Ricky:Carl, that's right, Beauty is only skin deep, Its ugly that goes to the bone! - 23:12:10 on 1 Oct 99 GMT

Ricky:Doug, I believe you are a little off on the drug-God thing. I have, about fifteen years ago, tried a little LSD and that junk would make you see and here a lot of things. Tripping on acid might make you think you see God or Satan, it will also make you see buildings melting. The buildings didn't actually menl, neither did God appear through the use of drugs. There is a way to reach Him, but not that way! - 1:01:36 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky:Other halucinogenic drugs can be used too.I don't know what you really took, you have no guarantee that it was LSD. Sorry for the let down, it must be a big dissapointment that it's all like a big drug trip or mentally ill disease. - 4:44:12 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Nope, not yet. - 15:59:56 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:ALL: came across this quote***"DAWKINS: Reductionism is one of those words that makes me want to reach for my revolver. It means nothing. Or rather it means a whole lot of different things, but the only thing anybody knows about it is that it's bad, you're supposed to disapprove of it."***"Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. I presume that's what the questioner has in mind. I am interested in cults. The so-called organized religions are of course just old cults. They started off as cults and they've acquired a respectability that's simply due to the long time that they've been with us. I'm interested in them. I don't know why the questioner thinks it's not an ESS. It's not to me obvious that a world in which nobody believed in Soul One is necessarily ripe for invasion by cults, except insofar as I think one of the main reasons why people do believe the things that they believe is somewhat analogous to viral infection...It's going to work both for the sensible things -- rules for how not to die of snake bite or falling off of cliffs or how to learn the language of the society. But the self-same rule is also going to be a natural sponge, or a natural soaker-up of New Age nonsense, and nonsense of any other kind." - 17:53:28 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Josh must be a lonely man, lol! I think Dawkins has considered belief in religions or supernatural types of beliefs, memes. Last night I decided to start a book I bought quite some time ago called _Dark Nature_ by Lyall Watson. Ever hear of it? - 19:40:34 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:morphic field: A field within and around a morphic unit which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity. The term morphic field includes morphogenetic, behavioural, social, cultural, and mental fields. Morphic fields are shaped and stabilized by morphic resonance [the influence of past patterns] from previous similar morphic units, which were under the influence of fields of the same kind. They consequently contain a kind of cumulative memory and tend to become increasingly habitual. ///// memes: the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life. (2.) A contagious idea that replicates like a virus, passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact between people. Derived from the word "memetics," a field of study which postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases. - 22:36:53 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I asked if you've heard of _Dark Nature_ because the very same author started that 100th monkey thing. I started reading this particular book a while ago but found it rather "new agey" and got bored with it. No wonder I did, look what I found on the net! - 22:51:12 on 2 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene ..so we don't go off the deep end:Another example of a meme is belief in a higher power. For those who truly believe that a "meme" exsists then memes can /only/ exist within the mind, cannot be translated or encoded in any way; what you transmit and encode are the /products/ of memes, behaviours and patterns of change in the environment. - 1:27:22 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Ricky:Doug, I didn't take durgs to catch a glimps of God, Idid the drugs to get high and "hang with the crowd". The fact the drugs just lead to physical and mental harm, along with draining your pocketbook was the "let-down". I don't know about a meme, hadn't never heard of one of them before but I do believe in a higher power. - 3:11:31 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:No I haven't read "Dark Nature_ by Lyall Watson." But that web page puts it into perspective of maybe why I haven't read it.No, honestly I've never heard of it before. So if enough people believe in the tooth fairy he becomes real, give me a break.In the states enough people believe in no government, we won't delve into that can of worms.***How did the testing go; the good news and the bad news.First the good news you're going to live a long life; now the bad news you need every working day for the rest of you're life to pay off the medical bills(Canada has national health). - 4:08:25 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Yup! Canada has national health. Thanks to that, I have to wait two and a half months to have a lousy ultra sound because the unit is booked up until then. I don't know how the rest of the tests have panned out but hope to learn something in another few weeks. Meanwhile it would have been nice if the doctor would have prescribed some morphine (but I don't think it's even legal here). Every once in awhile when I go to a book store I pick up a book that I get suckered on. The other one was the Celestine Prophecy. I think where some people are going with this meme thing is that it's a physical transfer like a gene is. I disagree. - 4:53:14 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:If anyone is interested here's a site on memes that I found interesting although I do have Dawkins's books. - 13:49:02 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

jaywilson--The MIMM Meme----:MARLENE: You're right, memes aren't viruses; they replicate among people in the same way that a bunch of drunks in the bleachers do "the wave" when it comes around. Man is by nature and need a social creature (but aren't all critters?), and memes ease the friction between [some of]us. Like posting here. - 16:02:20 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"A mind virus is not spread by sneezing, like the flu, or by sex, like AIDS. It's not a physical thing. Mind viruses are spread by something as simple as communicating." - Richard Brodie - 17:23:25 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"If you can begin to see what, to take a deliberately extreme example, your thermostat and your mind have in common, and that there's a perspective from which they seem to be instances of an intentional system, then you can see that the whole process of natural selection is also an intentional system." - Daniel Dennett - 17:25:31 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"The concept of morphic fields helps to explain why patterns of organization at ALL levels of complexity are repeated again and again." - R. Sheldrake, 'The Presence of the Past' - 17:27:22 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:The term "new age" has been applied more often from others in this room as a label to categorize certain beliefs. It's been applied as a crutch, a safety net to categorize a bunch of topics into one complete denial package as a defense against some of the theories I have shared, so I think some things should be cleared up in here. What does new age mean? Is it a formal belief system or does it imply something less formal? "The main thing about being a new age person is being openminded to different possibilities and tolerant of the beliefs of others…. to equate the New Age with psychic phenomena is a limited and distorting view." The example has been shown in here to equate all new agers with channeling, crystals, and psychic powers. But if we take 'new age' for it's literal meaning, then it would mean that the age we are in now is a temporary conventionalism and that there are those who are continually seeking to better our situations; plain and simple, these would be new-agers – politicians, scientists, poets, innovators, etc. The people who are not new agers would not be open-minded and would not be tolerant of the beliefs of others. Because new agers are open to all possibilities of human experience, it is a fallacy to discredit other's experiences based on the present conventionalities. All new ideas are breaks from conventionalism. Taken from any person with new age beliefs, "We explore alternatives that give us new choices." As a generalization of the human population from the figure I've already presented and to quote one poster in here ".17% (a fallacy, many if not all aren't believers in new age quackery)", many people are not believers in new age beliefs, and hold onto the conventional truths as constants, which is why change is so slow. It's the 99.83% that always needs convincing. The majority of people, whatever the figure may be, is resistant to change (which I assume is traced back to our animal instincts for security). When people are discrediting others' new ideas they should consider that they are fulfilling their own false securities in waiting until others follow the example, before they admit acceptance. It has often been the case that posters in here seek a communal discredit to fulfill their own insecurities, which in turn, fulfills the communal feeling of discontent for new ideas. In other words, it's no coincidence that people in here have gathered together in a discussion room to share opinions; people seek out people like themselves, often in disregard to whether or not they are fulfilling superficial psychological misgivings or they are indeed improving their overall and personal well-being. These are the conventional memes taking over, the mob mentality, not individual self empowerment. I'm not here to condemn anyone. I just think it's been an interesting exercise so far to see why people force themselves to reflect their own unexplored misgivings before they examine their reasons for having them. After using reductionist thinking to identify this problem, we can see how, holistically speaking, the majority of the world's population does this and how responsibility for our individual actions and conventional acceptance-like philosophies have lead to the disintegration of true meanings for things, "new age" being one of them. I hope that people will realize as well that my approach now has only arisen after trying to share personal views and then encountering many irrational boundaries that I was forced to examine the boundaries instead. Once we get past this point, and we get past our own misgivings, me included, I think this can be a more productive discussion room, unless this room is content that stagnation is something to be praised – and then I will move on. - 19:53:44 on 3 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: we have HMO's in the states and they do the same things.You have to get your primary Physicaons permission to go to the emergency room!Or else the HMO won't cover the vist.Most of the time they will opt for a less expensive treatment rather than one that is medically the best one. The accountants are playing doctors without a licence.As with your testing the HMO's will have you drive miles away for tests and treatments. Sometimes this is every day; a horror story of HMO's.What it comes down to is the rich and famous get the best treatment availible while everyone else is given a cost savings approach to medicine. We need nationalized health here(USA) to take away the profits for no-treatment medicine. - 1:53:47 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- The same thing basically happens here really. The more wealthy people go across the border into the US for tests and treatment. I think that a health care program would work very well in the US. There are a whole lot more people to support it. Our problem here is our numbers. We haven't got enough people to make this thing work well. - 3:11:24 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- You are consistent! So what, may I ask are unconventional memes? Why do you continue to whine about how badly people here have not accepted your beliefs? It's not a mob mentality at all but a basic, "there's no proof of that, Josh". The percentages you keep giving us on "creative" and non-creative" people are unacceptable. Where are the stats, what company has reseached such a claim and where are these stats posted? I'm not about to take such a leap of faith to accept what you've posted so far because none of what you've said has any tested evidence. I wouldn't call that stagnant but (to use a word of your own), conscious. - 3:36:05 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I've been listening to a local radio show called "God Talk" tonight. The godly hosts are outraged with Jesse Ventura. They claim that he made this statement " religion is for weak minded people". Has anyone else heard about this ? I find it unlikely that a governor would actually say this but then again we are talking about Jesse. If this is true then I give him a big yeehaw! but he's likely fried his political career. - 3:41:42 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: He was the only Governor not to sign the national prayer day procumation a few years back. He reasoned that the separation of church and state was a more important ideal to uphold. - 4:04:20 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:That's yesterdays news already. Wake up and smell the skepticism. - 4:06:41 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

