Are you impressed with firewalking?
liberator
<<There, by the Grace of God, as foretold by John the Baptist; imbued with
the Fireimmunity by God, under the invocation of the Fire's sentience by a
Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki (Priest of the Firepit); she stops in the fire. Bends
down to play in the flames. >>
[picture snipped]
Coals have a low measure of heat conductivity. If you were to study
physics, you wouldn't be so impressed. I imagine that the first time our
ancestors harnessed fire, it was impressive too. = ) Here are some helpful
sites:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dwilley/fire.html
http://www.skepsis.no/english/subject/firewalk/
http://www.deism.com <<-- I had to slip that one in.
Hey, I noticed that this was in part of your signature:
<<Scares the hell out of me, literally, as God intended.>>
You know ancient bards like Homer came up with stories to explain events in
nature and to entertain people. For instance, lightening scared people, so
a lightening God was created, which was a typical phenomenon back then. I'd
like to think that we have moved on since then. Go to
http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/ for further information on mythology.
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Visit FindAnISP: http://www.FindAnISP.com/
Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
Kevin Stewart
all the time. The fear of fire and the fact that some *do* get burned can be
useful in personal development, ie overcoming fear. (Not to sound sadistic,
either!)
For example, I have a fear of water from a near-drowning when I was a kid.
Quite irrational and thoroughly senseless. Extremely real. Joining the Navy
was a way to overcome it. Boating is another. I hate heights, so I' m going
to make several parachute jumps -- eventually! -- and ride some hot air
balloons this summer. (Melissaphobia[sic] is something else, of course!)
The fear of fire is much bigger and far deeper. Its impact, worship, fear
&al predates Prometheus legends, AFAIK. And just like the diet trick of
using a smaller plate to fool the mind, the appearance of fire furthers the
fear. So there is something to be said for the conquest of foot-flamme fear
even if there is no danger of the appendages vaporizing.
Think about it.
Kevin
PS If I were to post Jack Van Impe's site, would that convince you of the
imminency of the apocalypse? <G> Seriously, dude, thanks for the
references!
liberator wrote in message ...
liberator
<<Not to sound Jungian = P or anything, Mark, but sense doesn't mean much
all the time. The fear of fire and the fact that some *do* get burned can be
useful in personal development, ie overcoming fear. (Not to sound sadistic,
either!)>>
I agree. The benefits along that line is easy to believe and I wouldn't
argue against it, but to sell it as anything other than a confidence-builder
is silly.
= )
liberator
<<Perhaps you'd care to back up your extraordinary claim---the
scientifically fire doesn't burn, BBQs don't cook, the lady with the third
degree burns, isn't really burned.>>
I would love to back up my claims, but there is one slight problem. I
didn't make the claims that you mentioned above. Are you having these
conversations in your head now?
<<Unlike your cowardly self, who mumbles blasphemies and then runs away to
hid.>>
First of all, the word you were looking for was 'hide,' not 'hid.'
Second, is it blasphemy to use my brain along with a knowledge of physics?
Is your God on an anti-science campaign? I know that religions are opposed
to science, but my well-rounded, integrated belief system welcomes science
with open arms. You should try adding on critical thinking to your belief
system. You might learn something about the Universe, which many people
take to be God's creation.
For your information, some materials transfer heat better than others. Coal
is a weak heat 'conductor.' Iron
is a good heat 'conductor.' Try walking on iron after it has the
temperature of a hot coal. Your belief system won't prevent you from
burning. Care to do a simple experiment with a hot coal and a hot chunk of
iron, both at the same temperature used for firewalks?
I didn't think so.
liberator
news:38E413B7...@earthlink.net...
<<I'm willing to go anywhere in the world to watch you chew up a flaming
wood chunk, etc. Drive a pin through your hand without blood, etc. Bend an
arrow on your neck, you know, the regular Firewalk stuff.>>
Are you having conversations with yourself or are you purposefully
misquoting me? I wrote, "Care to do a simple experiment with a hot coal and
a hot chunk of iron, both at the same temperature used for firewalks?"
Now, don't get mad at me because you 1) made a spelling error in your last
post and 2) promote a belief system that attacks the knowledge gained from
physics. If you want to play the misquoting game, it'll discredit your
position further.
Be better than this Lani. Do you remember what you say about Huna Priests?
Don't they believe in honor? What honor is there in misrepresentation?
What honor is there in hiding the truth? -- I'm referring to the knowledge
gained from physics.
Please don't reduce yourself to a typical religious hypocrite. It's
unpleasant to watch. Really.
Lani
> Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <<There, by the Grace of God, as foretold by John the Baptist; imbued with
> the Fireimmunity by God, under the invocation of the Fire's sentience by a
> Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki (Priest of the Firepit); she stops in the fire. Bends
> down to play in the flames. >>
>
> [picture snipped]
>
> Coals have a low measure of heat conductivity. If you were to study
> physics, you wouldn't be so impressed. I imagine that the first time our
> ancestors harnessed fire, it was impressive too. = )
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Perhaps you'd care to back up your extraordinary claim---the scientifically fire
doesn't burn, BBQs don't cook, the lady with the third degree burns, isn't
really burned. The guy with the flames coming out of his mouth isn't being given
Fireimmunity by God?
OK. Prove it.
Unlike your cowardly self, who mumbles blasphemies and then runs away to hid.
In mid-October, God willing and the creek don't rise, I will be putting my
throat and hand and feet where you mouth is.
Unlike you, who is content to just talk and talk and talk.
I'm willing to rely on my Faith. And enter the Firepit. While you shrink and
hide from the experience.
And as my Huna Master said:
"A good haumana of Huna will get on better than most because
he knows that he must function and grow on and through and into
all three levels of being. He knows each level for what it is, and he does
not make the mistake that has been so universal---the mistake of
trying to carry the ideals of one level into the one above or
below. He will SERVE as best he can, and with great and impersonal
love. He will be kind and helpful. These attitudes cover the two
upper levels of living. For the lower level, he will fight as hard
as he can, be it with germs or fire or flood or thief---but while
doing it, he will keep the door open to HELP."
Max Freedom Long, 1949
And so it is. I will enter the sentient Fire, five days in a row, protected only
by my faith in my Faith. Protected, for me as a Kahuna Huna, by the goddess
Wahinenuiho`alani, if she'll have my mistake laden self.
If not, I will burn. Nor the folly of "Science" save me from the fire.
-Lani
"Everyone is either a victim or chooses to be a volunteer." -Kahuna Lani
The Huna Discussion Group, Subscribe:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Huna-MFL
"THE SEEING: The Confirming Mystical Experiences of Huna" available from
http://www.mistymountainbooks.com/orderbk.htm
Lani
> both at the same temperature used for firewalks?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> = )
>
> Mark
Oh, yes.
