the same thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:03:23 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: stonor21@hotmail.com To: Monmot Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

Hi Monmot, I have some time to post on the weekend, but during the week it's a mad rush ... I haven't heard of the farm in N.J., but I'll keep my eyes peeled. I have read of one widespread cult created in Gurdjieff's name, so if that is the one you almost opted for, it might have made little difference (except that Gurdjieff related writings make a far more interesting read than m's, IMO, but in m's case, that's not saying much! ;-) I contacted an 'Ouspensky/Gurdjieff' group by phone that was asking for 5% of my gross income, and in Canada, after taxes, that's a huge chunk. (I just read about a Christian cult in Australia that demanded 10% of your gross income(!) ... unreal, of course.) Needless to say, they flunked one of my key criteria - money should not be a key issue, nor any imposed 'absolutes' - that was the quick end of that. I think the story was referring to the general status of humankind, but perhaps it is all coming to a head and becoming more visible, at least to some! You mentioned 'ayahuasca' in a thread a while ago. I read about it in Peter Tomkin's book, 'The Secret Life of Nature'. Would you feel like telling me more about it? You can email me if you want. I have to have a nap and get to marking later. Hope we can chat more soon! Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:29:47 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

I think the Gurdjieff scene is just as nuts as DLM/EV, only more intellectual in nature, which was probably why I was attracted to it in the first place. I've never regretted not traipsing down that rocky path. As for ayahuasca, whew, that's one long surreal story.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 15:38:55 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

Gurdjieff has been dead for over 50 years. I have learned in my readings that a key feature of a 'true' Gurdjieff school is that you do not change your life in any outward way, by going to a farm, for example - you continue to do what ever work you have been doing. You also should never accept any 'teaching' as 'fact', until you have experienced it as 'true' for yourself. I read one text about Gurdjieff that said that his 'work' is the antithesis of a personality cult. As for ayahuasca, is that an 'absolute' no, you don't feel like telling me about it? ;-) How about over at AG? ;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 19:38:20 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

Hi Stonor: One observation I made with a couple of people I knew who were into Gurdjieff was that they were serious control freaks. One guy had one of the most extensive libraries on Hitler that I had ever seen. I don't think the Hitler freak was a by-product of being a follower of Gurdjieff, but it put me off big time. Control freaks are not my thing; as a matter of fact, I am extremely repulsed by them. Also, I don't mind talking about ayahuasca, it's just that my experience was mixed up with the setting in which I took it (you know the 'set and setting' theory). What would you like to know about it, any maybe I can start there. I'll be gone this weekend when I know you have more time, just so you know. Right now, I'm appalled at what's gone on with the Supreme Court and their mind f**k decision. First, they stay the count, and then use as an argument that there's not enough time to recount. I can only imagine that the world leaders are laughing their asses off right now, and are lining up to make appointments to meet Bush-lite soley for the entertainment value of such an encounter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 05:03:02 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Searching for Miracles Message:

Hi Monmot, I'm going to try to find that info about the 'Gurdjieff' cult I found. I've known a few different people who read Gurdjieff. One was also into Pir Vilayat Khan, who didn't impress me, but he was a very gentle guy who lived in the country in a one room cabin lined with esoteric books. The other had done some 'Gurdjieff' work, but I don't know with which organization. He was a little too new agey for me, but no control freak, Jewish actually, single father - I forget how his wife died. One of his aquaintances turned out to be my most long-term yoga teacher who taught us a small segment of a Gurdjieff movement in one class. I had wanted to ask you first about the context when you took ayahuasca, so I'm glad you brought that up. How did you get the opportunity to try it? Were you in South America or Holland? Is there any other experience you can compare it with? Did you read TD's post about the Swedish Scolar's comment on the American Election? But I am not American, so my understanding of the implications of all of this are limited, and I haven't been able to read about what's been happening over the last couple of days except the bare facts. We're about to go inactive anyways. Either you can repost at the top or at AG.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:25:53 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Hi Monmot !! Message:

I received your information on the Rife device. Very good stuff there. Thank you so much. I hadn't realized the importance of pH and health and I'm getting an education about it. I will be e-mailing you soon with some research I've uncovered about other Rife devices. Do you like authentic Delta Blues? I've a tape I'd like to send if so. (Ham is getting one also.) Thanks again

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:01:15 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: gerry Subject: Hey Gerry !! Message:

Glad you liked the info...it's pretty interesting. I'll keep you posted if/when I find the video. I'd love a copy of a Delta blues tape. I just bought as a gift for my husband a copy of 'Spinning Blues into Gold,' the story of Chess Records. I sit in a fair amount of traffic, so a good music tape, esp. blues, will keep me cool. Thanks Monmot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:49:41 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Whoa, Stona, girl this one's got teeth. Message:

Loved it. And every one of them words rang true And glowed like burnin' coal Pourin' off of every page Like it was written in my soul from me to you, Tangled up in blue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:58:54 (GMT) From: Stona Email: None To: gErRy Subject: 'Religious Aspects of Ideological Totalism' Message:

Hi gErRy! Was just cleaning up my bookmarks a bit and found this: RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF IDEOLOGICAL TOTALISM excerpt: Mind Control is many times more sophisticated, subtle and strategic in nature. Those who practice it are seen as peers or friends (the prisoner/jailer relationship does not exist). Don't know where I got it from, maybe you, but I think it fits here so I'm posting it. Sort of connects up with the conversation we were having a while ago that Monmot joined. (Sorry I went through a hectic period then, and couldn't get back to it, but I read what you both wrote.) And another one we were having even further back. Think this puts some of your arguments in that one very clearly! Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 18:27:43 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Stona Subject: 'Religious Aspects of Ideological Totalism' Message:

Hi Anna Stonor, I was spinning off on the subject and not aiming all my points at your post. I was also responding to posts I read in other threads. But I am glad you felt what you did as you ended up posting two more good posts. And a link to boot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:59:35 (GMT) From: Peter Framptown Email: None To: bill Subject: reaching your level Message:

that's nice stone man all the teams carried the boy across home plate. how nice kinda makes me feel like not sh!ting on the ex's any more. jk.....how can one not sh!t on them.. look where they're located. hey stone man what about the time I struck out and my team lost the championship..? hey stoner.... yo'stone man... dumbarse.stoner

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:33:17 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Peter Framptown Subject: reaching your level Message:

we give the god a lot of perhaps undeserved credit for being all wonderful. seems like the evidence indicates a mixed bag of qualities that dont match the advertising.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:27:21 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Everyone Subject: My Status Message:

I feel like I might have to go to the hospital today because of the massive confusion and feelings of slavery engendered in me since I was instructed in the knowledge of m. If company of truth is the best place to be, then this world is like a desert. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:08:00 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Everyone Subject: Report From The Front Message:

Went to the satellite event today. Sat through the whole thing - 52 minutes. Spent six hours after with a premie friend. Had one of the best days of my life. The feed was a summary of his talks over the year. He's definitely deteriorated over the year. General feeling of him being 'pissed off' and running out of things to say. He seems to be more and more flailing. Thanks every one for your concern and prayers. I'm going through a difficult time but the good moments are more and more appreciated. These are very amazing times. I hope you all are enjoying them. We're winning. We've won. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:51:49 (GMT) From: Salam Email: salam_au@iprimus.com.au To: Steve Quint Subject: Well me mate Message:

At least there are these moments. Enjoy. Do not you worry, we will kick ass until you come back. Take care. E-mail me if you need to talk to nutcase. Salam@rawat.sucks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:00:06 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Salam Subject: Communication Breakdown Message:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. salam@rawat.sucks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:17:01 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Steve Quint Subject: I like your humor, Steve Message:

I think your sense of humor will carry you through the hard times. Cheers, I'm glad you're here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:48:21 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: gErRy Subject: This is true Message:

Yesterday I downloaded realplayer and Neoplant Browser. I cheated with real player and gave my e-mail as Salam@rawat.sucks. They go sucked in and continued the download. When it came to Neoplant I could not do it, because they have an e-mail verifiers that will send a special password to finish the installation. Anyway I had to put my real e-mail. When the installation of Neoplant finished, it asked me it I wanted to include my e-mail with the browser, I said yes, so it did it. It then came back to me and said that it found another e-mail and if I wanted to use it too. The e-mail was salam@rawart.sucks. What a bummer?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:02:10 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Steve Quint Subject: My Status Message:

Dear Steve, Sorry your feeling down. I read Tim and Anth's posts before replying and hope that they both helped you some. I know Anth is into history and thought it dear that he comforts himself with it and tried to share that with you. I don't know Tim but thought his caring concern came through. I have worked on finding my own truth for years, a never ending job I imagine. I didn't have a long or bad time in the cult and it was so long ago that I can't really advise there but I have seen enough sadness and more here, in others who have to know it is a serious thing. I have had turmoil, confusion and pain in my life from other sources though so I can empathise from that stand point some at least. I have met exes from this site, quite a few and it is very helpful not to mention just plain fun, maybe that could be of help to you if you are anywere near anyone. Hope things improved for you today and in general. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 20:50:19 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Steve Quint Subject: My Status Message:

Dear Steve, Hey, sweetheart, I will try my best not to give advice. You know, I'm learning to love my mind. I've spent enough time trying to un-dissect and in process discovered it's truly a wonderful thing. One aspect I don't like about my mind or whatever brain thingies cause us to think, is that it tends to like to race. Mind racing has been an enormous hurdle in my life, before, during and after Maharaji. It's very unfun. I had to find some way (other than meditation for me, ha ha, boo hoo) to get my racing thoughts to knock it off. I get very bad headaches during those times, and sleepless nights. I won't say what it is I do just because it's personal and I don't want to give you advice. If you are not safe, however, Steve, email me at sylviecyn@yahoo.com. We can talk if you'd like. Despair always ends in relief. Be well, Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:56:55 (GMT) From: Tim G Email: timgitti@indigo.ie To: Steve Quint Subject: My Status Message:

Hi Steve This world can be a desert or a garden.I don't think maharaji has much to do with that .Although sheltering in his 'company of truth' is a rather childish way of sheltering in wish fulfilment..a little backwater of illusion that like all other backwaters appear to offer security from the main torrent. Us humans continuously bild such nests and they continually get blown away,some quicker than others. Back in the main stream there are narrows,falls and placid stretches. Lets face it like it is. For the world to be a sunny place I need the basics of food and shelter For the sun to shine I need...to love or be loved, an enthusiasm to pursue, an interest in the world around me and a sense of humour...lots more too or just one of those things. When the world is grey it can be the lack of one of those things.BUT it can also be an imbalance in my body chemistry due to illness of some sort. Much is made nowadays of the fact that our mood/attitude/spiritual state affects our health but please remember everyone that our health can affect our mood.I speak as someone who sometimes feels those effects. I don't know Steve if you were jokingly making a point or genuinely feel rotten. If the latter...check out your health and your friends and accept my long distance concern.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:22:36 (GMT) From: Disculta Email: None To: Tim G Subject: Hi Steve... Message:

please do check in with us and let us know how you're doing. One thing I can offer is that this imbalance that you are experiencing really is a passing phase. Sometimes when I'm in the middle of something, the worst part of it is that it seems to go on for ever in all directions, including my future. Then it is over and I look back in amazement at how real it seemed. Remembering this while I'm in the middle of 'something' has really helped me. You may even be past the worst of what you were describing in your post by the time you read our posts! However you're feeling, do stay in touch... the support that is here for you is quite tangible, even though it is not all that you need. I am praying that exactly what you need is coming into your path now. Love Disculta

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:03:51 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Steve Quint Subject: The historical perspective Message:

Hi Steve, When I begin to despair of the human race, I find taking a historical perspective often helps. If you go back 6 million years or so, our ancestors were animals. Go back one million, they were human like, but nowhere near like us. Go back 100,000 years, there were literally a handful of us. Since that time we've made incredible advances, and learned to co-operate and care for each other like no other species. We've created language, music, art, writing, farming, fishing, education, human rights, government, health care, clean water systems, all sorts of brilliant stuff. Sure we've invented some shitty things too- but overall, I can't think of any period in history I would rather be living in. Even if I had been born only a hundred years previously, in my social strata I wouldn't have received an education and would probably have been working down a Nottinghamshire mine by the age of 10. It's slow progress, but we're getting there Steve. Anth the historian.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:14:46 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Another Prediction Message:

As I've said before, I can't see any way the USSC will make a ruling for Bush on the basis of the Federalism question. That is, there's no way they can argue that the FLSC 'made new law' as the Bush detractors have said, because the Contest Section gives them all the power they need to fashion solutions. All they have done is interpret the Florida statute regarding election contests to mean that the crucial evidence is the ballots themselves. So the only basis for a stay of the counting process is through the back door, on the basis that either the Florida election law itself (or at least that section of it that allows for manual counts using the 'clear intention of the voter' standard) or it's specific interpretation is unconstitutional. They might argue that the interpretation of the FLSC used to implement that law is unconstitutional, but the law itself gives the court not only broad interpretative, but also broad plenary, powers to implement a solution. All of this brings us back to the Contest section of the FL Law. So, in the end they can only overturn the FLSC by ruling that the Law itself is unconstitutional to the extent that it doesn't establish sufficiently rigorous statewide standards, or that a manual count of a subset of ballots contained in the 'undervote' is constitutionally questionable. Since there are manual count statutes on the books in other states, some of which have already been implemented in this election, it's hard to imagine that they would simply rule against manual counting of punch card ballots in general. For this reason I think that one or both of the swing votes on the court will be inclined to abandon Scalia if the specific conditions of the manual count can be modified to provide not only a statewide 'standard,' but statewide 'criteria' for interpreting the 'clear intent of the voter.' They may also demand that all the ballots in the entire state be manually counted, or at least that the count be checked to make sure there has been no double counting of votes by counting the undervote, etc. So, I think they are going to remand the case to the FLSC with those provisions, and ask the FLSC to 'fix it' thereby providing the Florida Supremes with the authority to do what the Gore team has been asking them to do all along. The USSC may further specify, or at least point them toward, some standard now in use such as that used it Texas. At that point the manual count will go forward, no longer under the safe harbor. I don't think the FLSC will bother to correct their earlier remand, since it will make no difference anyway... as we are now in a contest phase so the manual counts will have to be 'corrected' anyway. The next case will involve the legality of the FL Legislature's certification of a set of Bush electors with the results of the above mentioned manual count pending. That is pretty clearly a case where the Legislature has 'changed the rules of the game,' so you can bet that the FLSC will rule against it. At that point it'll soon be back in the USSC for resolution. The critical date in all of this, and the real drop dead date, is Jan. 6, 2001, when the US Congress has to certify the slate of electors. If the cases are still pending at that point then it's very likely that Florida will be left out of the Electoral College completely. From the Gore perspective I think they had better prepare for a completely new statewide manual count of the ballots, possibly with a deadline of Dec. 18, but probably in the first week of January. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:03:58 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Another Prediction Message:

Well, I just heard the oral arguments and think the media in it's post-argument analysis continues to be obtuse. This court is obviously striving for unanimity, and the fact that they not only express skepticism about the disparate treatment, but spent the majority of their time discussing the conditions that could be crafted to 'fix' the equal protection issue, suggests to me that the other issue of federalism is only barely relevant. They will remand to the FLSC, with instructions on how to establish a 'sub-standard,' or they will establish the sub-standard themselves. They may set the count back to the earlier figure of 930, and then demand a manual count of all the ballots, or all undervote and overvote ballots, or just undervotes. That is, they may overturn the first FLSC decision on the basis of the federalism issue. It'll just mean that Broward County has to be recounted. I don't even think Scalia has a problem with the federalism issue regarding the Contest phase, and certainly Kennedy and O'Connor don't. I think the vote will be at least 6/3 to remand (while overturning the earlier decision). However, there is an outside chance it will be unanimous. I can't believe the level of groupthink in the media. Sheesh. They really have their heads in the sand.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:41:57 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Another Prediction Message:

Hi: I've been trying to figure out why no one in the media sees the obvious, and it occurs to me that it's similar to the Y2K confusion. Here we are, coming up on the beginning of the third millenium, but the media has already convinced itself that what will happen in three weeks has already happened 49 weeks ago. In other words they are blinded by a collective illusion to the real state of affairs. They got fixated on the way the zeros lined up after the two, and didn't bother to do any real analysis. Likewise, everyone is so fixated on the horse race that they can't see the context of the whole election dilemma. They think the universe gives a damn which candidate wins. That's the only way they can make sense out of what's happening. In other words, when anyone talks about 'legitimacy' they must only be interested in it to the extent that it helps or hurts one of the two main protagonists in the race. These are, in a word, shallow people. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:55:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Scott, what are you talking about? Message:

Are you talking about the legitimacy of the institutions being at stake. Look. This election has just brought to the surface the reality that has existed for some time, that the Supreme Court, for example, is a highly political institution, with it's own political aims, and that is being seen right now, with votes going right along ideological lines. Any pretense that the institution is somehow above the fray and provides dispassioned legal opinion is shown for what it really is, total nonsense. So, who gets to decide who is the President. 103,000,000 voted on November 7 and they don't get to decide, because the guy who got the most votes, by 330,000, isn't the winner. Not by the voters of Florida either, the 6,000,000 of them who voted, or at least intended to vote. Not by the 45,000 votes that the Florida machines spit out as 'under-votes' maybe because the fucking machine didn't work right. Not by the 11 members of the 11th circuit Court of Appeal who refused to shut down the recounts. Not by the 4 judges on the Florida Supreme Court, either, who ruled that all the votes should be counted. No, this election is going to, or at least probably will be, decided by ONE vote, from ONE politically-appointed member of the Supreme Court, lead by a radical right wing group that doesn't even believe that a fundamental right to vote exists. And we wonder why people are losing faith in our democracy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:30:34 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Scott, what are you talking about? Message:

Joe: Actually I was just conjecturing out loud about why the media are such twits. The comment about legitimacy, for instance, is simply an observation that the media doesn't really have a grasp of the term. It's as though they're talking about crocodile jaws, but have the image of a duck in their minds. They have no purchase on the relevant concepts because they're only concerned about sounding good. Look at their track record on predictions. I mean really. I'm not being hypebolic. They almost never get it right if the issue is anything more than superficial. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:41:44 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure Message:

I've been telling everyone that they shouldn't be so sure that the Supreme Court will rule for Bush and end the recounts, but after hearing the oral argument, I'm a little more shakey about that. They may set the count back to the earlier figure of 930, and then demand a manual count of all the ballots, or all undervote and overvote ballots, or just undervotes. Scalia, and probably Rehnquist and Thomas, don't even believe there is a right to vote in the constitution for the Presidency. That is how radically conservative they are. Absolute power about this, according to them, lies in the state legislatures. So they are completely beyond the pale on this and won't budge. From the oral arguments, I got the impression that O'Connor and Kennedy feel that the setting of a new deadline by the FL Supreme Court was a change in the law and violates the constitution for that reason. I thought Kennedy's question to Boies asking what if the LEGISLATURE, after the election, had done the same thing the Florida Supreme Court had done, would that be allowed, and Boies saying he didn't know, was very telling, and, although I know oral argument isn't a clear indication, it seemed like those two justices think what the Florida Supreme Court did, back with extending the deadline at all, is unconstitutional. It was that line or questioning, from those 'swing' justices that made me the most worried about this. They don't want the decision to be 5-4, but I got every indication that Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens have made up their minds on this issue that what the Florida Supreme Court did was fine, although Souter might go over to the other side, not on that issue, but the equal protection issue, which seemed to be what he was most interested in. Everybody knows that Scalia wants to be chief justice because he's 'tired of being on the fringes,' and there are reports he has told friends he will resign if Bush isn't elected he will resign, because Gore would never nominate him to chief justice. He has a vested interest in seeing Bush elected, and apparently will stop at nothing to try to see that happens. They may set the count back to the earlier figure of 930, and then demand a manual count of all the ballots, or all undervote and overvote ballots, or just undervotes. I doubt this. If the court is worried that the Florida Supreme Court was setting standards and legislating, do you think those same justices will turn around and do the same thing? No way, although I would love to be surprised.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:23:08 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure Message:

Joe: Scalia, and probably Rehnquist and Thomas, don't even believe there is a right to vote in the constitution for the Presidency. That is how radically conservative they are. Absolute power about this, according to them, lies in the state legislatures. So they are completely beyond the pale on this and won't budge. Yeah, but weren't they also laughing when the Bush lawyer made the comment that the decoupling of the legislative prerogative from appellate review wasn't one of his best arguments? I'm pretty sure I heard the whole bench laugh at that one. Scalia may be the only one who thinks theres a 'making new law' issue that applies to the contest phase, and I'm not even sure about him. Boies even corrected him on his contention that Broward was involved in the contest phase. It seemed to me that he was really interested in the difference between 930 and 570 votes, and what effect that might have had on the 'de novo' standard applied by the FLSC to overturn Judge Sauls. But whether it's a de novo or an 'abuse of discretion' standard is not really a federal issue at all. It's clearly a matter for judicial review. From the oral arguments, I got the impression that O'Connor and Kennedy feel that the setting of a new deadline by the FL Supreme Court was a change in the law and violates the constitution for that reason. I thought Kennedy's question to Boies asking what if the LEGISLATURE, after the election, had done the same thing the Florida Supreme Court had done, would that be allowed, and Boies saying he didn't know, was very telling, and, although I know oral argument isn't a clear indication, it seemed like those two justices think what the Florida Supreme Court did, back with extending the deadline at all, is unconstitutional. It was that line or questioning, from those 'swing' justices that made me the most worried about this. Yeah, but the issue is moot. Set the count back to 930 on the basis of vacating the original FLSC ruling, and recount Broward using a standardized protocol, or leave it at 537 but then subtract Broward on the basis of equal protection and recount it using a standardized protocol. No practical difference, but it amounts to something that they can give the conservative judges in order to get unanimity. I only heard Scalia express any doubts about linking the contest phase, and I think Boies gave him a pretty decent out. One never knows what Thomas is thinking, of course. They don't want the decision to be 5-4, but I got every indication that Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens have made up their minds on this issue that what the Florida Supreme Court did was fine, although Souter might go over to the other side, not on that issue, but the equal protection issue, which seemed to be what he was most interested in. I think I even heard the three liberal judges express concerns about equal protection, and my contention is that they would not feel they had leave to dwell so much on this subject had they not already come to some agreement about a remand with the majority of justices. They were doing the same thing that the FLSC was doing when they asked all those questions about having enough time for the contest phase in the first FLSC oral argument over the certification deadline. They had license because they had a majority, or probable majority, in their back pocket. I doubt this. If the court is worried that the Florida Supreme Court was setting standards and legislating, do you think those same justices will turn around and do the same thing? No way, although I would love to be surprised. Then why all the hypotheticals about an acceptable standard (none of which were answered adequately). The Bush/Harris lawyers saw this as an opportunity to interject that they felt there was no acceptable standard, but the justices, including O'Connor, weren't even interested in that nonsense. They just cut them off in mid-sentence. They clearly already have an agenda to fill. I thought the one place where the Bush lawyers could have sewn it up was to argue that Harris should have the last say in establishing the standards. That would have set up an impossibly rigorous standard that would have given the election to Bush after a manual count (because the objective of a manual count is to *reclaim* subtractive errors, which a too-rigorous standard forestalls). But the Bush lawyers were just to stupid to see what was happening. Anyway, I think we're going to see a continuation of the manual count and the vote could be anywhere from 5/4 to unanimous. They may or may not establish the standard themselves. Since the issue is federal, under equal protection, they may take it upon themselves to establish a standard. No big whup, it seems to me, because these damn voting machines will be out of commission and illegal in two years anyway. On the other hand they can just tell the FLSC to come up with something, or could have Harris do it (which would be a disaster). The latter eventuality would insure a Bush win even with a manual count. But Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, et al would never agree to that... and even O'Connor is savvy enough to be skeptical. We'll see. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:54:30 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure Message:

Yeah, but weren't they also laughing when the Bush lawyer made the comment that the decoupling of the legislative prerogative from appellate review wasn't one of his best arguments? Some did laugh but I doubt that Scalia, Rehnquist or Thomas laughed, because I think they agree with Bush on that one. The 'made new law' is is by no means moot, at least from the point of view of those five justices. I think the justices agree there is a contest phase, but five of them, maybe including O'Connor and Kennedy, believe that the courts may not fashion a remedy, even in the contest phase, that is essentially a vote-counting scheme, which is what Florida did. They can determine if certain votes are valid or not based on the FLorida statutes, but are not allowed to direct state-wide, or selective recounts, unless given that power by the legislature, specifically. I think they believe that is the job of the canvassing boards, as empowered by the legislature, and they have to do it prior to the deadline set by the legislature. I think that's why Scalia was asking about what was the point of the protest phase, if the contest phase was de novo. I don't agree with this, but I'm afraid that O'Connor and Kennedy, who aren't as beyond the pale as the other three, are very concerned about this. O'Connor seemed quite miffed that the Florida Supreme Court hadn't addressed the earlier remand, and that's essentially what that is about. I don't think there is a majority on the Court to support Bush's equal protection argument. Maybe 3 or 4, but not 5, I don't think. I don't think that argument makes any sense, because votes in different jurisdictions are handled differently all the time. Then why all the hypotheticals about an acceptable standard (none of which were answered adequately). These were coming from Ginsberg and Breyer, to shoot down the issue. I think the majority probably agrees that standards could be established, subject to judicial review, but, unfortunately, I don't think the court will even get that far, because I'm afraid 5 think establishing such standards is legislating, and that' unconstitutional, according to them. Ginsberg and Breyer don't believe that, and so the method of counting is important to them. The other five don't even get to that point, I'm afraid. I think what the minority would do, is send the case back to Florida and direct the circuit court to establish state-wide standards, and to count both over- and under-votes. But unless Kennedy and/or O'Connor do something they have given no indication of doing, and who have already agreed that Bush has a 'substantial probability' of prevailing (which is a VERY high standard), I don't think they will have the chance to do that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:35:51 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: More than meets the eye. Message:

Joe: I just read the response of the FLSC to the remand, and I have to say that it sounds pretty robust to me. There is some introductory language having to do with that McPherson case that I think must be in an extraterrestrial tongue. But the import of it is that the phrase in Article II of the Constitution that directs States to appoint electors 'in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct' exists in order that this burden of establishing legislative procedures does not have to be included in the State constitutions. The insertion of those words (in either the State or the US Constitution) operates as a limit on the State in circumscribing legislative power but that does not mean that the State itself is limited in it's ability to appoint electors to only the means established by their legislatures. That's what McPherson says. Now, I have to say that this is almost incomprehensible. But basically I think it means that other institutions in the state can play a role in the appointment of electors, even if that function is not derived from the legislature itself. It is a very strange concept, but I think this is the cover that O'Connor is looking for. Essentially the court can intervene as long as it doesn't block legislative intent. Now, regarding the present case: Basically what they're saying in this instance is that the 'deadline' established by the legislature for election returns does not preclude amendments to returns. That part isn't new. The new part is that they say that: 'In a statewide or federal election other than a presidential election we can foresee no reason why the Department would refuse to accept amended returns if a county was proceeding in good faith with a manual recount under section 102.166.' So basically they are indicating that they only established a stop date on amendments in order to accommodate the federal deadlines for presidential contests, and that otherwise amendments could proceed for as long as necessary... timeliness perhaps motivated by fines and penalties. The only difference between a 'contest' and a 'protest' is that a contest takes place after all amendments have been made by the counties, and they allow voters to have their say in the election, just as was done in Seminole. They also allow a specific contest of ballots that were not included in the protest phase because the canvassing boards didn't allow it, but probably have to pass a hurdle. It's reasonable to assume that such a hurdle might consist of whether the canvassing board abused their discretion. One thing is for sure though, the Bush argument that Miami-Dade didn't abuse their discretion because they were faced with the futile task of meeting a deadline that could have been adjusted under a consideration of pending contests was not a valid argument. In the present instance the ballot counting should never have been stopped by the artificial deadlines at all, so Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, etc. should have just kept counting and been included as an amendment when they came in, because they had already begun at the discretion of the Canvassing boards. The protest phase would have run up to Dec. 6 when the Seminole and Martin cases were heard. There was no reason to have the manual counts stopped and then started later, except the artificial foot-dragging of the Bush legal team. If you think back on the FLSC discussions and questions during oral arguments this is a pretty fair interpretation of what they were thinking. There is no need for a deadline, except in extraordinary circumstances, and even then it can and should be adjusted only by pending contest cases. Harris essentially abused her discretion not only by not accepting amendments, but by indicating even before the deadline was reached that she would not accept them. We all know she abused her discretion, and meant to do just that. Sounds good to me. Do you think O'Connor will go for it? Now, if you accept this (including O'Connor for a 5/4 decision) then the only thing left is that standards issue. I personally think a statewide standard would be a good thing, for everyone, so they might affirm and suggest that such a statewide standard ought to be promulgated on a voluntary basis. A mandatory standard is problematic because there are 33 states without one, and all of those elections decided by hand counts might be unconstitutional. So basically this court, if it adheres to law and precedent, can only affirm the lower court. They might try to undo the damage they've done somehow with the stay, but I don't see how. They've created a mess and will just have to live with it. Now, what will they *actually* do? I don't know. Let's see if they're 'worth their salt.' --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:03:15 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: McPherson, etc. Message:

There is some introductory language having to do with that McPherson case that I think must be in an extraterrestrial tongue I think the court was quoting McPherson just to say that although the legislature is paramount in determining the selection of electors, it can involve other departments and delegate that authority any way it wants and that if they do, that doesn't allow for the Feds to come in and limit their ability to do that. So, the quoted: Hence, the insertion of those words ('in such manner as the legislature may direct'), while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself. In other words, the courts can be involved if the legislature says so (as they did in this case) and that doesn't violate the US Constitution. The only difference between a 'contest' and a 'protest' is that a contest takes place after all amendments have been made by the counties, and they allow voters to have their say in the election, just as was done in Seminole. Not exactly. A 'contest' can cover all kinds of issues and is a lawsuit, essentially, and would be governed by both statutory and case law, as interpreted by the courts. A 'contest' is an Elections Board issue, governed by the statute, with the specific provisions for things like how they conduct a recount, they they, and not a court, have sole decision making authority to decide. Of course, that decision is also subject to the contest phase. Plus, the contest phase, if it changes the vote totals that are certified, creates a new baseline for the contest phase. I think there are a lot of differences, actually. One thing is for sure though, the Bush argument that Miami-Dade didn't abuse their discretion because they were faced with the futile task of meeting a deadline that could have been adjusted under a consideration of pending contests was not a valid argument. Probably not, if it is shown that Dade didn't follow the statute; if the 1% recount showed 'errors' that might change the outcome of the election, they 'shall' conduct a recount, which the statue requires. Harris essentially abused her discretion not only by not accepting amendments, but by indicating even before the deadline was reached that she would not accept them That's clearly implied by what the Florida Supreme Court said. Now, if you accept this (including O'Connor for a 5/4 decision) then the only thing left is that standards issue. Well, unfortunately, I think the 5, including O'Connor are hell-bent on overrulling the Florida Supreme Court. But if O'Connor relents (I don't think Kennedy will), she seems to think the standard is the voting instructions, and if people didn't follow them, then too bad. So, if she wrote standards, which I don't think the Supremes would EVER do because it would be such a can of worms for all the other thousands of counties in the country, she would say only completely punched ballots would be counted, which, presumably the machines would have detected and counted. So, you are kind of back to where you started, and even if hand-counts were allowed, Gore would be unlikely to pick up any votes that way, except to the extent hanging chads have since fallen out, I guess, or if ballots just weren't run through the machines, or maybe if the machines counted wrong. That's why I am so pessimistic about O'Connor doing anything to help Gore, although I might be surprised. So basically this court, if it adheres to law and precedent, can only affirm the lower court. They might try to undo the damage they've done somehow with the stay, but I don't see how. They've created a mess and will just have to live with it. No, they could remand the case back to Florida and tell them to come up with a uniform standard, quoting equal protection or something, but, unfortunately, I think that's just a win for Bush, because I just don't think there is time for that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:02:00 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: McPherson, etc. Message:

In other words, the courts can be involved if the legislature says so (as they did in this case) and that doesn't violate the US Constitution. OK, that makes more sense than my interpretation. The 'power' is extant, and doesn't reside exclusively in the legislature. So the argument would be over the manner of its delegation. I'm going to try to edit your second response, if you dont mind: Not exactly. A 'contest' can cover all kinds of issues and is a lawsuit, essentially, and would be governed by both statutory and case law, as interpreted by the courts. A 'contest' [protest?] is an Elections Board issue, governed by the statute, with the specific provisions for things like how they conduct a recount, they they, and not a court, have sole decision making authority to decide. Of course, that decision is also subject to the contest phase. Plus, the contest [protest?] phase, if it changes the vote totals that are certified, creates a new baseline for the contest phase. I think there are a lot of differences, actually. Well, fair enough... but the issue is twofold: 1. Why would one conduct a protest rather than just wait for the contest unless the vote total at the end of the protest is presumptive? 2. What does presumptive mean? Does it mean anything important? If not, why bother? In other words, the hurdle has to be higher during the contest phase... or at least completely different in nature so that it's more or less exclusive for those participating in the protest phase. It's clearly more inclusive for voters, of course. No, they could remand the case back to Florida and tell them to come up with a uniform standard, quoting equal protection or something, but, unfortunately, I think that's just a win for Bush, because I just don't think there is time for that. I honestly don't see how they could do that. I know I've changed my position. It would certainly be politic of them to do that, but it appears obvious that any ruling demanding a uniform standard would have far-reaching consequences. For one thing, it might suggest that all elections involving punch card systems are unconstitutional, because the impact of those machines is demonstrably greater than counting chads differently. Now, I wonder if it's possible to issue another procurium decision requesting that Florida voluntarily adopt a set of criteria, or that counties voluntarily adopt a uniform set of criteria for the sake of clarity and simplicity? There would seem to be an 'overriding national interest' in such a condition, and this court likes that sort of language in other areas of law (school descrimination, for instance). --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:32:47 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: McPherson, etc. Message:

Thanks. I typed 'contest' when I meant 'protest' in two places. Why would one conduct a protest rather than just wait for the contest unless the vote total at the end of the protest is presumptive? Well, for one thing, it might provide evidence to be used in the contest, and it might also eliminate the need for a contest if the protest changes the outcome. And even if it doesn't change the outcome, it might well mean fewer votes to contest. In the contest phase the claimant has a burden of proof, which doesn't exist in the contest phase. Rather the Board, if it does the sample recount is just required to do a whole recount and then presumably change the report to the State if it changes the result. Plus, in the contest phase you have to adhere to court rules of evidence, discovery, etc., which the protest phase doesn't have to deal with. The protest phase also gives the counties the opportunity to avoid being dragged into court if it corrects the problem in that phase. I think the contest phase is also a kind of 'stick' to encourage the Boards not to dismiss legitimate claims. , but it appears obvious that any ruling demanding a uniform standard would have far-reaching consequences. For one thing, it might suggest that all elections involving punch card systems are unconstitutional, because the impact of those machines is demonstrably greater than counting chads differently. I think that's true, but it would be marginally better than the Supreme Court setting the standard itself and then imposing it on Florida. I think the remand would just say that Florida has to comply with equal protection standards (if the Supremes agree on that) and can't count illegal votes, which don't include 'voter error' or something. But I agree that the Supremes are in a difficult situation, and, in my view, all the more reason to avoid the whole thing and just overrule the Florida Supreme Court, leaving Bush's lead at 537, with a designated slate, within the safe harbor, and it's over. The Supreme Court will take a big hit for doing that, at least in the short term, but they may be willing to accept that, considering the alternative.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:34:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ich verstehe nicht. Message:

Joe: But I agree that the Supremes are in a difficult situation, and, in my view, all the more reason to avoid the whole thing and just overrule the Florida Supreme Court, leaving Bush's lead at 537, with a designated slate, within the safe harbor, and it's over. If it's that simple then I don't understand the reason for the FL Legislature's resolution establishing a slate of it's own. Presumbably they are concerned that the present Bush slate might come under attack because it may still be under litigation. But even so, that would merely mean *two* slates in contention, rather than zero. There are only two advantages that I can see. One is if the Gore electors replace the present Bush electors as a result of the contest. Even if that's the case then the dynamic in the Senate would mean they'd lose in the Congressional battle anyway, since a Supreme Court sanctioned slate would be presumed to have the Executive certification whether he actually certified it formally or not. So they'd get the same result (a loss) but at considerable political expense. (Maybe they're just stupid.) Not to mention, of course that it may actually be illegal anyway. So, the only real reason I can figure out for the Legislative resolution is that they aren't satisfied with the present slate of Republican electors. That is, they have some concerns about faithless electors and want to put in some ironclad Republican robots. So, if that's the case and I were an elector under the present certification I might be a little pissed off at being replaced. So, even if Gore loses there might be a reason to contest this legislative slate. Long shot, to be sure. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:40:41 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Scott, it's simple. Message:

Scott, It's very simple, sort of. The Republicans in the Florida legislature are afraid that the courts will throw out the other (current) set of Bush electors, after some kind of recount that determines Gore won. By designating a Bush set of electors, preserve an alternative Bush set of electors, even if that happens. The legislature's set, would presumably be approved by the Congress over the Gore electors, or at least they hope so. Without the legislature doing that, there is at least a possibility that there would only be ONE set of Gore electors voting on December 18, and the Congress would have no choice but to accept the Gore delegates and Gore wins, or reject the Gore delegates and Gore still wins because he would have 267 electoral votes, 21 more than Bush. Since the December 12 deadline is now gone, they are shooting for 12/18. It's a blatant power grab by the legislature, to try to insure Bush's victory. It's all hypothetical at this point, and only an issue if the Supreme Court allows Florida to continue the recount, and the recount changes the outcome to Gore. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:00:17 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: I still don't verstehen. Message:

Joe: It's very simple, sort of. The Republicans in the Florida legislature are afraid that the courts will throw out the other (current) set of Bush electors, after some kind of recount that determines Gore won. By designating a Bush set of electors, preserve an alternative Bush set of electors, even if that happens. If the US Supreme Court allows a manual count to proceed and Gore wins, then those electors will replace the Bush electors to be sure. But I can't see that having a spare set of Bush electors buys them anything. If there are no Bush electors the House will vote for the Gore electors, or will challenge. In the absence of a secend set of Bush electors then it will only take one branch of congress to override a challenge, so the Senate can then seat the Gore electors. If there are two sets then both branches have to agree, and of course they won't. However, in that case the default rule takes over and the Gore electors would be seated anyway. It would also place the Rs in the House in the uncomfortable position of opposing the duly elected slate (sanctioned by the US Supreme Court) in favor of an appointed slate of dubious legal status, which would almost certainly throw the House to the Ds in 2002. So it looks like to me they're taking an enormous risk for no gain and probably considerable cost. At most it might embarrass Lieberman who would have to vote for himself, but he'd have to do that anyway. And Gore wouldn't even have to vote at all in order to invoke the default rule, since a tie would be sufficient. So, the whole thing looks really stupid to me.... Well, simple minds I guess. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:35:19 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: Sorry, I did it again Message:

I typed 'contest' when I meant 'protest' in the second line of the third paragraph

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:52:24 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Linkage Message:

Joe: I think that's why Scalia was asking about what was the point of the protest phase, if the contest phase was de novo. I don't agree with this, but I'm afraid that O'Connor and Kennedy, who aren't as beyond the pale as the other three, are very concerned about this. You know, I can't figure out why Boies is defending the FLSC on this. He could have easily said in response to Scalia's question: 'Well, we didn't think there was any particular benefit to conducting the manual counts during the protest phase. Indeed, we had concluded that there was no harm done to us by the certification, so we had not requested any extension of the protest phase, and had determined to address the issue of manual counts during the contest phase. Then, on it's own, the FLSC issued an injunction.' This would have effectively decoupled the current proceeding from the previous one and provided the principles with clarity (which seems to be at a premium). It should be perfectly clear that if you contest ballots on the basis that they have not been counted someone actually has to look at them. I kept expecting Boies to say something like this, but he didn't. I hope it doesn't turn out to be a fatal error. Easy for me to say, I guess. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:52:45 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Graphics Message:

Joe: Which channel did you watch? I tried MSNBC (& CNBC) but the graphic they used to indicate which justice was talking was just awful, and I couldn't follow it. I quickly switched to CNN which was very clear. The best way, of course, is to read the transcript. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:08:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Graphics Message:

I listened to the oral arguments on NPR, and they broke in and said who was speaking. MSNBC drives me nuts. I've tried to stay away from television, but I am not always successful. Last night, the talking heads on the Lehrer Newshour seemed to be saying the Supremes would llikely send the case back to Florida, with some kind of instructions to do some kind of truncated recount because they are loathe to come up with a 5-4 decision and essentially pick the president. Later, I had the misfortune of turning on 'Hardball' on MSNBC, listened to Chris Matthews yell like some kid in grade school for awhile, and listen to people like Ed Rollins and the wife of Olson, Bush's attorney (who seems to have some kind of weird eye problem), say that it will be 5-4 for Bush and this will end it. They all agreed that will happen.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:05:25 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Graphics Message:

Joe: Chris Matthews drives me nuts. His insights are not reliable or well-considered, and he seems to think Pat Caddell has something to offer even though the guy has never been right about anything in his life. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:36:52 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure Message:

Joe: The 'made new law' is by no means moot, at least from the point of view of those five justices. I think the justices agree there is a contest phase, but five of them, maybe including O'Connor and Kennedy, believe that the courts may not fashion a remedy, even in the contest phase, that is essentially a vote-counting scheme, which is what Florida did. Well, if Kennedy and O'Connor believe that then I completely missed it. Kennedy was the one who asked a lot of the toughest questions of the Bush lawyers regarding the limitations on broad judicial powers granted in Fla. Stat. § 102.168. The Bush lawyer attempted to link § 102.166(protest) with Fla. Stat. § 102.168 (contest) but I think Kennedy, and maybe O'Connor, thought it a weak argument. The argument attempting to amputate appellate review is something that, in spite of what you say, I don't think even Scalia buys into. It's just way too silly. To be sure, O'Connor has this 'thing' about people not being able to follow directions, but that is clearly not an issue in Florida law. There's lots of case law indicating clearly that voter error is not sufficient reason to disqualify a vote, as long as clear intent can be determined. These were coming from Ginsberg and Breyer, to shoot down the issue. I'm going to check the transcripts, but I think they were coming from nearly everyone... including O'Connor and Kennedy. And I think even Ginsburg and Breyer are a little concerned about standards. Indeed, Boies even asked the FLSC to establish standards at one point. Remember all that stuff about the difference between individual discretion on juries and in this instance, where the issue on juries has to do with progressive levels of detail while the issue in gleaning voter intent has to do with objective facts? I think that was Souter, but may have been Kennedy. Anyway, Boies didn't notice that they had already decided that this was *the* critical issue. Yeah, I remember now that it was Kennedy. He was asking this because he was concerned that the USSC had to justify their involvement on the basis of some federal issue... and he had already apparently given up on the judicial review due process issue, because of the breadth of the 102.168 statute. I couldn't figure out why Boies was giving him such a hard time. He was looking to get some agreement that the Supreme Court was legitimately involved because there is a question about equal protection. Why would he give a damn about the back door if he was certain about their ability to walk through the front door? Even Scalia chimed in and said to Boies that Kennedy and Boies were in essential agreement. Why would he do that unless he saw a coalition building around that issue? We'll have to wait and see, but I just want to point out in closing that apparently that Dutch beauty Katrina Vandenhuvel agrees with me. (Although I had the insight two days ago.) Seriously, I don't think the due process issue has legs. I wouldn't even be totally surprised if they got Scalia to abandon it. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:19:48 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The Oral Agruments Made me Less Sure Message:

Well, if Kennedy and O'Connor believe that then I completely missed it. Well, in the first oral arguments last week, O'Connor was saying that changing the deadline was a 'big' change in the law. Plus, the fact that she is so concerned about the lack of response to the remand, which was essentially asking questions about whether the Florida Supreme Court over-stepped its bounds, indicates to me that she is still in the Scalia camp. I think O'Connor believes in appellate review, and said as much, but directing the secretary of state to count additional votes, and setting new deadlines, and ordering a state-wide recount when the Election Boards hadn't even decided (as required under the statute) to do it, might hit her as going to far and creating new law. Yes, I think Boies could have taken the opportunity to give Souter, it was Souter, a standard that could be used. Stevens piped in that the standard was that the counting would essentially be reviewed by one judge and hence there would be uniformity. Boies glommed on to that as the case. See, if you get into setting a standard (when the statute just says 'intent of the voter'), then I think the US Supreme Court would be legislating as it is (at least some) accusing the Florida court of doing. So I think Boies tried to avoid that, instead saying that Florida is the best choice to interpret its own laws. So, I didn't see any evidence that the 5 who approved the stay are buying the 'uniform standard' compromise, but we shall see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:54:42 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Correction Message:

He was looking to get some agreement that the Supreme Court was legitimately involved because there is a question about equal protection. Why would he give a damn about the back door if he was certain about their ability to walk through the front door? Even Scalia chimed in and said to Boies that Kennedy and Boies were in essential agreement. Actually that's not accurate. Kennedy was concerned about the back door alright, but the exchange where Scalia chimed in had to do with the 'new law' created by the FLSC. Basically Kennedy was saying that if the legislature had set a new deadline, as the court had done, then that would be regarded as a 'new law' enacted *after* the contest began. But this whole exchange has to do with the original protest phase, and the first USSC case, which they had already vacated. I just don't think there's any sort of clear link to this present issue (beyond about 400+ votes in Broward County), and it seems to me that Kennedy knows it. So I think what this boils down to is a minority opinion that 'new law' is important to this current case, and a near consensus that 'sub-standards' are important, or at least that we are better with standard criteria than without. Now, they might decide to have an impossibly rigorous standard, or they might leave it to the Secretary of State... but in any case I think we're going to see more counting. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 21:53:15 (GMT) From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: What Thomas thinks... Message:

Scott T wrote: 'One never knows what Thomas is thinking, of course.' From what I have observed of Justice Clarence Thomas' decisions on the USSC, we do know what he is thinking; he is thinking 'I wonder how Anthony is going to vote on this?' He always goes along with Scalia.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 23:43:18 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: What Thomas thinks... Message:

I recall that some of the wiser voices suggested that the real reason why Thomas should not be confirmed was not his [what we would now call] 'Clintonesque' proclivities, but the mere fact that he's incompetent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:50:33 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: What Thomas thinks... Message:

When Thomas was being considered, he received the LOWEST rating from the ABA, while Ginsburg, for example, received the HIGHEST rating for qualifications. Thomas' nomination was one of the most cynical, racist things done by a president in a very long time. But what happened with Thomas is all the more reason why I think a Bush administration is likely to get the Supreme Court nominations he wants, at least eventually. 11 Democrats voted to confirm Thomas (52-48 during a time the Democrats controlled the Senate), and whatever you think of the Anita Hill claims, it was still very clear tp everyone that Thomas was a right-wing conservative who would vote to overturn Roe, etc., and yet they voted for him anyway. To me, this just raises the question about how unified the Democrats might be in a 50-50 Senate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 21:40:04 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: What Thomas thinks... Message:

Joe: And given the importance of the present situation it's clearly important to stack the high court as much as possible, not to mention the lower courts. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:04:37 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Scott T. and Joe Subject: Thomas does not think Message:

He's a complete idiot. Or maybe he's wondering, 'Just how many pubic hairs fit on the top of a Coke can?' Have either of you guys read Al Franken's book 'Why Not Me?'. It's about Al Franken running for the presidency, with Joe Lieberman (I kid you not) as his VP. The book is hilarious, as was his earlier tome 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot'. Anyway, in the beginning of 'Why Not Me?', Al has a fictitious correspondence with Rehnquist and Thomas that is wildly entertaining and funny. The book is worth it just to read the correspondence. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:46:49 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Briefs to USSC Message:

Gore Brief Bush Brief The Gore brief looks pretty bullet proof to me on the Federalism issue. As I said, I think it has some fixable weaknesses in the equal protection area. The USSC would not even need to mandate any new standard, just merely suggest that Florida use standards already in place in other states, or even in Florida case law. Just make the protocol statewide to avoid equal protection issues. They might also require counting all the ballots, although that's not necessary from a methodological point of view. I expect the counting to resume by Tuesday, or Wednesday at the latest. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 15:56:55 (GMT) From: Gee Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Another Prediction Message:

I was impressed with your grasp of the Florida thing and found it interesting, I have been glued to CNN in England for a while. But I decided to stand back from the intricacies of this and look at it from 'off planet.' What is going on in the macro - energy at the moment? Here is an utterly corrupt country which worships money and lies to itself, its people and everyone else routinely. (It's not the only one, they all do, but we are looking at the US.) Now, in a two party system that has held for decades, suddenly we get a perfect split. What does that say about the direction in the collective? It says that the power mongers have finally polarised the sheep and goats into two equal sized corrals. This underlines for any observer with half a brain that politics in the West is the same as everywhere else. It is a career, a power trip and has nothing to do with change or improvement for one's fellows, because regardless of who is in there is very little change for MOST people. Spiritual people who are looking for second order change believe the next quantum domestic planetary organisational leap will be towards consensus. This means, no voting, no persuasion, no fixing, no promoting or advertising. It means everyone participates in a solution until everyone is happy with the outcome. Difficult, but not impossible - I have done a consensual exercise workshop and it was absolutely fantastic. The reason for this is that the planet is in the worse (possibly terminal) state we could have created. Whatever is 'out there'is supporting us to redeem things by putting some barriers in the way and one of this is stalemate in government by the most damaging and powerful state: the US. The most positive outcome of this will be some sanity restored to government, possibly the end of macro government altogether. We are not children who need a daddy figure or mommy figure to run things for us and punish us when we are naughty. Don't vote, then they can't run things, is my philosophy. If you want to know one view on what the positive outcome might be visit www.akashabooks.com and download The Zone by G Lewes. Gee

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 22:01:10 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Gee Subject: Another Prediction Message:

Gee: You get all of this from the fact that it was a close election? The contest between Jefferson and Burr was a tie that took over thirty votes in the House of Representatives, and the intervention of Alexander Hamilton, to resolve... and Hamilton eventually lost his life in a duel with Burr over it. Close elections happen. One thing that does seem to be an indication of a new era: With information and talk forums on the Internet it has become reasonably clear that many of us regular people have better insights than the media talking heads. I think that's the real hidden story here. So there is some additional capacity of self governance that hasn't been realized. Remember, however, that the majority of voters *are* children... at least in terms of the responsibility and accountability they are willing to take on. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:31:54 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Gee Subject: The worst is yet to come Message:

G, As it stands now, government still has some control over the multinational corporations, and Democrats at least make an attempt, while it's still affordable, to keep a lid on their greed whereas Republicans are bought and sold by them. Soon, the corporation WILL be the govenment because politicians, Democrats as well as Republicans, won't be able to afford a campaign without them, which is actually the way it is now. And that might be a telling factor more than anything why there's such an even split in the way people vote. Democrats and Republicans look more alike each day. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Fuck them both. Vote Green.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 15:01:24 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: I think it's simpler than that Message:

Scott, It's all partisan politics. You've got Democrats on the bench in Florida, and Republicans on it in the U.S. Supreme Court. Both courts will find a way, somehow, to favor their candidate. Hasn't that been the way it's gone so far? Why do you think that's going to change? Bush will win because he's got more friends on the highest court. You can analyze it this way and that. In the long run, it all boils down to that, who has the most friends in the highest places. Always does. Take it from one who knows only how true this is in his own life. Jerry The Screwed. Welcome aboard, Al!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:31:36 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: It's that simple, really. Message:

Jerry: Just isn't that simple. For one thing the FLSC was, itself, split... and it has *no* Republicans. The other thing is that we will soon know the outcome of the vote count via a methodologically robust counting protocol and there's the *strong* possibility that it will favor Bush. The high court has some interest in it's legitimacy (which is more than just whether or not it's 'legal' in the narrow sense). Americans can lose respect for the court, and that can cause all kinds of problems in terms of outright civil unrest. If things got bad enough they could even be impeached. So the simplest thing for them to do is back away from this, by justifying their involvement through the equal protection clause, and then providing the lower court with the authority to carry out a remedy. I really think things will be *this* simple. I have one caveat. Since we are now past the safe harbor that may mean they have to settle things in order to avoid the messy scenario of having Congress battle over which electors are accepted. I've heard some opinions that say they can reset the clock, to give an extension for the safe harbor deadline. Failing that they may simply overturn the FLSC and offer no medicine. But I'm not sure things would just end there. For one thing, the present set of electors may actually not be legal, because of the circumstances of it's certification. Republicans have indicated this possibility. That would leave Florida without a 'safe' set of electors anyway. And, I think one can make the case that equal protection cuts both ways. That by excluding the potential votes in the undervote ballots the 'disparate treatment' may be even more severe than the remedy proposed by the FLSC. That would put them in the embarrassing position of justifying their original intervention, without making a determination on the more severe inequity of the distribution of these 1950s voting machines... which are all over the country. The logical outcome of such a determination would be to disallow the entire Presidential election of 2000. The mere fact that this could make it into the public domain as a result of a manual count conducted under the 'Freedom of Information Act' ought to strike a little fear into them. Easiest solution is to let the manual count go forward with some modest changes, and possibly reset the clock by a couple of days. I don't buy all the stuff that Gee is touting. These are human beings on the horns of a dilemma. I think this is probably a turning point in the evolution of American democracy, and possibly democracy in general... but I'd say it indicates something more akin to 'Government by Resolution' than consensus. There are a number of very robust formal theories of voting indicating that consensus government is an illusion. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:11:02 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Democracy? You see a democracy? Message:

I think this is probably a turning point in the evolution of American democracy, and possibly democracy in general... Let's get one thing clear, Scott. There is absolutely no good reason to believe we live in a democracy. All the evidence, that I'm aware of, leads me to believe this is a corporate oligarchy, One Market Under God, as a new book recently called it. And I'm still laughing that people actually think that democracy will be preserved by counting dimpled chads in 3 Florida counties, or even undervotes throughout the entire state, which I think is even more questionable. It really does crack me up. I suppose it shouldn't. It's not nice to laugh at crazy people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 14:14:27 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Biased ballot led voters astray Message:

I'm posting this here because it may be interest, but I really don't want to start a new thread From New Scientist 9 December 2000 p20 The controversial butterfly ballot used in the US presidential elections in Palm Beach county hasn't just confused Florida voters, it's confused a significant number of people in a scientific survey, Canadian researchers say. 'The ballot is biased. It causes systematic error,' says Robert Sinclair at the University of Albertas in Edmonton. Backers of Democrat candidate Al Gore claim the ballot's design, which placed punched holes between lists of candidate's names, led thousands of Gore voters to accidently vote for fringe candidate Pat Buchanan. If true, then those votes handed the knife-edge election to Republican George W. Bush. Sinclair and his colleagues checked the design by putting Canadian candidates onto butterfly ballot papers, with the home-grown politicians replacing Bush, Gore and Buchanan. Then they asked 116 random shoppers to vote. Four of the people using the butterfly ballot made errors, and three of these were the equivalent of a erroneous vote for Buchanan rather than Gore. Although the sample size was small, the error rate is statistically significant, the researchers say. 'It astonishes me that nobody did this study before the election,' says Sinclair. He points out that his study, which could have highlighted errors in the ballot's design and averted the controversy, cost less than C$50 to complete. More at: Nature (vol 408,p 665)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 23:54:43 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Biased ballot led voters astray Message:

4 out of 116? I don't know, John. I always thought the ratio of idiots in the world was a lot higher than that. Guess we should count our blessings, eh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:12:36 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Biased ballot led voters astray Message:

John: Unfortunately you'd need a sample size ten times that large to be definitive (at the 1% level), and you'd need to be fairly rigorous about controls, especially the 'Hawthorne Effect.' I'm pretty sure that an error rate of 4 out of 116 is *not* significant at the 5% level. Probably not even at the 10% level. The rule of thumb for a 10% confidence interval is a sample size of about 400. The conclusion sounds fishy to me. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 22:09:27 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Biased ballot led voters astray? Message:

Rather confident conclusions from the researcher, indeed, although I would regard the citation in Nature as significant, if only to say that it looks as if there might be something in the idea, and it's worth looking more closely at the question. And in the context of larger-than-expected Buchanan numbers in some areas with many elderly, Democratic-leaning voters, along with complaints about ballot usability by those people, I reckon the research is highly suggestive. I typed the piece in from the print edition. Silly me! I should have looked for the online version. It has an interesting link on Ballot Usability and invites that correspondence about this story be directed to latestnews@newscientist.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:31:08 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Democracy? You see a democracy? Message:

Jerry: It is a democracy in the sense implied by Schumpeter: A competition between elites for the approval of the voters. Clearly it is not a democracy in the classic Greek sense. It may not be, strictly speaking, in the Schumpeterian sense 'at the margins.' That's what's at stake. It is not laughable. It's actually pretty important. Ask Marianne. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:49:12 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Democracy? You see a democracy? Message:

I'm well aware of Marianne's predicament, Scott. I think I've made it clear that I hope Gore wins because of it, along with other issues such as Supreme Court and key government appointments, and not least of all, the environment which, if Bush has his way, will go the route of a Mexican border maquiladora. Not good, by a long shot. I just think this whole recount thing is too ridiculous to believe, and the spin being put on it, that democracy is at stake, is a fucking scream. Yes, Scott, that is funny, in a sad sort of way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:33:03 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Democracy? You see a democracy? Message:

Jerry: You might look at it in perspective, as a sort of contest involving what place man has in accounting his (her) own destiny. There was an outstanding problem in mathematics for some three hundred years called the 'Four-Color Theorem.' Briefly stated, it is that you can map any partitioned surface in such a way that so more than four colors are required to insure that no partition borders another of the same color. This was called a 'theorem' because it is sort of intuitively true, and you get a sense that it's true if you work with segmented or partitioned surfaces very much. However, there was no actual proof of the four color theorem for hundreds of years. Then in the late 1970s or early '80's someone came up with a 'proof' of the Four-Color Theorem that involved multiple computer trials of all possible conditions and situations. This proof was eventually compiled in a five foot thick stack of computer paper, beyond the capacity of any single person to comprehend or understand. At about the same time (actually a few months prior to the massive computer proof) R. Buckminster Fuller came up with an extremely concise and elegant proof of the Four Color Theorem that was contained in a single descriptive paragraph. Now, which proof is more useful? I like the Fuller proof myself, but it involves a sort of conceptual leap that seems to tax the imaginations of many computationally minded mathematicians, who appear to have more faith in computers than in human beings. I think it's a critical issue, since it seems to represent a kind of inferiority complex that runs very deep in the human psyche. We can have some faith in the 'machines' we create, but not in the absence of some faith in ourselves and our ability to make objective and impartial judgments. So, I don't see this present issue as silly at all. Even if we had a far more sophisticated voting system embedded deeply in a computerized electronic network we would still require an 'insurance policy' in the form of a paper trail. The only thing that's funny is that we're still using a punch card technology that went completely out of favor in the early 1970s when used with computers. It's funny because we really accounted individual votes as of such little value. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:56:04 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Scott T. and Jerry K Subject: A paper trail, what a novel thought... Message:

We need to get back to the paper ballot. I know it sounds primitive and slow, but if we had paper ballots and citizen watchdogs, we'd get an honest count even if it took a couple of days. This is not my idea, btw, it was promulgated by the Collier brothers in the 70's after their attempt to participate in the process by running against Claude Pepper (remember that old reprobate?) in Florida of all places. They uncovered massive fraud, took videotape of a roomful of women from the Women's League of Voters punching holes in ballots NO shit. They wrote a great book about it and brought the whole thing to light. Of course it was dismissed as another nutter 'conspiracy' but you can't deny the videotape...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:03:51 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Scott, Jerry and all Subject: You guys are smarter than any ten media slugs... Message:

Here's a link to the Collier brothers' work (both are dead now) Votescam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:42:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: gerry Subject: You guys are smarter than any ten media slugs... Message:

I don't suppose it counts as evidence that manual counts don't generally yield results much different from the 'machine' counts, except where punch cards are involved. In New Mexico, for instance, a manual count of mostly optically scanned ballots led to almost no change in the vote tally. In most cases even the predictable error rate of punch card systems has not made a difference in determining the winner or loser. The reason why we 'can't get rid of the bastards' is the simple result of a two-party winner-take-all system of elections, and a presidential system that enhances the average power of incombency to about 10% of the vote count. There isn't, and never was, any mystery in this at all... beyond the fact that the marginal rate of return for a dollar spent seems to be different (lower) for incumbents. And the only reason *this* is a mystery is that we don't know whether money effects votes more than expected votes effect money. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 16:13:37 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Something even dan rather would understand Message:

well, maybe not...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:35:39 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: gerry Subject: Something even dan rather would understand Message:

Gerry: Thanks. I am not certain that the directions in the article are ubiquitous. The directions that were on the Palm Beach ballot, and were read into the record during the early phase of the deliberation on counting, said clearly that even though some chips may not be completely dislodged this was still a valid vote, and would be counted as a vote. Anyway, someone could clearly employ this methodology on contested ballots to determine 'voter intent' without taking any directions from Dionne Warwick and the Psychic Hotline. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:46:33 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Oops. Message:

and there's the *strong* possibility that it will favor Bush I meant Gore, of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:32:11 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Jerry Subject: I think it's simpler than that Message:

I pretty much agree with your analysis, Jerry. And Scott, once the USSC stayed the vote count, it was all over, IMHO. I always want to end these posts with an expletive. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 21:43:02 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Marianne Subject: I think it's simpler than that Message:

Marianne: Well, that's what Scalia seems to indicate, but he's not the coolest head on the court. I've also heard some expert opinion that they have the power to adjust that safe harbor deadline if they need to. My guess is that they also read the Washington Post and NY Times articles this morning, and may be yearning for a broader ruling... wishing they hadn't jumped in. I honestly don't see that they have jurisdiction (except possibly under the troubling implication of the equal protection clause), but will have to see their eventual ruling. And I really think the equal protection issues raised by Scalia are easily fixed. I suspect the stay was put in just so things wouldn't have to be redone. It may *not* be a reflection of their eventual ruling at all. Frankly, I think the media has gotten this wrong again, as usual. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:30:55 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: I think it's simpler than that Message:

I suspect you may be right about the supreme action only I also had the idea that the way the florida court was so divided on the issue, and that division was too destructive to let sit. If the supremes take it, look at it, and decide to adjust it, then give it thier stamp, it will be a lot less destructive for the recount to continue., frankly, I am thinking in one way, the coming economic troubles are better left for gore to be blamed for. Since the vast credit creation monster that is the REAL greenspan legacy, is tottering and shaking in the background. Pay off your debts if you can!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:09:48 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: bill Subject: I think it's simpler than that Message:

My prognostication is predicated on the concept that the Supremes have the *positive* authority to demand a standardized protocol, as opposed the the purely negative authority to rule that the Contest statute, or the provisions for manual counts, are unconstitutional. That, they have the power to create not just destroy. I think 'equal protection' may give them that authority, which could be transferred to the FLSC. No one else in the media seems to have picked up on this possibility though, so maybe I'm wrong. However, I've come to mistrust the media's insights on this stuff... and I haven't heard anyone shoot down the idea either. It's more like it hasn't occured to anyone... not even Boies (or however you spell that guy's name). This is Boies' first trip before the USSC too, so he doesn't have the experience of his opponent. He may have more tunnel vision than Tribe, but he has been able to seize an opportunity for a compromise position if the justices present it to him. We'll have to wait and see. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:34:53 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: sounds right-nt Message:

qeryq

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 14:44:00 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: bill Subject: And may ALLAH be a witness..nt Message:

ngt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 00:18:46 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Salam Subject: Are you sure that is it's name?-nt Message:

fsg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:43:01 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: bill Subject: Why do want to know Message:

Are you an implant. An EV agent wanting to disrup a fornicator?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:07:46 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: Why do want to know Message:

You're translating too literally, Salam@rawatsucks.com; you might be a 'fucker' in some people's, but you didn't put moves on that premie. ;-) Do you really believe that bill might be a breast implant?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:15:31 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Why do want to know Message:

Have no clue what you're talking about Stoner. Are you stonned(joke)?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 19:46:26 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Salam Subject: Why do want to know Message:

Aaaaaaaaah you're just playing dumb again, my Guru, so that I'm not too intimidated. 'Fucker' is used far more idiomatically than 'fornicator', but you seem to be a linguistic trendsetter, you non-fornicating boofhead! ;-) When I think of 'implants', I think of silicon breast implants, which many women are getting (along with the side-effects to enlarge their breasts. And I see bill has educated you about the other end of that equation. (that should have been 'a 'fucker' in some people's MINDS', but as it applies to mostly premies, that wouldn't work, because we all know that they have gained freedom from their minds, so they're not in them anymore! Now even I am getting confused. Must be lack of sleep, food, and too much shoveling snow in one day.:-) And also, I was not 'stoned' or stunned, just fried from 6 hours of teaching. (ok I will shut up now)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 00:45:23 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Why do want to know Message:

God, what have I done to you Stonner. You were a nice decent girl before I met you, now you're sounding like chief or a sailor. Lord forgive me for my extra sin(but you don't exist anyway). I do not think that bills' wife was trying to be Pamela Anderson, unless I am mistaken. Bill is your wife Pamela Anderson? p.s. do you think we can start the F5 dictionary?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:30:16 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Salam Subject: Why do want to know Message:

Just to further veer off, my wife had 10 pounds removed from her breasts. She got to pick what she wanted for a result from a display! Before I met her.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:58:48 (GMT) From: Tim G Email: timgitti@indigo.ie To: Disculta-ji Subject: Lotus Harangue @ Wembley Message:

Hi Dicsulta..I wrote you a long reply last night and when it came time to send it the F...ing computer became mucsle-bound. So if you'd like to e-mail me I will send you the reply as an attachment. It might be a part of my journey that I hope to submit sometime.Carpe Diem.Tim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:53:45 (GMT) From: SongBird Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Penny Eveleigh...anyone has contact details??? Message:

Does anyone know Penny's contact details... cheers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:27:43 (GMT) From: Forum Administrator Email: None To: Sammy, Yes, Amean, etc Subject: Warning Message:

It is policy on this forum to only use one name when you post. Using more than one name can cause confusion. You appear to have used, Sammy, Yes, Amean, Pat, Owl, Sue, Interfering, John, Sore Ear and Did You Do that Fart. Either use one name or don't post. If you carry on using different names we'll block you and remove all your posts. Forum Admin.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:01:23 (GMT) From: Didyoudothatfart Email: None To: Forum Administrator Subject: Warning Message:

wasn't me lol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:16:00 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Didyoudothatfart Subject: Then wipe that guilty look from your face Message:

...or maybe you always smell like that? Anth the methane tank

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 09:39:31 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Mr Rawat Subject: Happy Birthday Mr Rawat Message:

Happy Birthday Mr Rawat. You must be forty-three today. I hope you're not as pissed off as you were last time I saw you on your birthday in Malibu, a few years ago. The premies get over-excited on your birthday. Are you having a party? Will they be invited? Are you doing a big production somewhere? Should they set up a programme and invite you? Lots of them have a 'holy moment' when they go out and buy a present, or choose a card.. And for the faithful few who make it up to your house, 'Will you come out ? Will they see you? Will you talk to them?' Someone has to tell you. Your parties, like your poetry, are lousy. As a guest, you're one of a crowd of sycophants, hanging around, hoping your lord and master will come out and take notice of you. Everyone is scared to have a good time- because around you- it is extremely bad form to do anything other focus on you. Drawing attention to yourself in anyway- except as a whipping boy, is a definite 'NO NO'. The music is also crap. Those old premie bands, rehashing the same old, 'I am a little stick of incense, burning at your lotus feet,' type songs. Ugghh. You've probably never been to a decent party in your life. Maybe forty-three is a good time to take a look at yourself. You've come a long way, and may still have a long way to go. And you've certainly had an unusual life. You and your brothers were groomed by your parents to take over the family business after your father died. And what a weird business they dropped you into- the Guru trade. You escaped to the West when you were young. I first saw you at Glastonbury in 1971 when you were about 13. You'd already been speaking publicly for a few years- not to mention being worshipped as a 'Perfect Master', 'Satguru' etc. Like you told everyone in Delhi in 1970- you'd come as Jesus, you'd come as Buddha, but now you'd come with more power than ever before. Then in '71 you came to the West and thousands of us young, acid-scrambled hippies, joined in the game with you. The Lord had indeed come. We were going to spread your 'Knowledge' and soon the whole world would recognise you and live in inner peace. We were the lucky ones. Like Jesus' disciples, we'd recognised you early. I guess you must have believed it all yourself at that time. But by now you're intelligent enough to figure out something's not quite right. The years rolled by, and nothing happened. Our friends told us we were in a cult. They thought we were just like the Hare Krishnas and the Moonies. They couldn't see that you were the real, true, Lord on Earth. Poor fools. They were so near, yet so far away. If only they could, 'receive your Knowledge', then the veil would fall from their eyes- and they would recognise you. But the trouble was, Mr Rawat, you weren't the 'Lord and Perfect Master'. And those yoga techniques you taught us didn't give us an experience of 'God within'. Being a premie and practicing knowledge turns out to be a hindrance to developing as a healthy, well adjusted human being, rather than the secret of happiness and peace. So why don't you face up to reality and call it a day. You could relax. You won't have to pretend to be perfect any more. You'd be an ordinary human being like everyone else. You have, however, caused lots of mess in lots of people's lives, and should, in some measure or other, take responsibility for it. For some folk you have caused financial mess. They've given all their money to you, or sacrificed good jobs and careers to follow you. For other folk you've caused psychological mess. They worshipped you as God on Earth for years. They analysed their actions and made their plans, taking you into account. This led them up all sorts of dead-ends and blind alleys. Coming to terms with it all takes time. And for lots of people you've caused both types of mess. I'm sure it would help everyone if you apologised in some way. I'm sure most of them would be much more sympathetic towards you. You also, take immense material benefit from your situation. As the original aims of your mission seems to have been quietly forgotten, the energy of your followers has switched from, 'Establishing Peace on Earth', to 'mainting Mr Rawat in the style to which he has become accustomed'. You material desires seemed to have increased at the same rate your mission lost its direction and purpose. Maybe a short period living in a monastic environment would be of benefit to you. I know there are some Buddhist organisations which offer monastic retreats to worldly folk. That would give you time to think about your future and how to extricate yourself from the mess you're in. Let's face it- the Perfect Master thing is over. The backlash on the Internet is only just beginning. As more premies and ex-premies get online and find out what's been going on they'll do what the vast majority of your followers have already done- walk out the door back into the real world. You should join us. It's not perfect. But it's not bad either. Find out what it's like to be an equal. At least you might be able to throw a decent party. Anth 'I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 13:29:41 (GMT) From: jondon Email: None To: AJW Subject: Happy Birthday Mr Rawat Message:

The ex-Lord of the Universe is only 43 years old? He seems so much older with all that wisdom he has (unless of course he's making it up as he goes along). I noticed the 'Al Gore' spot in the back of his head at the last video I went to. He seems to be whipping his hair up around the back to disguise it. Become bald you silly old man. What is it with guys disguising their manliness, I think bald is sexy (at least on younger guys).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 23:29:21 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: AJW Subject: Best Rawat birthday I've had in years burp (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:36:21 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: AJW Subject: Happy Birthday Mr Rawat Message:

Anth the inspiror, Thanks for that brilliant post. You probably don't realise or maybe you do...how really truly helpful it is to someone who is just emerging to read a post like this, which is intelligent and caring, but most importantly relates a real true story.,This was something we were all grasping for like hungry chicks in the nest,and now, at last is revealed for what it is. A sad pathetic tale of ambition and intrigue,of grasping and power mongering. It makes me PUKE!!!! I am still going through a lot of strange shit, I find myself reviewing all my beliefs and trusting none, and yet I have a profound sense of freedom and adventure, I am going to live the rest of my life ,MY WAY. Thanks Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:43:23 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: AJW Subject: Happy Birthday Mr Rawat Message:

Happy Birthday, me lord. Remember me? I was the young woman who slaved for you during your manic need for an airplane phase. It doesn't seem that you, Maharaji, have grown at all. What a shame. Why don't you retire already? Selling your watch collection alone would set you up in a comfy life. You may have to ditch the aircraft, but, you won't be doing propagation--so you can fly coach on any airline you want. And while you're at it, there are a few victims of your Mahatma Jagdeo to whom you owe compensation. That will run you in the millions. Yes. That, alone, may set you back. While you're smoking your birthday weed, sipping cognac, remember me and all your other slaves who know you are a cult leader!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:30:18 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: 'EX'-slave, Cynthia! (damn typos! ;-) (nt) Message:

:-) I hope I'm right on that! ;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:15:00 (GMT) From: Divine Encarnation Email: None To: Lard Subject: Happy Birthday LARD !!! Message:

So Divine, you are oh, Lord.I was dreaming. I hope your day is full of happiness as the decades I spent with you were. -joke- The boy is 43, going on, 0. To put an age would be to insult beautiful, smart, full of natural wisdom children. Wherever you came from, go back, Lard! Please!!! That would make many truly happy.Your days of fame are counted. Your kingdom is about to collapse. Enjoy the fruits of your lies, Lard Maharaji. Did anybody told you how ugly you are?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 16:00:34 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: AJW Subject: He's 43, Anth.(nt) Message:

I was born in 1957 too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:39:49 (GMT) From: Wf Email: None To: Stonor Subject: How old is his wife? (nt) Message:

sdfsdf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:54:06 (GMT) From: Sir Loin Email: None To: Wf Subject: 8 years older, so about 51 (nt) Message:

mm

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 18:52:50 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Stonor Subject: He's 43, Anth.(nt) Message:

Yes ,He's 43. ..Last year , being 42, he should have realised the answer to ....Life ...The universe..and ...Everything. Obviously he didn't....Oh Shit. What sort of a GOOROO is he? Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 17:46:20 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Thanks Stonor Message:

I changed it. Anth the editor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:29:03 (GMT) From: Tim Matheson Email: None To: AJW Subject: Happy Birthday Lord Maharaji Message:

With much gratitude, I bow down to YOU and thank YOU for all you've done- -Thank YOU for allowing many of us to spend the productive years of our lives in building YOUR DIVINE RESIDENCE _Thank YOU for all the times YOU let us wait in those long lines to give you our money and Kiss YOUR HOLY LOTUS FEETS -Thank YOU for YOUR strong insistence that it was in our best interest to feel gratitude to YOU -Thank YOU for YOUR DIVINE LILA especially in regards to the Jagdeo sexual abuse issue-for as we all know from your teachings neither Jagdeo or his many victims really exist-all that exists is YOU -Thank YOU for showing me by your example in YOUR own life that it's ok to drink, drug, smoke and be unfaithful to my wife-for they are just illusions-all that exists is you -Thank YOU for being YOU and somehow making me think I should be like YOU

Return to Index -:- Top of Index