PapaSam:Marlene. Yes, Governor Ventura did make those remarks. Check out American Atheists web site for details. Send him a letter of support. His email address is: GovernorJesseVentura@state.mn.us Let him know we appreciate his speaking out for the separation of church and state. - 4:13:38 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"All new ideas are breaks from conventionalism." - 4:13:59 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Malene:DOUG- I have heard that. At the time I understood he also said that religion is a personal thing and doesn't belong with the state. But for him to out right declare the obvious is political suicide. - 4:16:06 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM - Thank You! I will be sure to send him a neigbourly email. I shocked he came on so strong though. I hope Min. keeps him! - 4:19:00 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: Awhile back, I brought to the fore matters o'education and whats to be learned, whats to be taught, and so on. One of the values we here, including JOSH, hold high and do understand intimately it is reading. If we had to identify as instrumental to any declaration of 'atheism' it'd be that the written religious material is not consistant with the being of anything's existence. For me the matters of or for understanding and responsible reading have had to expand as the material to be read expanded. Of this latter point the stuff JOSH drags to this site is an example. The "lack o'consistancy" probably is what Ventura envisioned in his reponse and that will also be the same point through which the non-reading weak minded will attack opposition to their religion. If there is one mark of the weak minded, they demand obedience to their preferred written words. It is not enough for these folk that a learning and creative mental event or mind thing happen. This must be directed at matters in ways acceptable to them their preferences. What does this mean? Consider the example of gun-control in the USA. Laws among the first european settlers forbade gun selling or ownership by the natives. Then as the dark ones of Africa became more numerous, them and guns too were made illegal. These regulations were known as "Black-codes". Then just to show it wasn't always just skin-color, poor whites were not to have or own guns, why, I read an account that said it was feared these folks might go after the rich whites, funnny? Does this example convey the why and what of the threat good reading poses for religion? Well, some elsewhere are concerned and discussing the demise of atheistic chat sites. In the wider picture, I figure this goes hand in hand with the prospect of the current educational process and its poor USA test results. Maybe religion and racism are just gimmicks for a use against the poorer thinkers? - 16:34:42 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know that religion is a crutch for a weak mind as Jesse suggests but I do think it is a crutch for those who consider themselves superior to other lifeforms on this planet. Since we are not superior and may in the end vanish as the dinosaurs did, they need to create a situation where humans are meaningful. Whether it be god or creative conscious, it's a man-made idea to bolster egos. We humans have a talent to try to ignore reality. I don't think it's in the reading as many religious people are well educated and well read. I think it may be in the ego. - 16:55:37 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:On the Jesse Ventura thing, I understand he made these comments in Playboy mag. Does anyone know where to view these on the web? I checked out Papasam's idea but the articles were mostly about Jesse not supporting school prayer. - 16:57:49 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:The world is what we make of it. If we want to be meaningful, we will be. If we want to be neantherthal slugs, we can be that, too. I don't know why anyone would argue for mediocrity. People too easily forget how long it took us to get where we are today, but the overall history of humankind is one of pursuit for growth and achievement, even if it means learning from our countless mistakes. We can literally pick out the geniuses in history, the people that made the sacrifices to make their discoveries. It DIDN'T come from the majority. For example, it took Edison 1000 times to get the lightbulb to work, imagine if he gave up after 999, and how technologically further back we would have been if he didn't invent lightbulbs at that place and time. This isn't superiority, it's potential, and it can be combined with a substainable plan for our environment to keep us grounded with our surroundings from which we mutually co-exist. Faith in ourselves has gotten us this far, not skepticism. Since that's all we have, our continued growth, it's not worth "ignoring"; people are only deceiving themselves at their own cost. - 18:33:32 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Betty:Jumping right in, Josh I admire your bravery or whatever your motivation(s) are. It's ironic how on one hand people will argue against divine intervention and a "master plan", but then they will argue that random coincidences and "selfish" genes are the explanations for arriving at this stage of evolutionary growth, as if random mutations alone have allowed us to survive for so many millions of years. How could it be anything besides consciousness and the potential we've realized from consciousness? You're right, we can see its results. I don't think it was a coincidence that our ancestors crawled out of the ocean and adapted to the land environment,- they tried to do it, they're situations called for changes, they made changes, and then it was possible. Not all adaptations survived but the creatures that were persistent did. It's never the other way around. I also agree that the term New Age has been misused in here, but I don't think pointing out the flaws in the group dynamics here is a way of sharing ideas. I can understand your possible frustration with people like these, but attacking their pride in joining in together in a room like this would only make them recoil in defense. They're people with feelings, just like you and I. - 19:32:55 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:BETTY: O'no recoil, here. Just waitin'to see if this JOSH can say something in a way that might disclose what he is after. To my eyes, all I see and have seen for some time is an insulting, pretentiousness and a reccurence of what I'd say is sophmoric. If you noted it is my opinion we've seen his pet peeve topic. I've seen it said better by others. I am, and maybe some o'the others too, patiently waitin'to see if he'll be good or continue as he does. So far, perhaps, his communication skill or whatever they jist ain't to keen. - 19:57:44 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene..now I've seen everything:BETTY (or Josh's alter personality which seems to be a carbon of the original).....Who are you to "pick out flaws"? "Recoil in defense" get a life Josh..oops Betty! - 21:17:23 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene..the fragrance of ferns seems to be overwhelming today:Sheesh seems Betty and Josh or one and the same went to the same drama class together..."not a coincidence" sounds pretty ultra newagey to me,lol! - 21:21:15 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: You can't be serious! This JOSH would not do this other name thing to create his own fan club, would he/she? If the JOSH does, then he/she will get and deserve the laugh at that he/she so wants. - 21:22:26 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Betty- "People with feelings, too..." heh. Thanks, Betty. I see what you mean. The recoiling only spawns more hystericism. If you've been following, are you familiar with formative causation? - 21:35:13 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Nice to see that your "friend" Betty could join us! Meaningful to whom Josh? The only thing we could possibly be meaningful to is ourselves. Do you truly think the other animals think we are meaningful? Bet they don't see any difference between you and a neandtherthal. Meaning is a human idea. Yes, Josh, I agree we've learned a lot and are still learning and we do so to survive because otherwise we are a puny animal as compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. Instead of speed, excellent eye sight or flight we use out brains and it is a well accepted idea that our brains developed in our need to survive. - 21:37:40 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I'm trying not to laugh :) - 21:39:24 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"People are only deceiving themselves at their own cost." - 21:40:36 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene same old, same old:Formative causation? Here goes the 100th monkey thing again! - 21:44:22 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- I'm not talking about other animal perceptions, I was talking about sustainability. The meaning IS up to us, so why argue for mediocrity when history has shown such potential for humankind? If you study Maslow's hierarchy of needs, security is the basic foundation in leading to self-actualization. Once we master survival, our minds suit other purposes. - 21:45:57 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- If Betty isn't you (which I suspect) then she's another one of the Sheldrake cult. - 21:46:19 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Really! If the Earth were to be hit by an astroid right now and a few people survived and you were one of the ones that did. How do you think you'd fare? - 21:49:25 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: "For example, it took Edison 1000 times to get the lightbulb to work, imagine if he gave up after 999, and how technologically further back we would have been if he didn't invent lightbulbs at that place and time." ***that's right Josh, but you forgot to say "don't count you're chickens before they hatch". Before exposing all your "new age" rhetoric maybe some ground work in the form of old fashion laboratory and hard work would be in order.I get statements from some of the people you quote as saying they can't test things because the chemists are busy. Are they too busy reeling in the bucks to acually put this "new age" stuff to the rigors of scientific testing.So far all the results point to quackery, and that's the truth. - 22:42:22 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Have you read this book, it had a good review in the Boston Paper;Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials : The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety:Wendy Kaminer - 23:09:29 on 4 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- No, but I've just put it on my list. In fact I think it will priority. It sounds good. I guess what really gets me with Josh's posts are some of these claims of percentages and numbers. Although it's possible it took Edison a 100 tries at the light bulb, is that number actually fact? I did ask him to refer to a page or publication where all these other stats he comes up with are posted but he hasn't done that yet. I don't know why these chemists of Josh's can't find a lab, seems more like an excuse to me but then again even if they did find a lab, would they come up with a hoax like the cold fusion incident? - 3:25:35 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- How about Josh's oops..Betty's words of wisdom??? "but then they will argue that random coincidences and "selfish" genes are the explanations for arriving at this stage of evolutionary growth, as if random mutations alone have allowed us to survive for so many millions of years. How could it be anything besides consciousness and the potential we've realized from consciousness? " I suppose all the animals who have survived as long as we have or longer yet have "conscious potential" too. Notice too how Betty just "jumped" right in there to praise Josh. - 3:31:44 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:"conscious potential" is a pop word that's meaningless. Think about it; it's a wish, so if enough people follow it it must and will be true.Those are the general views; not at all rational but highly irrational behavior.What these people fail to realize is that a vision of a better world doesn't have to be all wound up in quackery.It only takes hard work and realism to see the fruits of a better world. - 3:51:58 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"I GET statements...", "I GUESS what really gets me..", "ARE they too busy REELING IN THE BUCKS..", "Before exposing all your "new age" rhetoric...", "How about Josh's oops..Betty's words of wisdom", "I SUPPOSE all the animals...", "If the JOSH does, then he/she will get and deserve the laugh at that he/she so wants." --- Every indication that I'm in a discussion room with ignorant, hysterical biases. - 3:58:59 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"Argue for your limitations, and you get to keep them." - Richard Bach - 3:59:50 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- It's not ideas that are a constant in survival but emotions. You're a survivor, lol! - 4:33:41 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: When I inscribe that this JOSH makes mountains out of molehills, it was after consideration of some whats and how he must have read the stuff he then dragged here. Here it's in his thinking- of his reading experience of pieces like the rupert piece, that he must first appeal for, to our imagination in order for any eventual discussion of his pet peeve. Why? I'd like to put forward that one of the things this JOSH did at reading the writings, he found somehow a satisfaction in the "gaps" of the writings. An example of this satisfaction, is the "gap" in his account of Edison's experiment of 1000 times. Was it exactly 1000 times that T.A.Edison engaged the similarly same act, and was it on the 1000th time TAE succeeded or was it on the 1001 act? I've read a thing or two on this ol'T.A.Edison, not a nice fellow and he used more than a lie or two to get his way into the books of time. Anyways, this JOSH has accepted as valid his reading and understanding the gaps. With the gaps not withstanding accuracy, per his imagination, this JOSH has essentially fabricated certain truths of the material he's read. And! for the pieces exactly as they are bound by the very words of the form- a paper URl site or book, which JOSH experienced, they are true. Elsewhere they are saying that a "WAR" is being waged against xianity! The most glaring recent such attack, the Ventura opine. Also, the NY painting issue. Hmmm? Whatever happened to that 95% o'USA saying they believe-in a godthing? Do the people who utter such statements, like the JOSH here, do all such views mean but to make mountains out of molehills? Or do these folk just gather and put together the stuff of and knock-down strawmen? - 15:16:40 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:There's not much to say except that you guys repeatedly shoot from the hip and not from a rational, objective standpoint. The theories I'm sharing are not mechanistic science. These theories describe the natural process of evolution through morphogenesis (how forms come into being), natural occurences that have been happening for millions of years. The evidence is there, (the eggs are aleady hatched) but where biology and "selfish gene" theories try to step in to theorize the processes behind these events, they are incomplete and guesses at the solution, respectively. Once again, scientific principles are man-made descriptions of natural processes and because we have been using the same principles for the last few hundred years we can finally see the limits, not the need to totally discard it, of its use. Systems thinking allows the inclusion of many different disciplines, which makes sense because well-rounded opinions are always more informed. Sheldrake's, Capra's, Bohm's theories, for example, are theories to describe the processes that aleady exist. The proof is in if they can satisfy an explanation that covers every aspect, with the knowledge of all the previous disciplines, of the phenomenon. It's the phenomenon that eludes us, not our individual theories. Morphic fields, also for example, is a theory that covers all levels of complexity, not just genes and consciousness. Read what I'm sharing, instead of looking for pointless debates. Because we are part of an inseparable web of relationships in many different levels, conventional science, which breaks things up into different categories of study, is floundering with it's ancient methods. Until we get to this understanding in here, you guys are fighting a dying war. --- Incidentally, Marlene, as I've explained to Joette, calling me a follower of the Sheldrake cult would be like equating you guys to the Cartesian-followers (from Descartes) cult; labels are pointless and do not get us anywhere. - 15:20:34 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- As I pointed out, it wasn't how many times Edison tried that made his discovery and himself important, it was the determination and persistence that proved his genius, and that's what made him stand out from the crowd- which shows the rareness of accomplishments and innovations that change our lives so much so that we can identify the individuals out of the crowd who made the difference. Your nit-picking is trivial, and not at all to the point I was making. It could have been 2000 times. Who cares? Edison did it. - 15:25:37 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You are of and for the inane. - 15:30:19 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:"I think this can be a more productive discussion room, unless this room is content that stagnation is something to be praised." - 15:35:29 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- You are absolutely correct. I entered "conscious potential" into a search engine and what do I get, a ton of pages under the New Age theme. - 15:45:04 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You lean your thinking on poor examples if as before when you wanted to use the fabled wright bruther thing as an example for something you wanted to put forward. Now you seem to want to use T.A.Edison as an example of something I guess you think dear, geniusness. If you've read about him, then you'd know how Edison stopped and prevented better kinds of lighting processes. The competition was intense but he curried the favor of more money sooner and better than makers of those other better products. They've come out since but no thanks to T.A.Edison or his ilk. Now, when you drag in such junk people, T.A.Edison was not for the better of and for humanity, I for one doubt, must seriously doubt, that you have a clear understanding of your views. You are of and for the inane. - 15:45:48 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Even though most of us don't buy into your ideas or theories if you prefer, your presence on this discussion has caused us to be much