I'm willing to go anywhere in the world to watch you chew up a flaming wood
chunk, etc.
Drive a pin through your hand without blood, etc.
Bend an arrow on your neck, you know, the regular Firewalk stuff.
And for each of these things, I'll give you my companionship, and do the same
things right there next to you.
Maybe Kevin can come too, and take photos of the ambulance which carries you
away...
(After all kevin, we're safe, he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.)
Pausaune
<<
Oh, yes.
I'm willing to go anywhere in the world to watch you chew up a flaming wood
chunk, etc.
Drive a pin through your hand without blood, etc.
Bend an arrow on your neck, you know, the regular Firewalk stuff.
And for each of these things, I'll give you my companionship, and do the same
things right there next to you.
Maybe Kevin can come too, and take photos of the ambulance which carries you
away...
(After all kevin, we're safe, he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.)
-Lani
>>
Assuming your conjecture that focusing and dropping out of the real
world/letting go of the ego is what gets one across the fire/needle through
hand w/o blood/whatever is true and that those who go into it arrogantly get
screwed: couldn't this be seen as arrogance on your part? I mean, seriously...
if Liberator actually got some balls for once and DID SOMETHING about his
whining/demanding and came to this to prove low conductivity of heat and you
came to prove your faith... (by your standards/theory) if he got burned
wouldn't you too??
~Pat
Pausaune
<<
Now, don't get mad at me because you 1) made a spelling error in your last
post and 2) promote a belief system that attacks the knowledge gained from
physics. If you want to play the misquoting game, it'll discredit your
position further.
>>
OOH!! A spelling error!!! Lani must be really incompetent and stupid ::twirls
finger::
Anyway... your "knowledge gained from physics" is conjecture. You're not even
implementing the Scientific Method, since the Scientific Method REQUIRES
Personal Experience by the person running the experiment. I don't see any
personal experience here, so this isn't even scientific, and has LESS backing
than Lani's conjectures in my opinion--since at least he has personal
experience and correspondance with a large amount of others with personal
experience. It's called logic, please use it if you're going to insist that we
all live by the Logic God.
~Pat
Pausaune
<<Please don't reduce yourself to a typical religious hypocrite. It's
unpleasant to watch. Really.
Mark
>>
why not? We have a typical scientific hypocrite ready and willing (a little too
much) to go after this typical religous hypocrite.
And... BTW... Mr. Spelling Bee, it's religous, not religious.
~Pat
Lani
It's
> unpleasant to watch. Really.
>
> Mark
I see. You're just trying to slink away and hide, rather than do a scientific
experiment to prove your extraordinary claim.
That "scientifically" speaking, fire doesn't burn.
LOL
hahahahaha
What a strange little person you are.
Lani
> Assuming your conjecture that focusing and dropping out of the real
> world/letting go of the ego is what gets one across the fire/needle through
> hand w/o blood/whatever is true and that those who go into it arrogantly get
> screwed: couldn't this be seen as arrogance on your part? I mean, seriously...
> if Liberator actually got some balls for once and DID SOMETHING about his
> whining/demanding and came to this to prove low conductivity of heat and you
> came to prove your faith... (by your standards/theory) if he got burned
> wouldn't you too??
>
> ~Pat
Man! You're sharp! I wish we were friends!
But YES! If I had the same attitude in the Firewalk as I have when I gird my loins
I would definitely burn in the Fire!
But do you think I could face such trials and not depend, rely, submit to
something greater than I am?
I do not know how I'll fare. I do not know if I will succeed. Or that even my
preconceptions I have stated here will not be ultimately a barrier.
I don't know Pat. I have felt the power of Io when I have healed people, and when
I have done Exorcisms, but this is entirely different.
When I am not in this NG, I almost never think of the Liber8r. He isn't that
important to me.
In Huna, the Fireimmunity comes from the goddess Wahine-Nui-Ho`a-Lani. I think
that is because the Presence is felt as a warm nurturing stillness which enters
the mind, if the mind is resilient and allows it to enter it and numb it.
For me, I will never even think of the Liber8r there. But I will thing of you, and
Nevermore and Kevin and Tom. And I will, if I can, submit myself to the presence
in all humility. I will have to "rest" on my Path, and let my Path and gods and
God carry me, or else I can not make it.
As you and I both know, even if others pretend not to---fire burns.
I can not pass through its flames by being tough, or intent, but by humility. If I
can or ought to be saved, it will have to be something other than me that saves
me.
Pat, you are young and will have a long life before you. But there will come a
time when you, like be (but me sooner) will die.
What will save you then? Yourself? Or something else?
You are immortal. but it is not our egos which make us immortal.
You arte the Child of God. Some God. A God by any name. By no name.
That's nothing to be prideful, it's just natural.
In mid-october, think well of me if you can. Your positive intention, and others,
can only do good, and I'll need it.
--
John C. Randolph
Pausaune wrote:
> And... BTW... Mr. Spelling Bee, it's religous, not religious.
Not according to my dictionary, Mr. Quale.
Why don't you see if Lani can help you develop some kind of mystical
"spelling immunity."
-jcr
liberator
news:20000330235003...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
<<Anyway... your "knowledge gained from physics" is conjecture.>>
When I took physics in high school, I learned about heat. In short, 100
degrees F. of iron feels hotter than 100 degrees F. of coal. In fact, iron
will do much more damage to a human being than coal if they were both set to
the same high temperature. This is fact, not fiction.
This knowledge was verified in college as I pursued my undergraduate degree
and earned a minor in physics. I'm indicating this to you to give you the
correct notion that I have studied physics -- hands on -- to an appreciable
depth. I have performed many experiments in my lifetime and know these
things as a result.
= )
Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position, Pat.
liberator
If someone would have told me about a comment from Pat of this type, I
probably would not have believed it.
liberator
<<[Liberator] you seem to think you're an excellent teacher, and I'm
skeptical of that.>>
As you should be. If only you could be more skeptical about uncorroborated
religious claims...
liberator
<<I mean, seriously... if Liberator actually got some balls for once and DID
SOMETHING about his whining/demanding and came to this to prove low
conductivity of heat and you came to prove your faith... (by your
standards/theory) if he got burned wouldn't you too??>>
You guys are amazing. You seem to think that one needs to walk on coals to
de-mystify heat. Try this experiment at home:
1) Get a chunk of coal and a piece of iron. Make sure that they have the
same volume.
2) Heat them up in an oven to 200 F. -- waiting to make sure that they both
reach that temperature.