more aware of new age beliefs and how pseudo-science is seemingly deteriorating real science. - 15:49:57 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You bring up a good point there. Even though some of these inventors were very intelligent in the invention process, many were also not very good at all in other aspects of life. Some were lousy fathers, etc. etc. Josh does seem to supplicate to Capra and Sheldrake. What really is absolutely ineffective on this discussion are his quotes. - 15:58:06 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Science was deteriorating, that's where new age ideas were spawned - to cover the grounds science discarded. "But if we take 'new age' for it's literal meaning, then it would mean that the age we are in now is a temporary conventionalism and that there are those who are continually seeking to better our situations; plain and simple, these would be new-agers – politicians, scientists, poets, innovators, etc." The new age is coming, whatever it may be, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be discovery and growth. We'd be a bunch of neanderthal slugs, as some would like to argue for. - 15:59:43 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Edison at that point in time invented the lightbulb with persistence, which caused us to go further into a major technological future. His invention was of and for the betterment of humanity, whatever else he did that you disagree with politically, socially, or economically is not relevant. If he had a one-time good thing to offer, that's what counts because we still use it today. It's that simple. - 16:02:28 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Just once, I'd like to discuss the topics. Just once, please. - 16:07:40 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Heheh! you squirm like a worm. - 16:11:35 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- You're still looking for a war to fight. These aren't "my" theories, in the same way what you cling to are not yours. We build our opinions from a collective base of knowledge. Once in awhile, someone heads us in a new direction. However, any method, including mechanistic science, can be traced back to an individual or small group of discoverers. In the same way religionists are looking for their anti-christ with outrageous conclusions, using words like followers, cults, and singleing out people to attack instead of contemplating the issues, you'd make a good candidate for promoting separatism and elitism. You're like a little kid at the family gathering who's just dying to add something to the conversation, but instead of talking about the topics from a learned perspective, you wait for your family cousins (Doug and Carl) to offer their opinions or you peruse the internet articles look for any signs that you might disagree with it, regardless of whether you understand the article's information, and then you jump in and say things like, "I just knew it was that new age quackery all along," as a cover for true intellectual discoveries. So if you want to continue this way, your game is had. Comments like "Childish or not, you're still an asshole" reveal an incorrigible personality set on destruction. I don't know what causes all this aggression in you, but it's not something you should be displaying in here. I would like to discuss things in a rational. Please calm down. - 16:20:32 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Since conscious potential is not covered in conventional science, that would tend to lean to the fact that it is a new field, and would fit into new age ideas. Don't get caught up with the misuse of that word. "The main thing about being a new age person is being openminded to different possibilities and tolerant of the beliefs of others…. to equate the New Age with psychic phenomena is a limited and distorting view." - Just another limitation of conventional science. - 16:34:25 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: The topic I recall you brought here that was unique to you was "holism". In your 16:20:32 post to MARLENE you say or appeal for the rational. Then above in the post of T.A.Edison you "selectively" cling to a point of view. May we, or at least me, update the view of you and holism as a something now divorced? That idea of holism, refers to the entire thing, not just a certain part of it. There is no separation of the pieces one lesser or more than the other. Now, of the Edison thing did you, do you accept only that part of TAE that suits supports what you mean to attempt here? For the mind of the human organism, IMHO, it still makes use of the old as well as what it experiences now and for what it anticipates. What you seem to advocate here is ignore the old for a selectness of the now and that only as it is acceptable for your preferred anticipations. It is not the whole of a thing as it fits in the greater whole; that was the "holism" as Smuts wrote of it. You figger it is possible for the human organism to eat the elephant whole, to eat it a bite at a time now thats rational. Is that what you really mean? - 16:44:30 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- We can learn from Edison's mistakes, in the same way we learn from his discoveries. BUT what I said was that his political, social, or economic views were not relevant to that SPECIFIC topic. Yes, on a holistic level you don't separate anything, and disagreeing with other aspects of his life reveals yet another side of Edison that sort of humbles the idealistic view of genius that we are often taught, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was HIS discovery that led us into a new era. Again, we learn from mistakes as well as errors. You're looking for a war to fight as well and it's not getting us anywhere. - 16:52:10 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: No war, just pointing out your lack of thought and my consequent doubt of you and what you mean to advocate. - 16:57:07 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- I should also mention again that on a holistic level, the innovators are few and far between, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they are lacking in other areas, like social or economical arenas. But pack to the point, looking at the things that we use today or used to advance us further, we have to accept those innovators as the revolutionaries, the people that help us to see new ways to continually learn and grow, and not that no one is perfect. Evolution is a collective process, whether or not you believe it is a conscious interraction. The one thing we all share are our accomplishments and failures. - 16:59:39 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Your last comment resembles your offensive position, picking out words as you choose ("war") for attack positions, conveniently glancing over the rest of the paragraph for which your battle dissolves out of careless interpretation. - 17:20:32 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: so who is being careless, as I said I am not looking for a war. The posts I read here are your's that I reject. If you presented anything that was ok it would be so. You bring forward junk, like your examples of the wright bro.and edison. You are of the inane and for the inane. - 17:39:19 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: If I saw correctly "holism" by Smuts and a few others is not a matter of levels as you seem to think and see that it can be portrayed; your 16:59:39 post to Carl. If it has meaning it would begin with that of redirecting one's semantics from the Platonic thing of stairways and "upward" ideas, to the quantum notions whereof there maybe no here no there no up no down no lesser no greater. Levels, the only folk who like this kinda semantics are religious, you kno'the ones, heaven is up hell is down. Gads you musta'been one ragin'religious fundamentalist. - 18:59:53 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Holism as it is used is a perception for gathering the most well-rounded position. Everything serves a purpose in this respect in certain levels of complexity. Genes for example are one of the basic elements of our bodies but they influence our entire holistic makeup. The U.S.'s population uses something like 15% of the earth's resources with only something like 5% of the world population (I say 'something' as a rough figure, but that's not the point here anyway). On a small scale, most individuals maintain a level of consumerism high above subsistence living, and as a nation compared to the whole world we are using far and beyond the earth's capacity to recycle it's supplies. Holistic perceptions are only useful, like anything else, if we have something to compare them to. I'm still talking about progress, not some happy, euphoric new vision to make everything seem perfect and simple. Holistic perceptions give each of us better and more well-rounded opinions. That's the way they are best used. - 19:52:52 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Smuts' book was written how many yeara ago? And what do Lovelock and Margulis say nowadays? Sometimes theories have a few kinks to be worked out. That's what we call progress and growth and learning. Don't fall victim to association. Smuts may have started the idea, but there are many other contemporaries to choose from. - 20:00:48 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Speaking of association, there is something else I'd like to point out. People like Marlene often like to associate themselves with other "authority" figures to an obvious dilemma. People like Carl Sagan, Stephen Gould, and even the Vic Stenger's of this world have actually taken into their personal agenda that humans are not "meaningless", their books, researches, and other projects, are what give these people meaning- a drive to succeed and progress humankind. And the reason we can identify them is because of their works and their motivations; They have done things. So in this respect, it's funny to watch people like Marlene sit in their armchairs gathering information off the internet and making her worldly decisions, which is no doubt where and how the term 'armchair warrior' was coined, fully content in her gathered opinions and that others will respect this lack of personal responsibility because she can gather in a discussion room with people just like her. It's similar to the way sports fanatics associate their respective teams' winnings and successes as their own personal gains, but then turn on the team the moment they fail them. --- This was an example of materialistic labeling and reductionist methodology, and although it was temporarily fun and it points out one of the major stumbling blocks in here, it doesn't solve anything, and it doesn't progress the discussion. In fact, the most it does give is personal superficial pride and satisfaction to the first person who can come up with the best labels for other people. Some other labels used in here: Doug (new age quackery), Carl (you are of and for the inane). There is nothing attained by placing value on this kind of methodology. It makes us all cynical elitists. As I have expressed, in order to rid ourselves of this crisis in perception, we have to devalue mechanistic methodologies and reductionistic and materialistic perceptions because of their harmful, superficial, ignorant, generalizing, and de-humanizing elitist qualities. I will say again, faith in ourselves has caused us to progress, not skepticism. - 20:43:01 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: If you hadn't been so pretentious as to assume you were on to some new idea, and foolishly titled yourself a teacher, by now a few good lines o'communication coulda'transpired. For my part I've yet to see anything substantive of the idea, holism. It looks to be at best, either a way just to speak pleasantly; as if you are a know it all. Or its sort of like a term meant to fit within the mind of a common man; instead o'metaphysics. As for the Smuts thing, I've never seen that name referred to by any who linked themselves to the holism thing. Like you who it seems seek to exorcise the past from now for the future, these new folks must figger history, science in particular, ain't nothing but a point of view by a select few. History- as you've read, depends on who tells the story to determine good from bad, the hero from the knave, thats why I wasn't impressed by your spin here. If you are a reader and truely a fan o'man, then its all good. This manthing as we know it, you know, has been doing its thing for a mere 13,000 years. Prior to that it was probably a mere animal. Your presentation of the word game of holism, is unsuitable. I repeat, you say nothing so far that I've not seen said aaceptably better by others. That doesn't mean it, holism, is true just that it is easier to contemplate. - 21:13:54 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You really are an idiot. I mean that in the greek understanding which is that of someone who knows and speak of things no one else knows. Its almost as you want to say you have wings, instead of a god-issued soul. Of the latter its safe to say these so-sayers are delusional, you however are merely an idiot. - 21:31:40 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Does it seem like this JOSH treats the folks we know of as though the reader and the author are one? But where this JOSH is concerned, now he is just a conveyor of these other people he drags before us for consideration? It is almost as if this JOSH attempts to absolve himself of any rejection but nevertheless this JOSH stands ready to receive anything positive of these other people. Its almost as if this JOSH means to restrict us, and necessarily so as its beginning to appear, we must resrtict what we can say to only what is read of these pieces. If we say bad things then its 'cuz we don't understand, if its good then its thanks to this JOSH. Does this JOSH mean but to set-up a win-win situation for himself? Is he just doing or attempting one of those ego things you mentioned? - 23:00:24 on 5 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Josh is a dwreb! JOSH- Sheesh aren't you the picture of insecurity! I also am starting to believe that Carl has something to this inane thing. An open mind is fine but not so open as to let anything in and let anything fall out. If I were you, I'd backtrack on the claim that Stenger feels humanity has some meaningful purpose in the universe. I think he'd sue you for character assination, lol! Anyhow I have the grandaughter out for a few days so..ta ta! - 1:13:21 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I come home late and Josh is at it again.Slick promotions aren't a substitute for hard work.As usual Josh fails to produce any evidence or be tied down to quackery. He wants to seem respectable to gain converts and only then will the pseudoscience and quackery be wheeled out.One thing real science has that Josh's system of quackery doesn't is integrity.Real science is layed out for all to judge it expects intellegent criticisms. - 2:13:05 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: "Genes for example are one of the basic elements of our bodies but they influence our entire holistic makeup." **** ok smart guy; explain in laymans language what in hell you are talking about.Explain how holistic would be different from using "physical"makeup. - 2:38:21 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:HEY COUSIN DOUG- Isn't that they way all nutcases attract cult members? I think I've had it with Josh's (as our cousin Carl would say) inane tactics. Yawn! Grandaughters can really wipe a person out, lol! - 3:10:22 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So this JOSH just wants a discussion? It looks like this JOSH does not clearly grasp the simple matter of fact that any discussion is a packaged deal. That deal includes the person who puts forward a discussion topic as well as the topic for discussion. For me, I cannot accept the JOSH and as for the topic, it could have gone forward were it not for the "rules" that this JOSH wanted for that kind of discussion. This JOSH wanted me us to discount how I knew things. I've never been religious but I've read that of the western world views this being science and religion, to a mind are very similar. Absent from science tho'are the religious connotations for god spirits souls, etc. The science as I know it,[fr.latin-scire"to-know" and scienta"knowledge"] for this JOSH's topic science was to be a lesser than before if not outright unimportant. Now, having read dark ages accounts, to me this JOSH apparently has a personal want if he must prescribe- as done in dark age times, that I and others must disregard or restructure what is meaningful to me us, that in order to accomodate his topic or is just his views? This merely clouds the issue. If anything, this JOSH is not a complete politician, yet. This JOSH is not a very thoughtful nor respectful person. His topic as far as I dare say its all just a matter of induction, this can be the only cause for the inability of this JOSH to present a clear explanation of his holism, and what he's after. Is it just a ego trip on which this JOSH imagines himself to be, wierd. - 17:12:26 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Looks the famed 'blue-grass' state o'Kentucky leans at bein'another god-fearin'group of people. They therein are'bout to delete the word evolution from its school texts. They'll substitute the phrase passage in time, and some other such phrases. I guess these folks are going to ignore or pretend that the findings in certain realms of science that are best worded as an evolution, didn't occur or never happened? Or, how will those findings be described, in books used in that state? Does that state mean to make school text book publishers to censor that word, but words are a tool of human thought! In the world of thought, an "explanation of a word is of interest to us in so far as it justifies the usage." Will these folks choose another explanation and will its composition have an appropriate meaning? These theists are in a tough place, a thinking mind crys out for reason and cause. Science- of which comes the word evolution, is a system of and for such relations. It's the result of a deductive thinking process, so say thinker writer science types, and for me that is far better than invisible gods, spirits, souls and a host of names of dead humans. - 19:53:47 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Betty:Yes, Josh, I am aware of formative causation, but based upon the reactions in here to the material, not whatever problems people may have with you, this is not the best environment to share these views. The average person on the street is caught up in worldly illusions of solid objects and forms as their idea of reality (I saw your quote from Richard Bach, so I'm sure you are a fan of the book Illusions). I would love to discuss this further with you, but in some other place and some other time. I'm sure your energies could be spent in more productive ways. TTFN (Ta Ta For