3) Prepare two containers of water at room temperature of equal volume.
4) Carefully place the heated iron into one container and the heated coal
into the other container.
5) Stir each container and measure the temperature over time.
6) Make note of the container that has the sharpest rise in temperature over
time.
= )
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: webm...@liberator.net
liberator
<<[Liberator] you seem to think you're an excellent teacher, and I'm
skeptical of that.>>
As you should be. If only you could be more skeptical about uncorroborated
religious claims...
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable an]P!"^\%Znsive Internet provider?
Pausaune
Man! You're sharp! I wish we were friends!
But YES! If I had the same attitude in the Firewalk as I have when I gird my
loins
I would definitely burn in the Fire!
But do you think I could face such trials and not depend, rely, submit to
something greater than I am?
I do not know how I'll fare. I do not know if I will succeed. Or that even my
preconceptions I have stated here will not be ultimately a barrier.
I don't know Pat. I have felt the power of Io when I have healed people, and
when
I have done Exorcisms, but this is entirely different.
When I am not in this NG, I almost never think of the Liber8r. He isn't that
important to me.
>>
I think this is probably true for most of us. Generally I'm only reminded of
Liberator when I help a friend with their science homework and they make a
comment about their teacher not being able to teach. (And that's not meant as a
flame... I just think of you, Liberator, because you seem to think you're an
excellent teacher, and I'm skeptical of that.) Similarly I was reminded of Lani
when we briefly covered mystics in Humanities. And of Kevin when we had a
debate over what Christianity really is, again in Humanities.
<<In Huna, the Fireimmunity comes from the goddess Wahine-Nui-Ho`a-Lani. I
think
that is because the Presence is felt as a warm nurturing stillness which enters
the mind, if the mind is resilient and allows it to enter it and numb it.
For me, I will never even think of the Liber8r there. But I will thing of you,
and
Nevermore and Kevin and Tom. And I will, if I can, submit myself to the
presence
in all humility. I will have to "rest" on my Path, and let my Path and gods and
God carry me, or else I can not make it.
As you and I both know, even if others pretend not to---fire burns.>>
I think they know fire burns, they just think anyone can walk across it with or
without concentration/release on something. I'm ignorant in this field though,
so the burden of proof for that is on them... and since the Scientific Method
is based off of personal experience. If they want to prove that other materials
are better conductors than coal and that you would all be burned if you walked
on such materials instead... it's their duty to prove that conjecture. I think
they could do a firewalk on coal themselves and then such a firewalk on
mentioned materials and observe the results.
<<I can not pass through its flames by being tough, or intent, but by humility.
If I
can or ought to be saved, it will have to be something other than me that saves
me.>>
And you've made it your goal to prove this, to yourself--not a panel of
scientists, by doing a firewalk in October. Interesting, it's a pity our
skeptics don't meet their own criteria.
<<Pat, you are young and will have a long life before you. But there will come
a
time when you, like be (but me sooner) will die.
What will save you then? Yourself? Or something else?
You are immortal. but it is not our egos which make us immortal.
You arte the Child of God. Some God. A God by any name. By no name.
That's nothing to be prideful, it's just natural.
>>
I'm not too worried about when I die. Not because it's a long way off, which it
may or may not be, but because it's not relevent to me. When I die, I die. I've
lived my life how I saw fit and if something judges me based off of that, I
will get what I deserve. If there is nothing after death... then that's it. If
this is just an endless cycle, then I guess I get to do it again, hopefully
better.
<<In mid-october, think well of me if you can. Your positive intention, and
others,
can only do good, and I'll need it.
--
-Lani
>>
Well Mid-October I'll have troubles of my own, notably Boot Camp and right
around that time the Crucible. Both of which I'm really enthusiastic to
experience. So while you'll be testing your Faith, I'll be testing the strength
of my mind and body to overcome obstacles. But... if I have a couple seconds of
thought to spare for myself that aren't taken up by family, friends, and
hopefully a special woman... I'll wish you luck.
~Pat
Pausaune
<<
When I took physics in high school, I learned about heat. In short, 100
degrees F. of iron feels hotter than 100 degrees F. of coal. In fact, iron
will do much more damage to a human being than coal if they were both set to
the same high temperature. This is fact, not fiction.
This knowledge was verified in college as I pursued my undergraduate degree
and earned a minor in physics. I'm indicating this to you to give you the
correct notion that I have studied physics -- hands on -- to an appreciable
depth. I have performed many experiments in my lifetime and know these
things as a result.
= )
Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position, Pat.
Mark
--
>>
Thanks for clarifying my point: The above is called a hypothesis. The
Scientific Method is used to test a hypothesis for proof. Now, since the
Scientific Method is based off of recordable and reproducable personal
experience, this would mean that to test if skin, and other tissues beneath,
burned or blistered from hot coals if one did not focus, that somebody would
have to walk across. This is Lani's claim, and what is he doing? He's walking
across. To make it more scientific he could get a group of people and randomly
designate them as "focus" or "don't focus," but he's proving it to himself
rather than a panel of scientists--his theory will either be true for him, or
not true, depending on the results. Thus only he is going across. However to
prove that anyone can walk across the coals without getting burnt would mean,
by the Scientific Method, that several people of different backgrounds, origin,
etc. need to walk across without getting burned. In other words, Liberator, to
change your above statement from a hypothesis to something that has more
backing than a religious doctrine you need to observe a firewalk, and possibly
participate in one.
~Pat
liberator
<<He's walking across. To make it more scientific he could get a group of
people and randomly designate them as "focus" or "don't focus," but he's
proving it to himself rather than a panel of scientists--his theory will
either be true for him, or not true, depending on the results.>>
One cannot prove anything unless -- as you have stated -- many different
people of faith and non-faith do the firewalk. So Lani is not proving
anything by walking on low density coals. He might be enjoying himself, but
there's no study going on.
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Lani
> The
> Scientific Method is used to test a hypothesis for proof. Now, since the
> Scientific Method is based off of recordable and reproducable personal
> experience, this would mean that to test if skin, and other tissues beneath,
> burned or blistered from hot coals if one did not focus, that somebody would
> have to walk across. This is Lani's claim, and what is he doing? He's walking
> across. To make it more scientific he could get a group of people and randomly
> designate them as "focus" or "don't focus," but he's proving it to himself
> rather than a panel of scientists--his theory will either be true for him, or
> not true, depending on the results. Thus only he is going across. However to
> prove that anyone can walk across the coals without getting burnt would mean,
> by the Scientific Method, that several people of different backgrounds, origin,
> etc. need to walk across without getting burned. In other words, Liberator, to
> change your above statement from a hypothesis to something that has more
> backing than a religious doctrine you need to observe a firewalk, and possibly
> participate in one.
>
> ~Pat
Mahalo Pat,
And I will do the same positive intentions for you.
Is is an interesting coincidence that at the same time I am being taught and
tested, you are too.
Just different fields. But the same in that they are appropriate enough for each of
us. :)
-Lani
Pausaune
<<
Pausaune <paus...@aol.com> wrote:
<<He's walking across. To make it more scientific he could get a group of
people and randomly designate them as "focus" or "don't focus," but he's
proving it to himself rather than a panel of scientists--his theory will
either be true for him, or not true, depending on the results.>>
One cannot prove anything unless -- as you have stated -- many different
people of faith and non-faith do the firewalk. So Lani is not proving
anything by walking on low density coals. He might be enjoying himself, but
there's no study going on.
Mark
--
>>
Thankyou for reiterating what I just said. I'm sure somebody out there needed
the translation. Now, if you can, please respond to the part of my post which
was addressed to you rather than attempting, once again, to tie me up with moot
points and triviality that I've already explained and admitted.
~Pat
liberator
<<Now, if you can, please respond to the part of my post which was addressed
to you rather than attempting, once again, to tie me up with moot points and
triviality that I've already explained and admitted.>>
Pat, all we have to do it witness people who are not faith orientated as
they perform the same physical phenomena as Lani. These people have no
claim to faith, yet they do it. 'Nuff said.
There used to be a college professor in California -- I believe -- that
performed strange feats in his classroom. He used to place himself on a bed
of nails and show the physics behind it, for example. He de-mystified the
mystics.
If he was a local professor, I would take his course. Learning is fun and
enlightening.
Pausaune
<<
Pat, all we have to do it witness people who are not faith orientated as
they perform the same physical phenomena as Lani. These people have no
claim to faith, yet they do it. 'Nuff said.
>>
If that's a "all" you have to do... then why don't you?? Lani is practically
INVITING you to do this. So if that's all you have to do and it's soooo simple,
then why aren't you??
"these people have no claim to faith, yet they do it"
And if you paid attention to Lani's POV you'd know one could focus on
ANYTHING--a coke bottle if one chose to--but if they focused on that item and
entered the "sentient fire" humbly the would not be burned. At least this was
my understanding. Which means that you can't just sit there and say "this
person has no faith and they're fine--YOU'RE WRONG!" you have to ask what they
did mentally, etc. It's a largely unprovable field, as Kevin consistently
points out. However, if "all" you "have to do" to prove Lani wrong is go to one
of these things and see somebody without Faith walk across... then why don't
you?
~Pat
Lani
> If that's a "all" you have to do... then why don't you?? Lani is practically
> INVITING you to do this. So if that's all you have to do and it's soooo simple,
> then why aren't you??
> "these people have no claim to faith, yet they do it"
> And if you paid attention to Lani's POV you'd know one could focus on
> ANYTHING--a coke bottle if one chose to--but if they focused on that item and
> entered the "sentient fire" humbly the would not be burned. At least this was
> my understanding. Which means that you can't just sit there and say "this
> person has no faith and they're fine--YOU'RE WRONG!" you have to ask what they
> did mentally, etc. It's a largely unprovable field, as Kevin consistently
> points out. However, if "all" you "have to do" to prove Lani wrong is go to one
> of these things and see somebody without Faith walk across... then why don't
> you?
>
> ~Pat
Dang! Once again, you are insightful.
The sentient fire tests one for faith. And that faith is moderately tough yet
undistinguished faith.
If a "Scientist" has "faith" in his Science. And if, at the moment before the
Firewalk, he feels the wonderful mental sensation of the Presence, then they will
be "saved".
While it IS possible to have faith in the saving Grace of Coke, usually, religions
are used.
And as Liber8r and jcr have demonstrated so very very clearly here, "Science" is
their dogmatic religion. Held through faith and not truth. (Otherwise they could
point us to a single experiment demonstrating the superiority of the double-blind
experiment)
Pausaune
Lani wrote..
<<
Dang! Once again, you are insightful.
The sentient fire tests one for faith. And that faith is moderately tough yet
undistinguished faith.
If a "Scientist" has "faith" in his Science. And if, at the moment before the
Firewalk, he feels the wonderful mental sensation of the Presence, then they
will
be "saved".>>
I read your statement slightly differently. More like one merely had to have
faith in something they believe in. For instance, I have a lot of Faith in
Logic and Common Sense and my ability to utilize both. I don't expect them to
do anything special for me when I die or anything, but my understanding is that
if I focused in on this beforehand and during that by your standards I would
not be burned. Thus a scientist who trusts in science and believes and respects
it could walk through the fire safely. Atlhough I would suspect a cynical
skeptic would have a harder time.
<<While it IS possible to have faith in the saving Grace of Coke, usually,
religions
are used.
And as Liber8r and jcr have demonstrated so very very clearly here, "Science"
is
their dogmatic religion. Held through faith and not truth. (Otherwise they
could
point us to a single experiment demonstrating the superiority of the
double-blind
experiment)
--
-Lani
>>
Usually religions are used... but is it exclusive to religions?? What if
somebody there claims no religion but, like me, believes themself to spiritual?
I'm probably stretching your viewpoint, but I think if one were to concentrate
on something that they believed to be a large part of their life and their
defining qualities... by your standards they could walk through without getting
burnt.
And I'm well aware of their dogmatic acceptance of science. Although I find it
a bit comical that a science teacher can't find the difference between a
hypothesis and a conclusion. Any reports he has provided would be citations
used to support a hypothesis--not a definitive, conclusive Scientific Report.
Meaning, not only does he expect everyone to meet his dogmatically accepted
scientific standards but he even bends these standards for his own kind and
more importantly himself.
~Pat
Lani
You gotta give me a break here, guy.
I'm a student who belongs to a religion which was founded in 1872 in a Honolulu
(lava) Firewalk. I have walked on fire, but I am intimate with it nor an initiated
Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki.
I walked under Tony Robbins, who presents it as purely a psychological thing.
Yet. There is mystery in this too. Why did he have one of his staff call me and
offer his Firewalk night to me for free?
I thought at first, he would try to use me as an advertising thingy.
But not then. I expected to be with difficulty with signing in at the Firewalk,
which was to last five hours. But no. They had my name tag already made.
I expected his organization to contact me later, for at least an endorsement. But
that never happened either.
He knew I was a priest of Huna. Other than that, I have no idea what he knew about
me. but in any case, he NEVER tried to use me.
The Firewalk I did was a gift from him, like a bolt out of the blue.
BUT my impression is that the "focus" part is correct on your part. But for a
different reason. It gives the mind something to do whilst it submits to the
Presence.