Now) - 19:57:40 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Oh great. With Betty gone, now I'm back to having no friends in here. heheh. (just kidding) - 20:34:08 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- In layman's terms, 'physical' makeup describes how we look, but it doesn't describe all of us which is largely determined by our genes, including tendencies for certain personalities and now some people think sexual preference, too, just to name two things. Physical, or empirical evidence, doesn't include everything. This is the limitations I'm speaking of. - 20:38:21 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- This is another case I could argue for your armchair warrior tactics: "I also am starting to believe that Carl has something to this inane thing." Leave cousin Carl out of your decision-making. - 20:40:54 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Quite simply, deductive reasoning, subtracting things into bits and pieces from the whole assemblage, is narrow-minded by its very nature. Deductive reasoning cannot describe the universe at large, or at least, the totality events that make up our humankind and life on this planet. This, this my friend, is a human egoism to believe that everything can be broken down into human terms. This is the same kind of thinking that has led others to believe in gods, spirits, souls, wings and whatever else you mentioned so that the world will seem more manageable. I think what I'm seeing here is a perceived feeling like I am attacking you and your beliefs, but you didn't invent reductionism or materialism or mechanistic science, so I don't see any reason to take responsibility for your feelings of being restricted or that I am after some personal goal - those are your perceptions. Reductionism, materialism, etc..These were learned things, and like any learned thing, the test and strength of these things is how well they can adapt to ALL situations. Mechanistic science declared itself the victor (or awaiting victor) before all the answers to the universe were solved, and that is it's fault. The values associated with these kinds of beliefs have permeated our culture for hundreds of years, but that does not make them the only source for truth. Holistic perceptions are not reducible, and this may be the problem in here. You can't disclude certain experiences or thoughts or ideas just because you don't like them, because all of these are part of reality, including the majority of the world's tendencies for religious beliefs, and also whatever fits into the category of new age. Realizing the limitations of human terms, you will begin to appreciate and feel compassion for all perspectives, not just the ones that make you feel good. I saw these boundaries in here as in most people, and like I said, I shared these feelings before as well, and I think it's important to realize why we believe the things we do, and it's not always for the best reasons. Whole, holism, all, everything - always look at the big picture. Don't disclude the fact that your own perceptions, yes, even the ones you may have held all your life, might be getting in the way - sometimes you have to step out of yourself (metaphorically) to understand who and what you are. Take it or leave it, but don't blame the misunderstanding on me, please. - 21:01:02 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: So genes determines the supernatural according to your fugacious answer.Where is the proof of your statement.Or is it word salad again, Josh(a meanningless trite assemble of words).Josh please provide evidence for your statements. I've never seen any evidence that genetics is determined by non-emperical "forces" (?). - 21:27:27 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:I was watching TV with my grandaughter this afternoon, a show called _Power Rangers_, it seems they are heavy into the morphic thing too. - 21:37:36 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Blood is thicker than water so the old saying goes and if I lean toward cousin Carl's opinions well, then...I will and won't and don't give a flying $%^& what you think about it. Now about these personality tendencies and sexual preferences. Genes determine our chemical makeup and our chemical makeup determines our predisposition toward certain personality makeups and sexual preferences. I would say that's physical. The physical explanation includes everything. - 21:47:43 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOES ANYONE ever read Josh long drawn out posts? - 21:48:57 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: This JOSH, a.k.a.betty, is one sick puppy. Made me kinda sick to see that we others have been dealing with this, this dementia- thanks to holism, this psychosis of complementing his\her self, this whoever whatever. Wow! GRANT snagged a winner w/this individual. Now if you others don't mind, I'm gonna leave this individual to you and how you choose to handle that individual. kinda'disgusting - 21:58:51 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Or visa versa "I've never seen any evidence that genetics is determined by non-emperical "forces" (?)." I've never seen any evidence that non-emperical "forces"(?) are determined by genetics. Sheeet I've never seen any evidence for non-emperical "forces"(?) either.So start describing and providing proof that these forces exist if you wish to continue this line of conversation. - 21:59:31 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Carl,:MARLENE: hey cuz, howz Canada? - 22:01:08 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Yes they can be such twits in their delusions."The emperor has no clothes."Don't forsake your grandchildren for Josh's mind salad of delusions.I have a Aunt who has always been into this type of quackery.Even though she is great to be around, my patience wears thin with the new age(they used to call it something else)being pumped at you. They easily get offended by anyone asking pertinent questions about their beliefs.Josh thinks he is taking the intellectual road, but he is only camouflaging it's emptiness of sophisticated though. - 22:18:20 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- It be freezin' up here! DOUG- My grandaughter is having a bubble bath right now. We just came in from a walk to the river. We almost froze! I think it must be 0 at the most. I bet we have a little snow tonight again. Back to the Josh nonsense, I think people who were into this crap years ago were labeled NUTS! Today, with our politically correct, nice society, they are tolerated maybe even half-assed believed. I think this political correctness and fern-sniffing logic (an oxymoron BTW) may have started with my generation of the 60's. We were just so loving and sometimes just so screwed, we wanted a perfect world and all we thought we had to do is create it. - 23:27:43 on 6 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Not snow! So soon, we haven't even had an indian summer yet.We still have green leaves on most trees, but the peak color will be in another two weeks.Back in 1979 it snowed the 2nd week in October, but the winter was very mild with no snow.Also in the 80's we had 12 inches the third week of October, but it warmed up into the late 80,s for the next two weeks; so I had to rake my leaves after all.Yes self delusion is what these people want, Josh even said so. If enough people believe it, it will be true(paraphrase). I can't figure out why they need the supernatural to make their "better" world.It only makes them out as not being grounded in reality. - 1:48:08 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I fail to understand it the need too. What irks me are the people who so forcefully push this crap onto others. Ministers, pastors, priests, newage gurus like Josh....it irks me! Take for instance, Ricky who posts here. He's a believer but accepts his beliefs are owned by him, not that everyone else should buy into them. Ricky I can like. - 2:21:51 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Do you think that Albert Einstein would be rolling over in his grave at what Josh is saying about his theory.********* "Although I cannot believe that the individual survives the death of his body, feeble souls harbor such thought through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Albert Einstein]******** "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]****** "The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Albert Einstein]****** Ole Albert thinks Josh is a weak individual and full of confusion.Spiritualism; that's what they used to call the new age quackery. - 2:32:05 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: here is another scientist that Josh loves to insinuate supports his new age quackery.****"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." [Stephen J. Gould]****** "The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]*****Gee, Josh's "Holistic" view wants to put us at the central focal point, controling matter through our thoughts and genes with quantum quackery. Stephen J. Gould would say Josh is full of petrified dinosaur poops. - 2:40:45 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Josh:Good. Now no one can say I didn't try. You guys argued for stagnation and you get to keep it. No loss to me. - 15:10:21 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- And you argued for absurdity and you get to keep that! No loss to me, in fact I've never owned it. - 15:35:56 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: There are some in the media still voicing objections to J.Ventura's religious weak-minds comment. I view a tv program with a letter segment, one ltr.writer asked the Host whose sales line goes something like, evidence and proof say it best, got a ltr.inquiring of his position on the godthing. The host always says that "intelligent" people know the godthing, those that don't simply, he says, are stupid. the ltr.writer asked the host for his "evidence and proof" of the godthing. The host came back with the designer point of view as his response, and also took-on the groveling thing of the pelagian heresy, to further complement his "opinion". That is all he did, no proof no evidence. But! The hardness of him- his blank eyes and frozen posture, in that verbal state, when compounded with others who say similarly, can only preclude their clear reasoning and rigorous thought. MARLENE mentions the softness of mind as allowing the likes of stuff said as exemplified by this JOSH, well I suspect hardline speakers as that host would actually allow the likes of JOSH to say whatever, just because it is meaningless. Awhile back, I was looking at atheism as it is in and o'the western world, the USA as an example, asking if the "Atheist" fully- of the all, has thought of what they mean to deny. Even further back, I asked of the USA, does it really think, that in regard to the WJC stuff. That too, was an example of part of the all. Perhaps it can be asked what deed is for the good of the All? Fern sniffing, good image, says completely of meaninglessness. How is that different from a saying that one,"believes-in" a godthing? At least the Canadians still have a human-link to things with a monarchy that implys- does it not, having a complete soveriegnty for them the individual? To be an atheist there, does that somehow mean the monarchy is thrown onto the heap of meaninglessness too? - 15:41:13 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Of RICKY, he's an intellectual giant, a breath o'fresh air compared to, well you know who. Cold there, eh? Sunshine here, your gran'grubs would like a frolic along the beach, I bet. - 15:49:56 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: More, of deeds for the good of All. For a good while now attention has been focused on the immorality of WJC, consequently other things were relegated to lesser light. There were and are many things that ought to be thought of and discussed. While the theist types press forward their cause it is allowed by the likes o'WJC and that ilk, only because that will recieve a spotlight. A few days ago I mentioned the chip-implant idea going around. I also mentioned the action being contemplated by the Cantucki folks, of deleting the word evolution from the public eye. Then, a few nights ago I see this tv-commercial for a door on the FoxNews station. I don't recall if you've said how things are where you are but near where I live cops regularly bust thru doors of what "they say" are drug houses. Coincidently, they break into the houses where the dark people are the predominant race. My point, that door commercial showed cops with a battering ram mistakenly going to crash thru that door. Somebody? must but mean to desensitise a concern and make it seem "normal" that cops do this. I found that alarming, what was that all about? - 17:32:09 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I saw a commercial like that too only there was a white family at this one. Speaking of my gran'grub..we were in the local cafe having fries. In the corner there was a doll with wings, I suppose it was supposed to be an angel. Anyway Shae asked me if it was a bee girl. I of course said yes, lol! Great how little kids minds work, very logical. I love the idea of a bee girl! - 22:57:01 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yup! The monarchy is just as meaningless as god is to me. I had to LOL at your comment of the blank look on these religionists' faces. It always reminds me of a cow watching at passing train. I guess Doug must have out argued poor little Josh. It looks like he's stomped his feet and headed off to a morphic field. Maybe he can join the cows... - 23:01:17 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Since I have cows on the brain right now. The Canadian Blood Services sent me a letter telling me that if I've spent any amount of time in the England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales that I won't be able to donate blood. The reason, there "might" be a possibility of spreading mad cow disease. If anyone has followed this whole pile of bovine $%^&, the whole of Europe has this peoblem yet CBS isn't banning blood from the rest of the "common market". How about the US, same restricition? The good news for CBS is, the majority of Canadians can't afford a movie and a trip to McDonalds let alone trips. - 23:24:35 on 7 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Are you saying that if you ever have visted The UK they will refuse to take your blood?I went over in 1982, so my blood is suspect?Are they stopping you from stocking up your own blood for your operation. - 1:45:46 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Although CBS won't bank our blood for use for ourselves, if one has a hard to match type then some hospitals will allow it. The page I left is on the other questions you asked. - 3:53:40 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: You have spent a total of 6 months time in the UK from 1980 to present? ****"Canadian Blood Services will defer blood donors who have spent a cumulative total of six months or more in the U.K. from 1980 to the present. The time period is ongoing because there continue to be new reported cases of BSE in cattle."***I don't understand the 6 months thing, why not anyone who has ever visited the UK between those dates if it is a real concern.I heard that someone got it from eating a hamburger, so how is 6 months stay going to keep hamburg eaters from being potential disease speaders.It all seems to be an over blown issue. - 4:18:23 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Good point but I just bet Health Canada didn't think of that, lol! Point is much of that same beef was being eaten in Europe seeing as they are all part if the common market over there. English beef was traded just as the US and Canada trade beef and pork. Other countries also feed cows the same sheep brains in Europe. I think who business had to do more with business than with health. Why are these countries also in this ban? - 4:31:33 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Yikes, I must be getting tired. "I think the whole business" and "Why aren't" - 4:33:43 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: i see your point about the ban.***New case of mad cow disease detected in France 6.54 p.m. ET (2254 GMT) July 30, 1999 PARIS — A new case of mad cow disease has been reported in France, officials said Friday, bringing to 16 the number of cases detected this year. A milk cow in the central region of Puy-de-Dome was found to be infected with the disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The farm's herd of 40 cattle will be slaughtered this weekend, authorities said. Since 1990, 65 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported in France. The disease causes holes in the brain, making cattle stagger and drool. There is no known cure. Scientists believe mad cow disease could be linked to an equally fatal human brain ailment, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. © 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Fox Market Wire.***I t is the ultimate act of stupidity to ban only one nation when there are many more nations that have active cases of the disease. - 4:44:43 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: The USA is considering the exact same stupidity, were did they get those numbers from.What about all the other countries that have reported the disease, makes one want to shake some sense into our public officals.*****FDA votes 12 to 9: no more nvCJD blood 2 June 99 Associated Press By LAURAN NEERGAARD Comment (webmaster): This was an expected step. Now 6 months total visitation to the UK is not science-based but rather designed not to impact blood product exports and elective surgery, sort of like excluding pigs from the downer cow ban. Perhaps 1 month would make more sense. This should have been accompanied by a call for dramatically increased spending on diagnostic and therapeutic research but it was not according to the story. If the US had spent 5% of its recall budget on research over the years, this disease would now be in the same category as smallpox. Of course if 23% of the blood donors for the last 15 years have been exposed, what is accomplished with a limited ban now? It sounds like a half-measure along the lines of what England did in the early days. What might be the scientific basis for the panel's reassurances to at-risk donors, "their vote did not mean that frequent travelers to Britain are at risk of getting a fatal illness linked to mad cow disease" -- why exclude them if they are not at risk?...If it does so in this case, it must decide how long someone had to stay in Britain to be deemed enough of a risk to refuse their blood. That's crucial because an American Red Cross study found almost 23 percent of recent blood donors had traveled to Britain at least once between 1980 and 1996. If the FDA barred them all, the United States would face a critical blood shortage.***Ah, it's in the numbers. - 5:06:34 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

MAD COW......:There is an enormous resistance in accepting what is highly undesirable. Ideological prejudice maybe so strong as to exclude all unwelcome information. Propaganda campaigns that are geared to these aims invariably succeed. There is a wall of silence as the masses are kept in the dark. It is possible that three quarters of the British population will die during a relatively short time span after the Mad Cow associated disease incubation period. The problem will be, how to incinerate 45 or so million as they fall. At the end of the day, big figures become statistics and statistics have no psychological impact. All events slip quickly into history. Stalin was responsible for 55 plus million earlier this century. Almost forgotten. Foreigners toboot. Peasants at that. Long way away. The rest of the world will look at the British problem with short thrift other than what can be be gained once the Chunnel has been reopened at the end of the quarantine period. The looming British problem presents less dilemmas. With lots of air and heat and a constant supply of corpses, the burning fat is enough to evaporate the water content. The energy required to mechanically granulate the hip and other large bones is minimal. The uncontaminated pulverised remains can be used for a good cause such as fertiliser pellets for say, Africa. Prices will plummet. A beautiful Hampstead house (pronounced hiese) will fetch small change. Thanks to the EEC agreements, the Germans will march down Whitehall mit back pack renaming streets as they go. Soon, English will no longer be spoken anywhere in Europe. Pendulums sure swing. Bovril was taken off the worldwide market after a short unsuccessful "No British Ingredients" campaign. - 12:33:43 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene..:MAD COW- What! No more Bovril! Just think, the River Thamestein! Or Lunger! Or Reimer Cathedral! Or...No more beef pudding but cabbage borsch or peppernuts, yuck! - 14:39:17 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The commercial I saw projected the same sort of image. Not a family, just a non-minority fellow answering the door, the house number was upside down. I found the 'cuteness' of the dialogue insidiously misleading. That also had me doubting the commercial for "a-door' company as a real concern. Cops about to break down a door, just ain't cute, its dangerous. Its dangerous because that is what cops do now. So if that kind of cop action can be portrayed within a benign setting, if the regular john doe hears about such an event, no thought will happen. Why not? With that commercial john doe can psychologically dismiss whatever really happens. TV and movies are psychological devices for use agin'people. What is device-like about it, lighting effects and its'associative dialogue. Remember the early Star trek series, its opening dialogue of going where man has never gone before, or something so? That was thunk-up and conveniently coincidently went along with, recall, JFK's stated plans to go to the moon. Then the political interest air in the USA/hollywood changed. Space became a place of war agin'evil and a place to be conquered. Is it likely that as a place of evil- the image and words in the public mind, most space research was maybe put on hold. Recall Sagans book made movie, "Contact"? It was different from the book. Lights and the associative words, very influential on a religiously beguiled mind already swirling with myths and tales of fantasy out of mind. - 15:26:55 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:CBS: Followed the link checked out its assorted sites and didn't see any mention of the Arkansasan connection. Was it an actual deed or just an exptrapolation of something insignificant? - 16:16:38 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Of that JOSH, who as an example, if he could have but presented some real stuff for his views a discussion could have been engaged and effectively bypassed the problem of his personality. Afterall, for the most part I can, most of us can, at least appreciate a well thought out idea made relevant with some soundly considered and supportive examples. Some of the observations that I posed of that JOSH were of from some theory's of education. Was that JOSH a smart individual- maybe, stupid- at times, confused- a wider reading would probably help, religious- here I'd say a definite yes. What it looked like to me was that that JOSH had just replaced his pie-in-the-sky rearing with another version of, this time a something bigger but still more responsible and out there, and very available for the shortcomings of the human creature. The self invention process that the human creature does, will just go on. - 16:51:33 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know. The fact that the tainted blood was received from a US prison wasn't a popular topic here. The problem was the testing. The Red Cross who was in charge of the blood supply at the time, obviously didn't test it because many people became infected with HIV and HepC. Testing is now carried out on every donation as it should be. - 18:56:12 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- So where your going with that commerical is that it desensitises people to the reality of the situation? - 18:59:52 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: affirmative. The only image and impression that a john doe now has is that tv-commercial of a benign setting. The response is nil or just a oh yea! and then the virtual-image of that tv-commercial comes to mind. The john doe just goes on with his life without another thought on or about the being of it as it is a real event. The real event has cops exercising and applying force on anybody. I think such images are fabricated with a purpose. I suspect that critical thinking among individuals is being tended to as in, well no matter. - 19:34:51 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene: But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14. Interesting verse! - 20:59:38 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene..a natural woman :UNKNOWN POSTER- There are a lot of interesting verses in the bible..like in Kings where the god sends a she bear to mangle little children because they laughed at a bald man. And that verse you quoted is not so interesting but true because a naturally healthy individual feels no need for the abnormal. A healthy adult has no need to create a parental apparition and to attibute supernatural superior powers to it. A healthy adult can accept their human limitations and the limitations of the physical universe. I wonder just how healthy the adult was who made up the myth of a revengeful god taking out his anger over embarrassment on little children. - 21:41:43 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Carl:Yes, I agree that Josh's ideas weren't at all thought out.He has a problem in trying to cover up those ideas of his(and others), because of (maybe a fear) the criticisms that would result in it being analyzed.Josh has blind faith in his new age nonsense. - 23:20:47 on 8 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:It's Turkey Day on Monday in Canada, what do you USAers do for Columbus Day? - 3:06:46 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Too bad Josh has retired to the ole morphic field. I was checking out ART BELL's page tonight (because I always get get a kick out of it) and discovered Whitley Strieber"s website. This is what I found there. I would imgine Josh would have found communion with him, lol.."New Quantum Weirdness Theory Stuns Physics Physicist Mark Hadley of the University of Warwick claims that he has solved the problem of quantum weirdness. Particles at the subatomic level remain in a fuzzy state called "superposition" until something affects them, whereupon they instantly focus into a definite form. They may also be 'entangled' or connected in some way that causes particles separated over long distances to change either other's condition at speeds faster than light. It has been theorized that the change in a particle from the fuzzy uncertain state to certainty could be caused by the application of a measuring tool, or even by the simple fact that it has been noticed by a conscious, aware mind. Hadley theorizes that there exist kinks in space-time that he calls "geons." Inside a geon, a particle will be instantly affected not only by the present, but also by events in the future and the past. "Measurement is simply an abrupt change in the topology of space-time," Hadley explains. Another physicist asks an incredibly important question: "If the direction of time can change on a quantum scale, why can't it change in the large- scale Universe?" - 3:18:17 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:I'll be away for a week. Ya'll don't break anything. We're on autopilot. :-) - 15:35:30 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Well, we sleep late and look at the foliage.Mumbling about how we're going to have to rake this mess up soon, LOL! - 17:03:55 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Well we eat. The turkey is thawing, the pumpkin pies are in the oven and I'm about to make buns. I'll thank Revenue Canada for not taking all my money so this is made possible. - 18:44:32 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- The only person who thinks he can break this thing is out in the morphic field pouting. Unless of course he uses his conscious on the qm level and think his geons to vapourize this page. - 18:47:27 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:I picked up SI and Skeptic today. On speed-reading the topics I came across an article as to _Why People Use Fake Quotes_ It basically states that people use fake quotes because "humans have a strong tendency to want the great to agree with them (and the "evil" people to agree with their opponents). I would imagine that people also do this with real quotes. Remind us of anyone? - 19:15:44 on 9 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Have you heard of "mad Josh disease" Some of the symptoms are blind faith in superstitions and quoting famous people out of context. - 3:59:40 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Maybe the CBS will banned all fern-sniffers who's fodder comes from the morphic field. - 4:36:07 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:I had some time to read _Skeptic_ last night. One of the scientists mentioned a very good point. Using scientific words to explain science can be a turn off for those who are interested but find the words confusing. She used the example of learning about "botany" or "plants and flowers". - 11:18:59 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: what page is that on.I agree that scientific terminology is a turn off, but science needs it's own language.You will notice that the most successfully popular science writers used both, laymans and scientific.Some of the best scientific conferences that I've been to use both also with plenty of visual aids.But we would rather spend the money on arms than teaching aids for our own children in our society.The conservatives try so hard to make you feel like a parasite if public money is spent for any education beyond the bare bone basics, an exception is religion. Now I know Canada's school children fare alot better that The USA'S children when it comes to mathematics and science. - 17:05:06 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Your right, science writers or scientists with good communication skills can explain science so we lay people can understand it. These are the people who truly want others to understand what they are talking about. There are others, though, who couldn't care less or even some that use scientific words to support a theory that has no evidence. For instance Josh comes along with all these buzz words used to support his nonsense and tries to sound learned. To someone who believes science is above their understanding, he/she may say, "well maybe he's right, science is all Greek to me". We need people like yourself to call people like Josh on how they use these terms and are these terms actually suitable to what he's attaching them to. - 19:19:43 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Hmmmmm...I wonder where Betty went? - 23:30:59 on 10 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:Found it on page 12.Yes, Josh tried to bull his volcabulary past everyone.As I said before most people will agree with you if they don't understand the words, for fear of being though of as dumb.Josh trys to make associations with real scientists writtings and speaches to connect to his "new age junk". now that may work with the coffee house crowd, but skeptics are a stubborn group. We tend to ask too many questions and like to dissect thoughts like Josh's as standard fare.Betty ,"may the quartz go with you." - 2:10:25 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Well, I just finished watching the Sunday night NBC movie called _A Touch of Hope_. Did anyone else watch it and what's your opinion of it? It's supposedly a true story and I see Dean Kraft has also written a book on "how to lay on hands". - 3:01:45 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:OH, BTW the turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie were umm-umm good. Too bad you Americans have to wait another month yet, lol! - 3:03:20 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Did you notice the Sheldrake thing at the back of _Skeptic_? Did I understand it right, Sheldrake thinks there are not enough blind experiments? - 3:08:27 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Ooops! I'm sorry! The Sheldrake thing is in the back of SI. Do you have that too? - 3:16:02 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:No I only have Skeptic this month. I'll have to go and get a copy of SI tomorrow if it has and article about our buddy Sheldrake.What issue is it in? - 3:31:35 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: "A Touch of Hope" I didn't see the show but why is it that these people never go into hospitals and cure all of the patients especially the children suffering from cancer. Sorry, I don't buy it. I wish it were so easy and true, like many things in our world the truth is cold and cruel. Hope(cure) comes out of study and hard(smart) work. - 3:37:54 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- All there is in SI is a small article by Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt on the objectivity of science. On the Dean Kraft thing, like you, I'm very skeptical about his involvment in any of the cures that took place when he was around. There was a lady diagnosed with LG disease but who's to say the diagnosis was correct, it could have been psychological anyway supposedly when he laid his hands on her she was able to walk. There was a little girl in a coma and supposedly he brought her out of it. We all know that coma patients sometimes just wakeup. - 14:18:10 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: While checkin'out the world, looks the state o'New Mexico chose to disregard 'creationism' in its public school system. Now the religious folk are gonna cry foul in that that state is against their freedom of religion, which has to be xianity since they are the ones who accept that collection of ancient quasi-Hebrew myths and superstitions. I wonder it was that spurred those ancients to say whatever they first said that led to the thing the xians say is their holy scripture. - 14:51:35 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: One of the unreal facts that the writer/thinkers of the USA constitution couldn't clearly anticipate, when they thunk-up freedom o'the press and speech, was 220 million people sayin'something. Of this same number it was also not clearly before those thinker\writers that science and religion would still be an issue. With so many wanting to say their piece, today others- reader/listners, are best self-served if educated in ways of matters as never before. I read an article that could have been written by only a religiously minded person. How did I come to this opinion? Well, it states that there are a number of scientists who are beginning to accept the young earth theory. They do so because things of light are being worded in such a way that look like it is probable- or something so, that the speed of light in the beginning was faster than it is now, in fact they "believe" light is slowing down. These people, like the attempts of the visitor JOSH, mean to create doubt but it would be in the most basic and fundamental feature that serves science as I know it, maybe as we know it, which is the notion of the speed of light. I for one have never seen this speed o'light thing. Just as I have never seen or heard a god, jc, a image o'the vm, a holy ghost, no angels, no devils, no incubi, secubi, spirits or voices o'the dead, etc. At the godless zone site was a person who said he saw how that speed was ascertained, he said an"array o'mirrors" were involved. I told him I saw D.Copperfield use an"array o'mirrors" and go thru the great wall o'China. So, to those here or those who say they do\accept the science thing, did you see the speed of light in such a way that satisfied you as proof that it really is 186,000+mps? That is the source of the doubt that gives a-theism a mental life that that article writer aims at. If you can withstand that kind of assault that calls for a unilateral honesty, what is your answer? This brings to mind the piece I read composed by a chinese thinker/writer who pointed to the similarities of western man's science and religion. In view of the things written by that chinaman, it is easier to percieve the whys and hows that the xian-religion can so easily and rationally instill a point of view. Whats-up? - 20:01:32 on 11 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Carl:We have been able to slow the speed of light down to MPH miles per hour by cooling the temp. to near absolute zero.I'm sure the young earthers will jump on this as proof. But they fail to prove the "cold fusion" of the big bang.Now if we could speed up the speed of light, it wouldn't prove the bible but would radically change the way we understand the universe.If the speed of light can be slowed down because of near absolute kelvin temps it would point to a older universe, because we have been measuring light at a much faster constant(in other words we are using much to fast a rate to measure distances, instead of a slower rate having greater distances).Religous garbarge aside, this may explain the different ages of the universe, but that is only my opinion(15 billion to 20 billion).The 6000 year old universe is lunatic fringe stuff.Many other constants back up the very old age of the universe independent of the speed of light.remember the universe was very hot in the beginning, not cold. - 1:55:02 on 12 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG and CARL- Ya beat me to it on the slowing down the speed of light thing but I'll post the page anyway in case your interested. - 3:11:55 on 12 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:Did anyone watch the Top 100 Influential People of this millenium on A& E last night? Except for most of the American politicians and abolitionists, I thought it was quite a good collection of scientists and philosophers. Was hard pressed to figure out who number one would be, but was pleased with the choice. (Joseph Gutenburg) - 16:20:28 on 12 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Hi, heck! I was figgerin'you and JOSH went off to be alone. You both disappeared together, thats what it looked like, you kno'. - 16:37:04 on 12 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Most are familiar with the words reflective recursive and maybe other such notions. I think I can see these ideas as applicable words of action in matters of theism or atheism. In view of the idea of theism its prime objective of a godthing can be understood clearly. While atheism stands on the lack of evidence and proof of god[s] theists "say" there is one and its got all these really neat things about it. Coincidently enough, it does all the things, just like the gods of classical Greece and before, that the human creature wants and does. Humans love, create, desire and via the human mind, a human can never ever really know themselves or each other. The godthing also is unknowable, gee what a surprise! The idea, i.e., word, of a god is that it is merely an objective idea at which those or a human can direct whatever and however they might and can understand who and what they are. Is the notion the object the godthing intelligent, of course cuz' whatever the human-thing is, it wants to be understood to have that quality. This shopping list can go on and on. The key here is that the godthing provides an object at which all the things for which the subjective-human creature can strive for in its lifetime for its lifetime. Why the words of holy, devine revelationary scripture? Thats simply so that our offspring won't have to re-invent, for example, the wheel in and for their lifetimes. So, we ask why the problems of atheism/theism? The difference in words, is simple. Theists pointedly prefer the importance of the "Human" in this all wherein it too has an existance. Atheists prefer the importance of a thing commonly called "Nature" that is existence. The word god for theism very simply is how people of this adherence understand each other and others, that is a very possible why, when they come here they want the atheist to believe their accounts of the godthing, the account represents their best effort to explain who and what they are in an "objective way". Atheists simply seek to be understood as they exist in that all, which also is an "objective way". Either view is a way with which two individuals admit they can't fully say comprehensively what they themelves are, so they say lets pretend that that over there[god/nature] is me, and it is, 1-etc. 2-etc.etc.etc, - 20:26:37 on 12 Oct 99 GMT