A distraction, is my speculation.
John C. Randolph
liberator wrote:
[snippage]
> There used to be a college professor in California -- I believe -- that
> performed strange feats in his classroom. He used to place himself on a bed
> of nails and show the physics behind it, for example. He de-mystified the
> mystics.
I recently saw a show on the Learning Channel about an Indian college
professor who does the same thing, allthough the stunts he takes on are
rather more spectacular. It seems that where he lives, and popular
stunt among the local "god men" is to insert iron hooks into the skin of
their backs, near the shoulder blades, and actually pull heavy carts
around by means of chains attached to these hooks.
-jcr
Kevin Stewart
Lani wrote in message <38E66595...@earthlink.net>...
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A distraction, is my speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
>A speculation.
Any questions?
Kevin
Pausaune
You gotta give me a break here, guy.
I'm a student who belongs to a religion which was founded in 1872 in a Honolulu
(lava) Firewalk. I have walked on fire, but I am intimate with it nor an
initiated
Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki.
I walked under Tony Robbins, who presents it as purely a psychological thing.
Yet. There is mystery in this too. Why did he have one of his staff call me and
offer his Firewalk night to me for free?
I thought at first, he would try to use me as an advertising thingy.
But not then. I expected to be with difficulty with signing in at the Firewalk,
which was to last five hours. But no. They had my name tag already made.
I expected his organization to contact me later, for at least an endorsement.
But
that never happened either.
He knew I was a priest of Huna. Other than that, I have no idea what he knew
about
me. but in any case, he NEVER tried to use me.
The Firewalk I did was a gift from him, like a bolt out of the blue.
BUT my impression is that the "focus" part is correct on your part. But for a
different reason. It gives the mind something to do whilst it submits to the
Presence.
A distraction, is my speculation.
--
-Lani
>>
Ahhh... and that I couldn't definitely agree on, even with my ignorance on this
subject. I realize this is a stretch of your point of view in it's purest form,
but I also think that this cancels JCRs and Liberators claim that if a
non-religious person walks across safely that you're wrong. It also displays
how quick they are to start throwing the stones at you when they obviously
don't have a complete understanding of your concept. Somehow I'm guessing
science suggests you know and understand Newton's laws before you go around
calling Newton a heretical and schizophrenic dreamer. But then... maybe JCR and
Liberator aren't truly devoted to the scientific ideals, but rather their
personal gain.
~Pat
Lani
> Lani wrote in message <38E66595...@earthlink.net>...
>
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A distraction, is my speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
> >A speculation.
>
> Any questions?
>
> Kevin
Did I write that?
It looks more like jcr's but hey, If i wrote that, and it annoyed you,
I'm sorry.
Lani
> Kevin Stewart wrote:
>
> > Lani wrote in message <38E66595...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A distraction, is my speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> > >A speculation.
> >
> > Any questions?
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Did I write that?
>
> It looks more like jcr's but hey, If i wrote that, and it annoyed you,
> I'm sorry.
>
> --
> -Lani
>
Oh, yeah, Pat reminded me that I had wrote it.
I think you weren't annoyed with it though.
PAT:
You mean that you and I who are not initiates have slightly different POV's
about a phenomena neither of us can produce and initiate yet?
You mean you don't speculate 100% the same as I do on this phoneme?
As far as I can see, buddy boy, there are only 4 possibilities:
1. You're wrong and'd I'm right (my all time favorite).
2. You've right and I'm wrong! ACK!
We're both wrong.
4. We're both right?
WELL! *I THINK* that we would both have to alter our speculations to conform
to the actual experiences we have with the phenomena.
Pausaune
<<
You mean that you and I who are not initiates have slightly different POV's
about a phenomena neither of us can produce and initiate yet?
You mean you don't speculate 100% the same as I do on this phoneme?
As far as I can see, buddy boy, there are only 4 possibilities:
1. You're wrong and'd I'm right (my all time favorite).
2. You've right and I'm wrong! ACK!
We're both wrong.
4. We're both right?
WELL! *I THINK* that we would both have to alter our speculations to conform
to the actual experiences we have with the phenomena.
--
-Lani
>>
::shrugs:: Cool with me. Rarely am I completely right, and I'm wrong quite
often. And in regards to this field I'm rather ignorant... so I'm certainly not
attempting to assert a superior POV or disregard yours. In fact what I think
I've more or less done is mold your POV so it better fits my own viewpoints.
But anyway, I can agree to this.
~Pat
Lani
What???
"In fact what I think
I've more or less done is mold your POV so it better fits my own viewpoints."
<LANI is seen to be sputtering>
But, but...
Kevin Stewart
Lani wrote in message <38E67630...@earthlink.net>...
snipped
>Oh, yeah, Pat reminded me that I had wrote it.
>
>I think you weren't annoyed with it though.
All I was trying to say was you were identifying the post as personal
speculation, not absolute fact.
Kevin
liberator
Liberator wrote...
<<Pat, all we have to do it witness people who are not faith orientated as
they perform the same physical phenomena as Lani. These people have no
claim to faith, yet they do it. 'Nuff said.>>
>>If that's a "all" you have to do... then why don't you??<<
Because it has already been done. = )
Mark
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://liberator.net/
Better Business: http://liberator.net/special/betterbusiness.html
liberator
<<If a "Scientist" has "faith" in his Science. And if, at the moment before
the Firewalk, he feels the wonderful mental sensation of the Presence, then
they will be "saved".>>
Truth is independent of faith. = )
liberator
<<For instance, I have a lot of Faith in Logic and Common Sense and my
ability to utilize both. I don't expect them to do anything special for me
when I die or anything...>>
Pat, your faith in logic comes from experience. It is a tool that allows
you -- and all of us -- the ability to understand the universe right here,
right now. You don't have to believe in unprovable life-after-death
fairytales, but you do have to acknowledge the benefits of logic for the
here and now. = )
Lani
Well, of course.
What else can there be on usenet?
Kevin Stewart
liberator wrote in message ...
snipped
>Truth is independent of faith. = )
snipped
Start a "Poor Mark's Almanac", are you? <G>
Kevin
Lani
> Pausaune <paus...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Liberator wrote...
> <<Pat, all we have to do it witness people who are not faith orientated as
> they perform the same physical phenomena as Lani. These people have no
> claim to faith, yet they do it. 'Nuff said.>>
>
> >>If that's a "all" you have to do... then why don't you??<<
>
> Because it has already been done. = )
>
> Mark
No it hasn't.
There has been been a double-blind Scientist who has walked on Fire using the
sacred Fireimmunity.
There has never been a scientist who has driven a 5" or better pin through his
handout pain or blood, whilst under the protection of the sacred Fireimmunity.
Etc.
liberator
> <<Pat, all we have to do it witness people who are not faith orientated as
> they perform the same physical phenomena as Lani. These people have no
> claim to faith, yet they do it. 'Nuff said.>>
>
> >>If that's a "all" you have to do... then why don't you??<<
>
> Because it has already been done. = )
Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> responded:
<<No it hasn't.>>
Hey you grass-skirt wearing, fish waving knucklehead, go to a circus and
watch as the PERFORMERS do this wacky crap all the time. It's not as
spectacular as you think. Besides, scientists have performed the firewalk
successfully plus they actually know what's going on. [Did you examine the
URLs I posted?]
Your faith is starting to stink up the whole place. Let it go already and
watch it float downstream with all the other dead fish.
Pausaune
<<
Your faith is starting to stink up the whole place. Let it go already and
watch it float downstream with all the other dead fish.
>>
Personally I think it's your self-righteous, cynical, hypocritical, ignorant,
and prejudice "I'm right no one else can be right and you're all stupid morons
who need my glorious education knowledge and experience" attitude that's
stinking the place up.
You preach how the ULC welcomes ALL viewpoints when we challenge the relevance
of this so-called debate, and now you demand that one of our regular posters
drop his faith??
I think you and JCR are the only two people here, at least regular posters,
that are against Lani's participance. I welcome his viewpoint and interesting
stories even if I am highly critical of them. He's also very accepting of
other's viewpoints and he himself has stated time and time again that it's just
his SPECULATED viewpoint. At the very least he has something productive to
offer to a religious newsgroup. More than can be said for you.
You know... when one starts throwing personal cheapshots (esp. to the extent of
the above) it's generally because they're merely a bad loser.
Oh, and BTW, Mr. Spelling Bee... it's Fath, not Faith.
~Pat
Steve
understand I mean this as a general response to the mother thread...
What liberator ("Bishop of Chicago and other Frank Sinatra songs") says
about the science of the firewalk is true. I know this only from my
education. But, that education was based upon the research and study of
millions, if not billions, or scientists of the past and present. I know
enough to trust nothing with 100% surety, whether science, religion, or
something else. This is why I was drummed out of two churches and
blacklisted by several of my Christian peers--they felt that true faith does
not question, while I felt that true faith must question to ensure its
truth. The nice thing about science is that questions are welcomed and
mistakes are required to be addressed. There are shortcomings to science,
but they are far less than in traditional blind-faith religion. Science
relies on observation, and (ideally, at least) constantly changes to address
what is observed. Meanwhile, religions endeavor to claim that they have all
the answers, that those answers are true, and that any evidence to the
contrary should be ignored. In other words, while science conforms to
reality, religions insist reality conform to them.
We have observed that coal is a poor conductor of heat. I still wouldn't
walk on coals, b/c I know I'd roast my feet (despite my barefoot
southerner's callouses). I'm not entirely sure, but I'd expect that one
would have to be very careful while firewalking to keep from burning,
despite coal's poor conductivity. Besides, no matter how bad a conductor
coal is, burning coal is still pretty friggin' hot. I'm impressed with
firewalking, but only because firewalkers obviously have more psychological
and physical control over themselves than I do.
However, it really doesn't matter if anyone is impressed with firewalking
other than those who practice it. It seems to me that it's a religious
ceremony, like any other. I believe religious ceremonies are powerful
symbols of faith, not only for those who participate but for whatever Higher
Being you may believe in. Many in the liturgical denominations of
Christianity know full well that the bread and wine of the Eucharist isn't
REALLY (as in, physically) the body and blood of Christ. But, the ceremony
symbolizes the participants' commitment to communion with Christ. This is
proof, however flimsy, to both the participants and observers that their
faith is genuine. I personally believe this also sends a message to God
that their faith is genuine. If you believe firewalking affirms your faith,
then as a symbol it does. It doesn't have to be true on any but the
symbolic level to be valid. The rest is moot.
Of course, I may be wrong, but there are only four things that can happen to
me when I die anyway: heaven, hell, purgatory/reincarnation, or nothing at
all, and I won't know which until I die. All anyone can do is TRY for
heaven and hope for the best.
Peace in freedom,
Steve
Lani
LANI:
Aloha, Steve, I thought at first that you were going to attack me, that happens so often in this NG.
Yet, you didn't.
I have to agree with what you say as a starting point. But then if you read the stories of actual experiences, one is shifted. Then once that happens, one becomes compelled, if one is a Priest, as I am, with a congregation, to see for one's self what all the hoopla is about.
We have observed that coal is a poor conductor of heat. I still wouldn't
walk on coals, b/c I know I'd roast my feet (despite my barefoot
southerner's callouses). I'm not entirely sure, but I'd expect that one
would have to be very careful while firewalking to keep from burning,
despite coal's poor conductivity. Besides, no matter how bad a conductor
coal is, burning coal is still pretty friggin' hot. I'm impressed with
firewalking, but only because firewalkers obviously have more psychological
and physical control over themselves than I do.
However, it really doesn't matter if anyone is impressed with firewalking
other than those who practice it. It seems to me that it's a religious
ceremony, like any other. I believe religious ceremonies are powerful
symbols of faith, not only for those who participate but for whatever Higher
Being you may believe in. Many in the liturgical denominations of
Christianity know full well that the bread and wine of the Eucharist isn't
REALLY (as in, physically) the body and blood of Christ. But, the ceremony
symbolizes the participants' commitment to communion with Christ. This is
proof, however flimsy, to both the participants and observers that their
faith is genuine. I personally believe this also sends a message to God
that their faith is genuine. If you believe firewalking affirms your faith,
then as a symbol it does. It doesn't have to be true on any but the
symbolic level to be valid. The rest is moot.Of course, I may be wrong, but there are only four things that can happen to
me when I die anyway: heaven, hell, purgatory/reincarnation, or nothing at
all, and I won't know which until I die. All anyone can do is TRY for
heaven and hope for the best.Peace in freedom,
Steve
You're wrong, FROM MY POV, you are mortal in the flesh and immortal
in the spirit.
You are, as are all the Children of God, safe in the arms of your God,
or if you aren't "claimed" then in the arms of your Aumakua or Guardian
Angel.
Lani
> I I still wouldn't
> walk on coals, b/c I know I'd roast my feet (despite my barefoot
> southerner's callouses).
Yes, that would be true, except for the intercession of God.
But, the question is now in your mind: Will the Universe, God, save me from the
fire, if made sentient by a Firewalk Priest?