Ricky:Marlene, Have you guys run Josh off or is he just refueling? I hadn't had a lot of time lately to catch up on whats been going on. Finished up a term paper on a debate between Alexander Campbell and Robert Owens titled "Evidences for Christianity" The debate was very interesting. Get time, look it up, you might enjoy it. - 3:46:26 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- This "Evidences for Christianity", is it on the net somewhere? If so, do you know how to link it? If not, just post the address okay. I think bossy ole Josh is off pouting somewhere. I wouldn't doubt that he lurks here though. Unlike yourself, he seems to need to force his beliefs on others which doesn't go over too big on this discussion. Maybe he'll come back and play who knows?! - 4:14:33 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I tried to search the A&E website for the show you posted but couldn't find it. I don't get A&E so fill me in on Joseph Gutenburg. - 4:17:05 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Well as of today we have over 6 billion people sharing this planet. Many are starving or sick. Too many people, not enough resources. The Church of Scotland has decided to finacially support a 12 year-old girl who is pregnant. The girl is poor so the church has decided to supply this girl with everything she needs (and maybe wants) the catch is that the girl has to carry the baby to term. I think this is a bribe, don't you. Where is the choice here? - 4:26:27 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

6 billion PLUS...:..http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw - 5:57:43 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

HI RICKY..Re..:Have you guys run Josh off or is he just refueling? -------He's just got bored. Same old same old. The nuts and bolts of this page is small change chicken pucky when compaired with the overview of the rest of this planet. - 13:38:24 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Didn't want to admit you're lurking? LOL! - 14:16:29 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: "..small change, etc", if ever there was an example of the 'sour-grapes' ditty, that is just another example. - 14:36:23 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Those folks o'the islands around G.Britain they get started on reproducing while still kinda young there. A few weeks back, I read a report o'some grandmother upset at becoming a grandmother at 24 or so, her daughter the new ma was 11 or 12. Do you think they are still neanderthal-like there, yet? - 14:45:34 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- This may be the same girl. Where did you read that? The info I got was from a radio show here but I've been trying to find out more about it somewhere on the net and have failed to do so. I understand the pro-choice groups are making this an issue. - 16:28:57 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: of the point above, one of the things that give me reason to ponder the human creature, are instances as that individual killed in the Kosovo area for answering another who asked for the time in some incorrect "Serb" dialect. It would be wise not to carry on of that report, but I think I can use it to exemplify the topic above. If there's a point the religious types can't reasonably account for, it is any killing and destruction done for their "particular" special godthing. About here, place at the forefront of your mind the current political talk of a new-world order. The sticky part of this problem for those in control, e.g. in the USA something like 1.??% own have the wealth, is an answer for, what will keep the humans in their migratory patterns? They understand the very thing JOSH was jumping about screaming and pointing at, it doesn't matter to the migrators if the world is flat, is not or is the center of the universe, or that it will or won't end due to entropy, they just want to get on with their existence, be it as it may. The wealthy controllers know too, that most of these migrators still need to communicate among and 'reassure' themselves via the general-word of safety that they are ok, the word is god. The controllers also know that any reality allowed or given to that idea-word would fundamentally destroy that linking and joining which the migratory have to do. In the history of the migrators, briefly, their early clans and totems which were merely a means for signaling,"I am ok", gave way to agriculturalism. Such migrators needed more than the I'm ok you are ok, after-all the weather and sun was needed for their efforts and means of existence. For these guys to understand each other they communicated of forces and powers outside themselves, that in a phrase were- the gods. With this word in place no one had to worry about being offended or percieved as a lesser for by communicating in terms of these gods they again affirmed, they were ok. The controllers problem, is that technology clearly and easily shows progress and improvement in the time of one's whole existence. In the flick,"Contact", the question the preacher asked is man happier and better off with technology, I thought it essentially referred to the lack of communication among the migrators. This lack is essentially what the religious fundamentalist seek. The controllers of religion however, see of it another issue. - 16:35:13 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I read the report out of one of the [UK] sites available on the Drudge site. - 16:49:04 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

WHY SOUR GRAPES, CARL?......:Carl:OPEN: "..small change, etc.....No "sour-grapes" ditty. ...the guy's just got stale here...there has been no rivitting stuff on this page for ages.... Just what do the regular posters here do with the remaining parts of their lives?..Their achievements?..The hundreds who remain unchainged having been here?..posts here just make the writers feel good.......that's all. - 17:18:01 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:Sour grapes, you are just a migratory critter. You said nothing that was acceptable. You yourself were not an ok kind of migrator, ergo, you were worthless. - 17:53:22 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Can you link that drudge site again? It's fairly obvious that the previous poster lacks self confidence in his ability to write as he needs to boost his ego by comparing his writings to mere posts done here. The guy sounds like Josh, LOL! - 18:25:07 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I found the article I was looking for. I'll leave the site to read. - 18:57:52 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Or, it could Betty! For future reference here's that Drudge link. - 19:51:16 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Thanks, eh! (that's Canadian speak). Yup! It could have been Betty-josh. Same old, same old.... - 20:35:10 on 13 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - I'm positive that per capita there are more 20 something grandmothers in your own country than anywhere else in the civilized world. - 3:36:40 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE..I looked for that top 100 list too, but it looks like they are trying to make money from it, and so are selling the video, and not posting the list. - 3:47:23 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Why Josh, you're back in the 63rd dimension.Channel us some Gold, if we all believe long enough it will be real.LOL! - 3:49:01 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I know! But tell us some more about Joseph Gutenburg. This isn't the Gutenburg that wrote a bible is it? - 4:04:01 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:SO..what does everyone think about the church involving itself in this girls pregnancy? It's obvious it's not the girl's welfare they care about. What it's important to make sure the baby is born but who gives a shit if it eats or is clothed afterwards? They didn't plan to help the girl's family even though they know they are poor if the girl didn't carry through with the pregnancy. Sure sounds like mother T thing. Bring kids into the world to suffer for jesus. - 4:08:59 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene..:DOUG- Maybe Sheldrake has used alchemy for the production of that gold. The hundredth angel on the hundredth morphic field, in the sixty-third dimension will have discovered the secret and since Josh's mind is so open to all this, he will automatically start the production of gold. Now he won't have to depend on his writings to see him through. - 4:20:59 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Did you hear about the psychic network. It went bankrupt, And no one saw it coming, LOL. - 4:44:05 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- At least they have to pay taxes on all their foolishness. I find it a real crime to watch some of these churches being built at a cost in the millions when there are people who are hungry or haven't got heat in their homes. - 14:50:31 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: A coupla'things over the past few days have caused me to ponder and ask whats up. At another site I composed a response in the air of some of the posts I posted here, to a theist. That person was plugged into and issueing that propaganda. And o'course I've mentioned the reported Kosovo shooting. Here- at the Univ., some of us kick around and ponder things. One is the meaninglessness of folks here, which in our opinion is an irritant, and may account for the assorted irrational expressions that mark some of the interactions we've observed. Upon some reflection, it seems to me that the crux of these problems like others could be broken down to the physical point of unknown sounds. Things that, in the dark, go boo! These sounds have been described as a disembodied voice, here I figure that this refers to the mind's voice. When one's mind cannot clearly percieve the facts of an experience, in and at all such times only the instinct of life to live can or will react. To assure some measure of certainty of the continued existence o'ones organism the solution is simple, learn what those sounds mean. A sound isn't that air movement? For the human organism the connection- theirs, is vocal and its manifestation are word utterrances. Here at this site, the key idea for the human organism, its living experience is an on-going process of self-invention, i.e., the human creature is manmade. So on "this" note, the key learn of and know how the human organism understands all around and about it and as it comprehends itself. This position includes the religious as its subject too is a contrivance of the human creature. The concern of most folks is not a weighty one, and too, so it is that some sounds confuse them. - 17:16:06 on 14 Oct 99 GMT

you-know:Carl: You're the one confused. If man were man made, why had'nt he been able to do it again? Man and tech. suppose to have been in constant addvancement since the beginning. Man can't even make a bird, let alone another man! - 2:59:33 on 15 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:YOU KNOW- Man can't even make a bird...yet. Remember that at one time people thought that Zeus made lightening, kindergarden stuff now. - 3:17:12 on 15 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:So how about that "no charges" in the Ramsey case? Anyone know more details on this one? - 3:20:58 on 15 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:YK: Unlike the position taken and uttered by one o'the xian patriarchs who said something like believe first then learn what you believe, its fine by me that I know at least what I know and that I also know that I don't know. I think at this time that for me, I may have found one of my problems, as I continue to view, read of and ponder it, it looks basic to and very simply, common to all human-organisms. Do you hear and know of disembodied voices? If yes its just you, you-know. - 14:26:39 on 15 Oct 99 GMT

AND OF COURSE..:..the Sun goes round the Earth. - 12:35:11 on 16 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Carl: Did the earthquake affect you at all in California? That old YK has the cart before the horse as they used to call it.Yet he(man) he was clever enough to think of gods and create the myths. - 16:10:59 on 16 Oct 99 GMT

GRIPPING POST DOUG.:Did the earthquake (7 point something) effect you all in California... - 17:51:26 on 16 Oct 99 GMT

jaywilson--aha! another one!--:ANONYMOUS: Your left hand is quite adept at typing capital letters--possibly because your right hand is busy wanking while you write. Get lost, what's-your-name. - 22:30:57 on 16 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:GRIPPING POST DOUG;I have someone else for that one.Deity a primitive idea, invented as an after thought from imagination. - 23:46:14 on 16 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- He's obviously a nobody. NOBODY- Why so fickle? - 2:24:25 on 17 Oct 99 GMT

HEY:come back to the new site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - 22:53:10 on 17 Oct 99 GMT

Grant --Jimminy xmas:I wonder about this "PASSING THROUGH" person who has been seemingly hating this site, and doing the mindless heckling, for a couple of years now. I've found plenty of forums I didn't like but never hung around for years. I guess we should be happy we are filling some peculiar need for him or her. - 13:05:20 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- So this is the same guy! Interesting! - 14:44:18 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Did any see the game twixt the yanks and sox? I liked the 9th! The comments at the games end as Steinbrenner took the position that "the-game o'baseball" was especial in and of itself. The network commentators were carrying on as if the yanks theirselves were in danger. The technological reveiw appeared supportive of the sox fans ire. The network commentators they are a disgusting lot. This is- IMHO, a clear example of those in control, recall that 1.??%, doing their part, via the media, to keep before the public at large the need for a source of and for "authority". The only ones with any real reason for concern were the umpires who missed the call. The yank's the team in danger, I think not. Were then the fans out of order, no, they too are part of the game and make it the whole experience. That especial thing that Steinbrenner spoke of, places "the-game" in a bubble. What horseshit! In todays world changes have to be put in place of the old, certain modes of behavior can be updated afterall, except for the religious-xians with their bublled heaven most others I think would be willing to find and use new ways to get along and live happier. Is play fair, will fair play ever be possible? Or, will authority always need to be present? - 14:57:02 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of some sounds which still confuse the migratorial human organism, this had to have begun only when humans spoke words. An individual who still clings to and espouses the ideas which they attribute to god[s] can do so, still, because that simple vehicle has been in use for some time. Of those in control they have said of those not in their yoke, that they are ignorant of god[s]. That is another topic, as methinks. Confusion what is it, how does one contain it? I've read some but here present two views for consideration in relation to the point of confusion, one by Hume and another by Schlick, that have at least a hint of a potential idea-source. Above, if I didn't already then I surely must say that one of the things that the early quasi-religions did or was supposed to do- long ago, allow the humans creatures to come together for simple survival. Some sounds those proto-humans just understood without a great deal o'contemplation, like happinesses, fear and terror. In line with such influences out of the antiquity of even the ancient I thought I saw something in this- There is a universal tendency among mankind to concieve all beings like themselves and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarily acquainted and of which they are intimately conscious.- The vehicle that did the transferring, words. That bit from Hume's writings. In more recent times Schlick wrote this- It is a necessary conclusion that the proposition and the fact which it expresses must naturally or essentially correspond to one another, they must have something common.- Again words are the point. In the first I expect imagination and other vagueries to have prominant roles in words formation. In the latter perception and progress prevail, wouldn't one think? more later. - 18:10:00 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Tollurance!!!:What were the other forums you didn't like Grant? - 18:22:47 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:T!!!: do you mean tolerance or is that merely your pseudonym? - 18:30:21 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:Passthru: 'Tollurance' for who, me or you? - 19:53:17 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I had to order Stenger's book, but it's here and it looks very good. I've skimmed through the intro and first chapter but have to finish a couple others first. Have you read it? - 20:06:18 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Have you looked into that area of philosophy which includes linguistics? It's sorta new territory for me but very interesting. There are some implications for naturalism which lead toward some views expressed by the deconstructionist people mentioned here a short time back. We use words such as "respect" which in reality doesn't refer to any physical thing which exists other than as a description of a nuance of emotion, which itself is but a consequence of chemical and electrical activity, so some say. Much to learn yet. Books can accidentally serve to remind us how little we know and understand. It would be nice to be as some visitors here and "know" enough to accept particular ideologies as fact merely on the basis of some sort of feeling. - 20:30:16 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Just some pieces, and never as a process of or for a application process. The thing that has most appeal about this run-of-thought is that now I find that I am able to read thru any religious writing with a clear point of view and understanding. I can see how these other humans- the religious, can literally fly of the handle when it comes to what they want to say. That conduct is quite possible just because of the seeming mental short-coming of the folk the religious-folk activily target as their reader. Now I find reading something like that of Lactantus pieces completely doable as simply some piece of writing, and nothing else. I no longer have to stand in opposition to religion with mere words against the concretised mental block of superstitious mythical ignorance. So much to read so little time and always whats to know? - 22:24:32 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I know what you mean, but I'm not sure about the mental short-coming thing. Lots of people much smarter than me hold religious beliefs. It all used to seem like nothing more than wishful thinking, but I now believe it's not quite so simple. Something in human nature seems to make some persons unable to do other than presuppose some purpose to the universe and to life. If one presupposes purpose, even the best reasoning must lead down a different path, though I'm not sure why it would have to lead to a supernatural destination. If purpose could be demonstrated I would go down that path myself, I imagine. - 23:44:54 on 18 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That word that idea of a "purpose" it do do it not seem to be the shadow of something else. And, yea, I know a few smart dudes who say and do the religious-belief stuff. And, they like to also hold that that kinda behavior, I guess here, results in some personal satisfaction. I guess again, that PS stuff is a long ways from the proto-human beginning when the bud of the command, thou shall not kill, just meant that today{back-then} we would not kill and eat that person-thing. To do that- in the beginning, the unspoken value o'the command kept us from eatin'r relative. Hell! the only thing that was that bad was coupling and reproducing w/your nestmate or parent. So from that to now when the constraints push and pull about all being created equal and pursueing their happiness is before us. So these smart guys, they must figger that dispite that overall kinda'image, at least some folks got a supernatural destination? - 15:06:32 on 19 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Now ain't this picking and choosing...a local school is getting ready for their "fall festival" party, not Halloween but "fall festival". No jack-o-lanterns, witches or ghosts. This is Halloween isn't politically correct. BUT..their "christmas party" is still happening. - 20:53:00 on 19 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Forgive them, for they don't have the slightest idea what they do why they do and o'course for what they do their things. If they knew for certain that a life after their death really awaited them somewheres, they'd have and follow better plans as, for example, you do in order to pay your monthly bills. - 21:30:58 on 19 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:They always want to stomp out Halloween.The town next to me wanted to ban going door to door. Instead they were going to have a party at the commmunity center where the kids would be given goodies.It isn't the same, and all the kids saw through it.If the xians can't fight it they will have to absorb it, as they have throughout their history. Maybe it's a pay back for the "gee it's only xmas, nobody hates this time of year".Halloween must burn them up, because every kid love it and looks forward to it. - 4:02:18 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Did you see the _Simpson's_ show on religion and Halloween. It was priceless, lol! Also another few weeks and the good ole abortion doctor killer should make another hit. I really gotta wonder how hard the authorities are looking for Mr. Koop. Now Mr. Koop seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't like Halloween, maybe even the type of guy who would tamper with the candy to teach all those little heathens a lesson. The local bible thumping town isn't banning kids from going door to door but has banned kids from going door to door on October31 because it falls on a Sunday. The kids will be allowed to go out on Saturday. I wonder what "real" xtians give out on Halloween, Mother T candy kisses? - 5:34:03 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Oh Yeah! Remind me to post my Halloween jokes when the time comes. - 5:36:15 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Three blonde men are stranded on one side of a wide river and don't know how to get across. The first man prays to God to make him smart enough to figure out how to cross the river, so God turns him into a brown-haired man and he swims across. The second man prays to God to make him even smarter, so God turns him into a dark-haired man and he builds a boat and rows across. Then the third man prays to God to make him the smartest of all, so God turns him into a woman and he walks across the bridge. - 5:41:32 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Halloween\sunday prob's? This godthing stuff makes or causes insanity! I read o'some towns back east that report the city officials "consider" moving snack night back to a saturday. The prime consideration is that monday the kids will be tired, hmmm? I don't know about you others, but my offspring are so loaded w\energy, I can't begin to imagine them that tired until they get our age. But kids? I suspect that the people in this country- USA, are confused and conduct themselves as if they are simply insane. That godthing stuff, maybe its supposed to let them detach their minds, their thoughts, their very concerns from the day to dayness of living. These USA xians, hell they oughta go muslim. These jokers pay homage to, as they understand the godthing, at a set time everyday, rite? The only problem, it ain't eurocentric, ahh good ol'racism, ain't it wunnerful? - 17:50:05 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: But then again, if the material I've read are accurate that o'the gathering of and the glues that historically served to keep assorted humans together, it was reported that they conducted themselves similarly. The glues back when were simple and probably environmentally common to them of whatever group. One o'the ideas and now common expressions of that group-glue, some folks want it to be their religion. But like any and all religions, it must be "their" religion because it is 'the" religion, but what is it, nothing but the we/they problem. - 18:31:05 on 20 Oct 99 GMT