We all have to live with uncertainties all our lives. But when a question comes
up, it is our actual experiences which matter. Not jcr nor Liber8r's opinions of
our experiences.
I've done a Firewalk under Tony Robbins, now I will learn how to invoke the
fire's sentience myself, and have to do Firewalks on fire 5 nights in a row, as
well as many Firewalks with arrows, and 5" long pins, and broken glass, etc.
What is the truth, Steve? What is really out there? I don't know either, but I'm
going to go out there and see...
Steve
"Of course, I may be wrong, but there are only four things that can happen
to
me when I die anyway: heaven, hell, purgatory/reincarnation, or nothing at
all, and I won't know which until I die. All anyone can do is TRY for
heaven and hope for the best."
Lani wrote:
"You're wrong, FROM MY POV, you are mortal in the flesh and immortal in the
spirit.
"You are, as are all the Children of God, safe in the arms of your God, or
if you aren't 'claimed' then in the arms of your Aumakua or Guardian Angel."
You don't totally disagree with me, there. I personally believe that I'm
pretty well destined not to go to Hell, because I believe anyone who isn't
wholly evil will reach Heaven (even if they must cleanse their wrong in
Purgatory or a second life first). But, since I never put all my faith in
one thing, I leave the possibility of other outcomes open. I think my
beliefs are as close as anyone else's are to the truth, but I don't lie to
myself and say that I have done anything more than make a half-educated
guess. If I'm gonna go to Hell anyway, then I certainly don't want to go to
Heaven, since that would prove God isn't such a nice, protective guy. And
if there's nothing after, it really doesn't matter what I believe because it
has no bearing. In other words, I feel like I'm protected by a Higher
Power, but I realize I could be wrong. Better to possibly be wrong than to
never have had hope.
Peace in Freedom,
Steve
Steve
"What is the truth, Steve? What is really out there? I don't know either,
but I'm
going to go out there and see..."
Fare well, then--It's better to look for the truth and possibly be wrong
than to not look and never know.
liberator
<<Personally I think it's your self-righteous, cynical, hypocritical,
ignorant, and prejudice "I'm right no one else can be right and you're all
stupid morons who need my glorious education knowledge and experience"
attitude that's stinking the place up.>>
1) If you don't like my posts, why do you respond to them? = )
2) When someone disregards the physics of heat conduction -- the sites I
provided were never once mentioned -- and then proceed to tell us its all
about thoughts in the head, don't mind me if my skeptical thinking kicks in.
Ever hear of Ockham's Razor?
<<I welcome his viewpoint and interesting stories even if I am highly
critical of them.>>
Don't misinterpret my posts, Pat. I enjoy Lani's posts a great deal.
Really. They remind me how important it is to get a good science education.
liberator
<<We all have to live with uncertainties all our lives. But when a question
comes up, it is our actual experiences which matter. Not jcr nor Liber8r's
opinions of our experiences.>>
I believe I have echoed what a storehouse of knowledge -- called physics --
tells us. Now if you would rather believe in springy-sticks and high
altitude drops to your inevitable doom, it's your option. One thing is
definitely for certain, and that's you posting more of your uncorroborated
fantasies on this newsgroup.
<<What is the truth, Steve? What is really out there? I don't know either,
but I'm going to go out there and see...>>
Start with that skydiving plan.
= )
Just kiddin'...
liberator
<<There is a profound difference between skeptical thinking and a
self-righteous, hypocritical, I'm right-you're wrong attitude.>>
Replace the words 'skeptical thinking' with 'religious study.'
<<Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method? Why don't YOU use it if you
insist everyone else does? Stop pumping us with hypotheses and start proving
them, or know that's all anything you've said is--a theory, an
unbacked theory beyond your education. Which is all any Priest can say about
their doctrines.>>
This is false. Theories are tested and corroborated with other known pieces
of information. Doctrines are dogmatic beliefs -- because I said so's.
liberator
<<We all have to live with uncertainties all our lives. But when a question
comes up, it is our actual experiences which matter. Not jcr nor Liber8r's
opinions of our experiences.>>
I wrote:
>>I believe I have echoed what a storehouse of knowledge -- called
physics --
tells us. Now if you would rather believe in springy-sticks and high
altitude drops to your inevitable doom, it's your option. One thing is
definitely for certain, and that's you posting more of your uncorroborated
fantasies on this newsgroup.<<
Pausaune <paus...@aol.com> wrote:
<<WHAT does this have to do with Lani's post??>>
I was responding to his misguided reference regarding personal experience
vs. opinions on personal experience. Read it again.
liberator
<<So you're saying that we shouldn't rely on personal experience but rather
the Liberator's education on Physics??>>
If you read my comment more carefully -- please go back and read yet
again -- you would have noted that I made reference to Lani's inability to
corroborate his claims with the body of knowledge science calls physics.
Are you really reading my posts before you respond? It would seem not.
Since you mentioned the need for a full response to posts, I would think
that you would do the same.
Pausaune
<<
<<We all have to live with uncertainties all our lives. But when a question
comes up, it is our actual experiences which matter. Not jcr nor Liber8r's
opinions of our experiences.>>
I believe I have echoed what a storehouse of knowledge -- called physics --
tells us. Now if you would rather believe in springy-sticks and high
altitude drops to your inevitable doom, it's your option. One thing is
definitely for certain, and that's you posting more of your uncorroborated
fantasies on this newsgroup.
>>
WHAT does this have to do with Lani's post?? All he said is that at the end of
one's life he doesn't think that your opinion of us is going to really count.
Are you disagreeing and attempting to say that at the end of our life we all
have to live up to your physics education?
Or are you just flaming more and putting up the same kind of display that poor
losers put up?
~Pat
Pausaune
1) If you don't like my posts, why do you respond to them? = )>>
Why? Because right now YOU ARE this newsgroup. There's nothing else to respond
to. And do you know why? Because nobody else can get a word in without you
going ape shit. I think a lot of people are fed up with posting here because of
this, although you're not the only culprit. That or because everyone who has
done this only restates the same things. They don't actually respond to the
post, they pick one or two lines out of the post where they find arguable
although moot points and ignore the real points.
<<
2) When someone disregards the physics of heat conduction -- the sites I
provided were never once mentioned -- and then proceed to tell us its all
about thoughts in the head, don't mind me if my skeptical thinking kicks in.
Ever hear of Ockham's Razor?
>>
There is a profound difference between skeptical thinking and a self-righteous,
hypocritical, I'm right-you're wrong attitude. The difference is... Logic, and
an Open-Mind. And have you ever heard of the Scientific Method? Why don't YOU
use it if you insist everyone else does? Stop pumping us with hypotheses and
start proving them, or know that's all anything you've said is--a theory, an
unbacked theory beyond your education. Which is all any Priest can say about
their doctrines.
<<Don't misinterpret my posts, Pat. I enjoy Lani's posts a great deal.
Really. They remind me how important it is to get a good science education.
= )
Mark
--
>>
I rest my case regarding my opening paragraph in this post. You can keep acting
as childish as you want with your stupid little quips instead of responding to
the points made. Now, if you actually have something valuable to respond with,
please do.
~Pat
Pausaune
<<
Lani wrote:
<<We all have to live with uncertainties all our lives. But when a question
comes up, it is our actual experiences which matter. Not jcr nor Liber8r's
opinions of our experiences.>>
I wrote:
>>I believe I have echoed what a storehouse of knowledge -- called
physics --
tells us. Now if you would rather believe in springy-sticks and high
altitude drops to your inevitable doom, it's your option. One thing is
definitely for certain, and that's you posting more of your uncorroborated
fantasies on this newsgroup.<<
Pausaune <paus...@aol.com> wrote:
<<WHAT does this have to do with Lani's post??>>
I was responding to his misguided reference regarding personal experience
vs. opinions on personal experience. Read it again.
Mark
--
>>
So you're saying that we shouldn't rely on personal experience but rather the
Liberator's education on Physics?? Interesting, especially considering the
Scientific Method you worship is BASED off of observing Personal Experience.
~Pat
John C. Randolph
That's a good idea.
One other quote that I always loved was from (I think) H.L. Mencken:
"Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Lani wrote:
[snippage]
> There has never been a scientist who has driven a 5" or better pin through his
> handout pain or blood, whilst under the protection of the sacred Fireimmunity.
Since the "sacred fireimmunity" exists only in your imagination, your
assertion is a tautology.
However, body-piercing stunts have indeed been performed by stage
magicians and carnival geeks for years. If I really cared, I'd consult
James Randi, Penn Jillet or Harry Anderson on how it's done.
One simple way to do it, is to pierce the web of your hand ahead of
time, let it heal up around a wire (just like an ear or a nose ring),
and then cover the hole with a little bit of morticians' wax just
before the gig. [1] (BTW, have you seen "psychic surgery"? It's even
more spectacular. Randi did it on the tonight show once, and got a
great response from the audience.)
Show me a *real* miracle, Lani. Send one of your evicted demons around
for tea. I've got some very nice orange pekoe, and of course the
standard Earl Grey. If a fellow with hooves and a forked tail stops by
next saturday, I'll never doubt you again.
(My address is left as an exercise in divination for the Kahuna. Of
course, it wouldn't be all that hard to dig it up on the net if you had
any actual investigative skills.)
-jcr
[1] I was a makeup artist around the time I graduated from high school.
John C. Randolph
Pausaune wrote:
> I think you and JCR are the only two people here, at least regular posters,
> that are against Lani's participance.
Hold it just one damned minute!
When did I EVER say that Lani shouldn't participate on this newsgroup?
For that matter, when did Lib ever do so? Take a look at the
scoreboard, and I think you'll find that it's Lani who's stamping his
little foot and insisting that Lib and I shut up and go away, not the
other way around.
Furthermore, I have consistently stated that I hope Lani doesn't get
hurt trying to prove any of his more asinine assertions (like the one
about thin cotton shirts stopping bullets) while Lani has stated on more
than one occasion that he'd like to see me get "beaten about the head
and shoulders."
If you don't know the difference between censorship and criticism, learn
it. It might be important someday when you have something to say, and
someone doesn't want you to say it. I sure as hell hope that when you
get to Parris island, they include a little bit of instruction in the
liberty that the USMC is supposed to defend.
You can rail all you want about how pissed off you are that I won't play
along with Lani's fantasies, but don't you ever call me a censor.
You owe me an apology.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
liberator wrote:
[snippage]
> Are you really reading my posts before you respond? It would seem not.
> Since you mentioned the need for a full response to posts, I would think
> that you would do the same.
You're kidding, right?
(I mean, come on, Lib! You teach high-school kids all day, don't you?)
-jcr
Kevin Stewart
John C. Randolph wrote in message <38E86EF2...@idiom.com>...
snipped
>You can rail all you want about how pissed off you are that I won't play
>along with Lani's fantasies, but don't you ever call me a censor.
snipped
Cooled off, yet?
Oh, well. <G>
I don't remember Pat "playing along" or insisting others do. I think the
issue is the manner in which you (repeatedly and to the exclusion of most of
everything else), refute Lani's ideas/POV.
And isn't saying "charlatan"/"snake-oil salesman" more derogatory than
implying "censor". Isn't implied "censor" no worse than "fish waver"/"grass
skirt"? Saying "Lani hasn't objected!" doesn't make it ok. If it was Juan
instead of Lani, would you even try "greasy" or "Jalapeno breath"? If the
e-mail indicated S. Africa, would you attempt some jab using "thick lips" or
"steel wool behive", perhaps "pygmy[sic]" in reference to IQ? If Lani is not
(fully) Polynesian/Hawaiian, it may not make as big a stink as it would for
a native.
Hasn't this whole rehashed phrasefest deprived this NG of variety and ideas?
Great, everyone has a right to their opinion, (including "Censor"!), but
there is no intelligent discussion here. Sky and gnasty and Nicole and
others don't get involved -- they get out. And all that's left is the
childish "Is so!"/Am not!!!" see saw that is not a debate/discussion and is
not what most rational folks want to get into.
Kevin
Lani
liberator
John C. Randolph <j...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:38E86EF2...@idiom.com...
<<When did I EVER say that Lani shouldn't participate on this newsgroup?
For that matter, when did Lib ever do so?>>
We have never mentioned that Lani should leave this group. I have suggested
that he see a therapist but that's another story.
<<Take a look at the scoreboard, and I think you'll find that it's Lani
who's stamping his little foot and insisting that Lib and I shut up and go
away, not the other way around.>>
It's sad to admit but this has happened on NUMEROUS occasions.
<<You owe me an apology.>>
John, don't hold you breath waiting for Pat to apologize.
liberator
news:sehabno...@corp.supernews.com...
<<And isn't saying "charlatan"/"snake-oil salesman" more derogatory than
implying "censor". Isn't implied "censor" no worse than "fish waver"/"grass
skirt"?>>
The difference is that 'censor' was inaccurately used. = )
liberator
Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<<It would seem that we really struck a note here. "Methinks he protest too
much!" >>
I just wonder when you'll respond to my April 2nd post marked "America's
Most Un-Wanted: Charlatans."
I guess John Walsh's comment about charlatans hit too close to home, eh
Lani?