RON....--->All...:I survived the relocation. Pittsburgh is now my home. Greetings all. Hi MARLENE, CARL, GRANT, Doug... - 0:01:00 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RON- Hey! So how's the state of PA? Do you like it so far? Wait till winter comes, lol! - 0:32:45 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:WHAT! No one liked my blonde men joke!?!? BTW I posted it just for "Passing through" since he/she always complains that god isn't mentioned here. - 0:34:40 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Hello RON... MARLENE-- You didn't tweak that joke a little did you? :-) - 0:39:39 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:Oops! - 0:40:04 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:The authorities don't seem to be turning over any trash cans to look for these terrorists.If it was a leftist group they'd be putting half the population in concentration camps.They seem to be scared to admit that it's an organizied group, not individuals that are doing the killings.The xians in my neighborhood give out prayers,the kids all think they're mean cranks and certainly don't want to be like them if they don't follow halloween. - 2:44:56 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Hi Ron,I heard that Pittsburgh has cleaned up it's pollution.And it's a really nice place to live now.All the slag heaps are gone; are they? - 3:45:40 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Bouncing a few of the points I dragged in here, this cyberforum, with a few organisms here. It is really odd to listen to them and watch that look in their eyes, as they scramble to come to terms with just the propositional talk of 'sounds-to-word'. They seem to almost thoughtlessly grab at some biblical account and add,"if you believe the bible" in order to discuss science-like topics. For example, o'the migrational view of humans one individual here said,"in the bible it says the tribes went out,"etc. Then, of the sound-to-words account and the genesis myth, that same individual just said,"it does make you wonder." The only way I could explain the response, it is as if walking into your house and finding that it was without a warming fire. Another individual says straight out, science is bogus and scientists are liars. It seems like that individual holds to the spirit and soul o'man as it is creator linked is all and it's importance is being overshadowed. That person has sed the culprit is the body and material of and for the body. The things the mind o'these folks will spew, its different. - 16:26:53 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Ok! to be fair that 'look' can be understood, as I must update and now convey this point o'view. That particular resolve was really easy, once one opts to find a way to be nice. Many have always done and said things to make it easy to account for and determine a common ground with 'others'. As I found. To begin, lets allow that there will be an evolutionary view. What is this? Its just the thought that from this particular regard one can better apprehend that the language describing the deeds and behavior of the human creature will change. This is important for the early human organism was for hundreds of thousands, millions even, years just an animal. They existed from hand to mouth like the other animals. In the more recent years about 15,000 ago, the human creature reevaluated itself declared itself to have "spiritual" qualities as this scheme fit better with a godthing which the humans said gave them this all. The thought process and verbal accounts in terms of spirits was so nifty. Then about 500 years ago the paradigms of science as a thought process took form. That "look", well it is merely one of an eye that still means to relate to the all in the schematics of a spirit world. But, inscribing as one who has never seen a spirit nor a godthing, it necessarily follows that the schematics of a spirit world talk is false account. The thought processes of that percieved calls for an account of matters in terms now accepted by some as valid but commonly referred to by others as science. The foregoing is a combination of F.Nietzche stuff, Whitehead and others of old and current. Later. - 22:39:43 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: I love PA!!! The weather is awsome, for now. I continue to keep track of western society's move from religion. It's exciting to hear pop culture publically announce through art, "there is no god". Gives me goose bumps. - 23:07:13 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

RON...--->Doug...:Slag heaps all gone. Did I mention I live in a 98 yr old church? Converted into two apartments...mine's over 2000 sq.ft and has a dry bar and hot tub. I found a examine table and installed it a few weeks ago for a message platform. Ironic? I love it. - 23:09:32 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

RON...--->Carl...:If your above statement is your description of how humans arrived at the notion of "godness", then I must disagree. Humans were shown a model of species, above there own that once ruled, even created, the human species. - 23:13:40 on 21 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RON- You STILL on the N's, lol! You missed Josh. I think you may have liked him.. - 3:35:53 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: lets see, of RON was it this person who "decided" once back whenever that there is a godthing? - 14:43:04 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:RON: they were created they were then shown both statements are connected to a thing that 'once' ruled. Wow! it must be nice to be in an aboriginal hyper-imaginative state o'mind, does this allow you remind you of being in that cozy cave again? Do you want to share a few words on this way of thinking? - 15:06:48 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Ron took over this page from Simon and Grant took over this page from Ron. Ron's been around here almost as long as I have. I think about four years at least. Ron believes we were created as slaves for an alien race. To learn more about this theory, read Zack Sitchen. - 15:59:20 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: thanks, hey! I watched the movie "King David" with Richard Gere as david. Not a bad flick. I got a kick outta the decapitation scenes. - 16:30:26 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think I've seen something like that. Wasn't that where the queen ordered someone beheaded or something. It's been so long ago that I read the bible that I can't recall the exact story. But isn't this good reading for kids in school?! Unbelievable that these stories are allowed as gospel in schools yet _Zena-Warrior Princess_ is now being taken off our TV stations because it depicts violent-erotic scenes. Ironic! - 17:07:43 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Well, since RON has other opinions o'humans that mussmean, theism-v-atheism is a non-issue for him. Seems to me that he is a pretty clever fellow, wonder how he sees stuff as the unknowable- unverifiable, and unseeable- imaginable, now? Well, it may be interesting to see where he is and what he has to say. - 17:39:33 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Although I personally feel there is no evidence to support the theory that we were created by aliens, I find this a much more sensible idea than say the god-creation thing and maybe even a possibility given our dicoveries in technology and genetic understanding. If life evolved here then it's very possible that life has evolved somewhere else in the universe also. If other lifeforms have evolved to the point of engineering advanced forms of technology then it is also possible that they maybe travelling the universe. Lots of "ifs" but possible, IMO. - 19:05:47 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Well, given that the human is only an organism composed of cells, that are composed of other ingredients the proposition that the human creature is a product of some "engineering" feat by a ET thing is possible. I think we are almost compelled to accept that prospect in view of the unplanned repurcussions of insects, for example, that have developed certain resistances to chemicals designed to destroy them. The religious-types will cry aloud that this prospect can be thoughtfully entertained while rejecting the godthing but, lets not loose sight of the circumstances and situation here, we humans perform within a closed system. That closed system is like our cave and the all is so open, they're so unalike what do the religious-believers see? - 21:25:33 on 22 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Where in damnation have you gotten to these days???? Miss you! You too Ricky! And Joette! - 4:06:59 on 23 Oct 99 GMT

Ricky:I see proph. from the Bible have been and continue to be fullfilled more and more. Hi Marlene "Could be more "life" out there somewhere that we know nothing about. - 23:29:17 on 23 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I'm just busy with all manner of things and have been to darn tired as of late to post.****I really don't see the aliens started the life on earth thing as holding any promise.But at least it has a lot more probibility than the creation model.I just tore apart a creationist a few weeks ago on deep sea thermal vents. Scientists have documented the very rapid formantion of basic elements and compounds needed for the formation of life. - 1:28:30 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- What prophecies are being fullfilled? Let's discuss some of them. - 3:22:52 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- So what did the creationist have to say to that...let me guess..god created the vents so he has allowed them to spew all these elements to just confound we evolutionists some more. - 3:27:18 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: No, he kept on about the atmosphere either having no oxygen so the UV light would break down molecules or if the atmosphere did have oxygen everything would oxidize.It took about 4 days for him to realize that photosynthsis with plants(cyanobacteria) started under the ocean's surface out of harms way from the UV light.Then he claimed that I was trying to make him out to look stupid.They just parrot what ever the holy "full of bull" preachers tell them - 3:46:14 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Was this on a internet discussion or on a more personal basis? It's almost degrading trying to argue common sense with some of these people. As soon as you disagree with them then your "hostile" and "intolerant". It's kind of "if your not for me, your against me" thing. A very good control tool but it doesn't seem to work on most of we atheists. - 4:30:38 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: It was on the internet.Well he did something like that saying that just because we disagree, "I'm not his enemy". I guess this means he lost the argument and wants to side track the discussion, with two "equal" points of view, to try and regain his footing through smoke and mirrors not cold hard facts. It reminds me of Simon says the childrens game, you have to listen and decypher what they say with a "fine toothed comb". - 17:57:54 on 24 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: In regard to RON's point of'western society move from religion', the action I see taken by folks in the state of Oklahoma to resist the anti-evolution movement seem to support those words o'his. On another point that might be viewed as indicative of the influences of a human mind are the reports of the Pete Rose interview. He was interviewed after a long ovation for his selection on the baseball-team of the century. The interviewer pressed him on his problems with the gods o'baseball, i.e., the rich-owners. NBC had to handle for 2 hrs.calls protesting the proceedings of that interview. I was impressed not so much as by what is on the people's mind but how it can make itself appear. I suspect and think that religion is stayed before the masses is kept before them by the same process that P.Rose is denied his due. Its just a few with the influence\connections that take that position o'denial just as its a few that press and push upon the people the words that there is a godthing. What does it all serve? Probably just a system of order. Whatdya think? - 15:57:01 on 25 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - I watched the interview with Pete Rose and wondered if anyone was as shocked with its content as I was. I have never been a Pete Rose fan, but for the first time I was rooting for him, and I was amazed how he kept his cool throughout. What was the point of the interviewer's questions? Did he think that after 10 years of legal investigation and process, he would be the one to get Pete Rose to finally admit his transgressions? A death bed confession of sorts? I thought it was ridiculous, and I am pleased to hear that there has been some reaction about it. (p.s. glad the Yanks are showing those *bleep bleep bleep* Braves who is boss) - 17:28:22 on 25 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That interview surprised me and yea, what inna heck did that fella think he was gonna do? Shades of an inquisition, as the fella kept pressing and pushing, kinda like asking, "Do you confess?" It will be interesting to see if that fella does anymore live interviews. Members from both teams were reported to have been very surprised at the behavior the interviewer. Some others even said he'd be lucky if they spoke to him at all. - 17:54:41 on 25 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Whata happened, there's nobody here.Has anybody read the new book called "Hitler's Pope" about Pius XII? - 21:54:27 on 26 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Hi DOUG- No I haven't read it but I think I recall Carl saying he's read it. So what's it about? - 0:54:09 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: It's about Pope Pius XII: whom was secetary to vatican in Germany before he was pope. It's also about the rise of facism and how Pius XII Brother a priest cut the deal with Mussolini, making the vatican a country and taking vast church lands in Italy for "large sums" of money.It also effectivly muzzeled the Italian catholic church in matters of the Italian state, with the vaticans blessing.Mussolini was called "the man sent by providence" by the pope before Pope Pius XII.They were fanatical in there opposition to communism that and democracy that facism was just what they wanted.Now in Germany the communist pary and the catholic centerists party were the major opposition.The deal struck with Hitler paved the way for no catholic opposition to the nazis in matters of state.The book also goes into detail Pope Pius XII dealings in catholic Croatia (lots of ethnic cleansings in catholic concentration camps)and his playing both sides of the issue in the time honored vatican tradition; all the while hoping for a facist victory in the USSR.So I'd like to get a copy at my local library, but it's out on loan. - 3:45:50 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Dawid:Atheists are not in opposition to religions, they are only not a part thereof. I find it not neccessary to justify my not being part of any cult, and not neccessary to justify my non-belief because it is not something that exists. I also am quite surprised at the amount of time spent by others to do so. - 10:19:57 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Dawid:The Pope has nothing to bdo with atheism - 10:25:13 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:Hello DAWID-- Unless one is a hermit or something, one is frequently effected by superstitious behavior. Laws are proposed and passed which are based on religious beliefs. People lose jobs and are sometimes otherwise descriminated against on the basis of religious beliefs or their lack. Historically, great atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. In my view it is necessary to try to understand human behavior, a large portion of which deals with religious beliefs and other superstitions. It is necessary to justify ones beliefs if one is to interact with others. Personally, I find religious behavior and beliefs very interesting, particularly Catholicism. Welcome. Lighten up. :-) - 12:49:48 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - have you heard the latest on Svend Robinson? He got up in parliament yesterday and recognized the supremecy of God. He sold his soul for politics. Shameful. - 12:50:34 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: In light of recent discussions among the legislatives cirles wherein their religious motives are referred to, are they really considering it for matters of and for the body politic? As one who does not hold the key point of religion as a truth, I also know that the words o'religion have been around for a long time. So long have humans used the words it makes easy for the likes of the BUSH politicians and in Canada S.ROBINSON to utter ideas as,"an atheist is not a citizen". So what is it in the electrochemical processes of their neural system that allows them to voice such inanity? I put forward earlier that its just an old sound. In 1694, John Locke in a letter concerning toleration wrote this: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of god. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of god, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religions, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from error, they do not tend to establish domination over others, all civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." Plato in Laws book X, I think, he made the first argument for a godthing by reason of design. The point, that godthing talk, well its easy and its simple sound has been around for a long time. How the word began, however, needs to be reconsidered and understood. - 15:00:25 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- What a Benedict Arnold! It's a sad world that recognizes the supremecy of..or should I say insists on being shammed by a bagatelle. - 21:21:39 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Thanks for the book report! I don't think it's any secret that the vatican has been involved in many inhumane practises over the years. It should be a good read! - 21:23:59 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DAWID (you sure that's the correct spelling?)..The fact that you feel you don't want talk about the negative effect of religions on society maybe makes you a different kind of person than I am. I'm not denying your an atheist but why do you think that you speak for other atheists. I do hold some oppositions to religion because I'm an atheist. - 21:30:29 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: As I continue to flip and flounder about on this religious problem that burdens so many people it seems like now I can make out a shadow. There are two things that to me seem reasonable for use as an account for what religious minded folk say and cling to. What these folks cling to and interpret as their theism and the contents of its assorted hypotheses might be of the basic matters sound and light. I am nosing around in different theories, subjects and topics which, might keep me occupied. This word thing and highway and byways of the mind look promising. If now and then I run a thought or two thru here, bear with me and of course hollar horse-shit as needed. - 22:33:14 on 27 Oct 99 GMT

What a Benedict Arnold! ......:http://www.moviesunlimited.com/alpha/538687.htm - 13:15:12 on 28 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:The hosting service has outgrown its equipment again and will be moving us this morning. Hopefully we won't have the problems we had last time. Take note of the e-mail address admin@man-made.net in case you lose access. - 13:40:05 on 28 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Grant- I can't access the "argument" page. I get this password thingy. - 15:45:43 on 28 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Should work now. Let me know if not. It loads much faster for me now. It was getting really slow. - 1:21:06 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Nope! The "arguments", "FAQ" and "quotes" all have that password thing for me. - 3:15:27 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:Anyone listen to Dr. Laura? Have you heard the one "hello, I'm Sally and I'm my kids' mother". Really, who else's mother would I be? Seems so redundant! - 3:34:36 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

PASSING THROUGH..all very ordinary..:.....http://www.theelectricchair.com/florida1.htm - 13:37:28 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I read a news report that some Canadians saw a great light or ball o'fire over their part of the world. Of the Canadians here, any of them see that? - 17:13:37 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: I see too, that some are putting forward some ideas of word and evolution. One such is the book,"The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism". I'll look at it but the reviews make it sound as if the author might be doing an elephant-dung thing. Perhaps the author, Robert Pennock, was just sensationalising some old image that many folk still hold in a soft spot. I guess it is a taboo thing to speculate too much. Western writers don't or won't go beyond the parameters of their generally accepted world-views. These individuals can go only as far as the start point of hebrew-xian stuff? And if, the other arm of the western world- science, grasps at things too far from its accepted religious views then one loses belonging, for one here this doesn't set right! I can see much farther. How do I know this? Fair question, just this morning I read a passage that I bet fits about the above mentioned book in a very fitting way. In the following two thoughts given up by C.I.Lewis they goes thus: 1} The whole content of our knowledge of reality is the truth of such "if--then" propositions, in which the hypothesis is something we conceive could be true by our mode of acting and the consequent presents a content of experience which, though not actual now and perhaps not to become actual, is a possible experience connected with the present. That was arresting, then in a footnote appears this: 2} A "material" implication represents an "If--then" proposition the truth of which is NOT independent of the truth of its antecedent clause. This has the look of something I think can be used to understand how 'words' began as #2, and with death and the night's darkness #1, however, made the proto-humans happier. This is probably still true. - 18:44:41 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - the great ball of fire has been determined to be a meteor. It happened in the eastern provinces, about a thousand miles from where I am, and about 2,000 from Marlene. - 19:31:12 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:GRANT - I am curious about Josh, and wonder if you still hear from him? I guess my wanting to know is more out of concern for his physical well-being than anything else, as he mentioned that he was going to require more medical attention in the future. - 19:33:02 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - I hate that silly "I am my kid's mother" that Dr. Laura uses about 100 times during one of her programs. I am still of the opinion that parents don't have to lose their own identity just because they procreate (however, I find that being a new empty-nester is a difficult adjustment make) - 19:35:05 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: Of more reading material, the non-believers musta' experienced the issue of morals in the position o'atheism. There is a book published in 1958 titled,"The Moral Basis of a Backward Society" that could be enlightening. If you have read it already, how was it? The author was Edward C. Banfield. - 20:37:44 on 29 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:Heya JOETTE-- I haven't heard anything from Josh. We never corresponded beyond the mechanics of the site. I half expected him to take his stuff down but nobody reads anything other than this page anyway. I wish we would get some other contributors. The worthwhile thing for a site like this is viewpoints and ideas, in my opinion. The more the merrier. - 2:10:07 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Are you still there? That arguments thing still isn't working for me. Maybe someone else has the same problem? - 4:06:31 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- An empty-nester??? Oh no, who will you argue with! LOL! - 4:22:00 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:In case anyone is interested on what's happening on the "otherside"..a woman was on our local radio station singing a song about cats that John Lennon has just composed over there. I never heard anything quite like it! In charge of the 'heavenly orchestra' is Bach and Lennon is assistant director. - 4:34:35 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I've reset the permissions to "any." It's hard to find the problem because all permissions are set for me. Lemme know. - 4:40:55 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I guess John Lennon must be kinda embarrassed over there in the spirit world or wherever the "other side" is, since he was of the atheist persuasion. - 4:42:42 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I think there are so many sites like this around now. Eventually we'll get someone else. Although guys like Josh and Quake are fun, we could be doing some research into this newage stuff ourselves. I was listening to CBC radio tonight and what did they have on there?!?! some idiot saying that physics has proven that another dimension (he says it's heaven) exists. All we need to do here is go to Art Bell's site and pick a topic to debunk. 'Course, I may not be around for long...I understand a meteorite is supposed to demolish Manitoba in November some time. Anyone else heard about that one? - 4:44:41 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:HI GRANT- Nope! still not working. I'm using Netscape right now but the same happens with IE. - 4:46:35 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:Well hey, this is like live chat! This setup has always been a little strange. I have to use a combination of their interface and FTP to work on anything. The permissions sometimes change for no apparent reason. When I get a little time I'll mover Josh's stuff to a fresh directory. I had to do that once before and it seemed to work. The problems start when I try to give Josh access to some of the site but not all. I don't dare give people free access to everything. - 4:52:18 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Ricky:Marlene: If you get the chance, there's a book I would like you to read. I just completed a research paper on it and found it quite interesting. Found some things there I wasn't aware of. All I ask, read it and get back. It's writen by J. W. McGarvey,A.M. titled "Evidences of Christianity." Don't let the title turn you off or whatever, just read it and it will not be disapointing! - 6:00:40 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- I live next to a very religion based town so they will likely have that book in their library. I'll check it out. When I do, are you willing to discuss some of the evidences? - 13:48:33 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- I've been looking up this author on the net and this is what I've found but...I don't see the book you mentioned. - 18:03:04 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky: are you sure you have the author right, this is a book by that title at GORDON college (a seminary school):Author: Pierson, Arthur T. (Arthur Tappan), 1837-1911. Title: "Many infallible proofs": the evidences of Christianity. Or, The written and living word of God. By Arthur T. Pierson. Publisher: New York, Chicago, F. H. Revell [1886] Pages: 322 p. 19 cm. ***GORDON ,On Shelf, 239 P 615m - 18:33:53 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Thanks! I look that up. Still really busy? - 19:56:14 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Have you ever wondered how you can know for sure there is no God. To know that for sure you would need to know everything and be everywhere. That way you can be sure that God is not somewhere you are not. Do you have that overall knowledge? If so then Jesus Christ was a Liar or a Lunatic? Visit www.stonetablets.org/truthlll.htm to find out which. - 20:04:52 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:"If so then Jesus Christ was a Liar or a Lunatic?" both, considering that god/jesus died for himself. it's more ludicrous the more you think of it."PASCAL'S WAGER:- Denying reason and refusing to use one's does not lead to happiness. The issue of whether there is a god or not can be settled now. There is a lot to lose by believeing in a god in either case. You lose the ability to solve your own problems. You lose a lot of time spent in church in prayers. You lose the confidence and clear thinking which comes from knowing that you are responsible for your own behavior and actions. Even if there were a god, and you believed in his existance, which one would you follow? Suppose you believed in god but picked the wrong religion to follow? What would happen to you in an afterlife?" - 20:10:56 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG Or RICKY Would this be it? - 20:12:05 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Maybe whomever could end up being a groupie in Lennon and Bach's heavenly band, lol! Good post, btw! - 20:14:37 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:NONAME_Of course I cannot be ABSOLUTELY sure that there is no god although I personally put god on the same list as the blue fairy. The reason, there is absolutely no evidence that a god exists nor the blue fairy for that matter. Next time you want to post a site that you want us to visit, all you need to do is type it in the URL box and click on add. It would also be easier if you gave yourself a name instead of just posting. - 21:32:42 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:I don't think so, as the book was written in the last century.Both Rickys author and the one I posted are from the 1800"s.But the one you posted might contain the same thread bare theistic arguments that were debunked many years ago. - 21:40:37 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Oh well, I tried! Maybe Ricky can direct us to a site containing some info on this book. - 21:50:57 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:I wish the NONAME poster would come back, I have some arguments with him over the site he left. - 21:51:54 on 30 Oct 99 GMT

Grant: Anybody catch this AP story? Since we can't do paragraphs here, I marked them with <p>.:**Attorney warns against hiring Jewish lawyers** The Associated Press Denver - A Christian lawyer who had represented a student in-jured in the Columbine High School shootings has warned the boy's family against hiring Jewish lawyers. <p>Denver lawyer Anthony Sturniolo confirmed he sent a letter dated Oct. 14 to the family, whom he declined to identify, after the famfiy decided to hire Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and local co-counsel Howard Zucker. <p>He said he felt it was important for a Christian lawyer to represent Christian families, he told The Denver Post in Saturday's editions. <p>In his letter, Sturniolo wrote: 'You have hired two Jewish attorneys, and Mr. Fieger in the past has been quoted openly ridiculing anyone who believed in Jesus. I know that you are committed Christians and I do not want you to be led astray to a position that might be a poor wit-ness to our Lord." <p>He said he was trying to make sure his former clients knew their lawyers are not Christians. They could be Muslims, Buddhists or anything," Sturniolo said. "It was a shock to me that this has become a Jewish issue. I never intended it to be anti-Semitic." <p> Sturniolo did not return calls from The Associated Press on Saturday. <p>Fieger is part Jewish but was raised in the Unitarian Church. Zucker is Jewish by birth and by practicing faith. <p>Ben Aisenberg, former president of the Colorado Bar Association and a 15-year member of its ethics committee, said Sturniolo's statements in the letter could be considered questionable under the state's ethics rules. - 16:19:00 on 31 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- My experience with lawyers has been.. they will do their job for anyone as long as the money is there. More than likely they were hired on their ability to win a case. Again religion is being driven into something that has nothing to do with religion at all. Their performance in the courtroom will likely be totally separate and apart from their personal beliefs. Take for instance a lawyer representing a murder who is definately quilty...the lawyer may believe that it's wrong to kill but he will do his best to get a "not guilty" verdict. - 16:31:47 on 31 Oct 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I think that may be a little unfair. Ideally a lawyer who is representing a guilty murderer is safeguarding the legal rights of the accused, and by extension our legal rights. A government should not be able to deprive any citizen of liberties, freedoms, or property without meeting certain standards of proof or evidence. The issue is larger than the individuals involved. I want these standards to be constantly challenged and safegaurded. But the ironic thing in the AP story is the statement "They could be Muslims, Buddhists or anything. It was a shock to me that this has become a Jewish issue.I never intended it to be anti-Semitic." Isn't he saying it's not anti-semetic because he feels equally negative toward all non-Christians? - 16:57:03 on 31 Oct 99 GMT

PETER----:..anonymous poster who graciously provided us with a website which makes an argument for Jesus being the truth...Now, if I were able to demolish this argument ( which I can with relative ease )would you be convinced and be willing to admit its flawed nature? - 17:23:19 on 31 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:NAAA! I'm not being unfair to lawyers. My cousin is a fairly sucessful lawyer. I know of one case he had that he had to really distance his own personal ideals from those of his client. He safeguarded the legal rights of his client so well that the guy walked, only to kill again two weeks after he was released. I often wonder what really goes on inside my cousin's head when something like this happens and even if it doesn't seem to be effecting him now..how will he be ten years from now..or ten years from then??? On the anti-semetic issue, it's obvious the guy put himself on a christian soapbox. Of course he's against all non-christian religions because they are not "for" jesus. - 18:24:06 on 31 Oct 99 GMT

Marlene:SO! Anyone carving their pumpkin? Although I only have about four kids come to my place because I live in the boonies, halloween just isn't halloween without a jack-o-lantern. I carve one every year. Then tonight I plan to watch King of the Hill, The Simpsons and X-Files, all are supposed to have halloween specials. Did anyone happen to watch Freaks and Geeks last night? People have taken the fun out of halloween for sure! If it's not the "watch your candy and apples" fanatics, it's the christians and their church parties. I really think that halloween was much more fun when I was a kid. No "bought costumes", mostly "homemade treats" and everyone had FUN! - 18:30:08 on 31 Oct 99 GMT