Fascination with fire

[NFR123]

Thank goodness it's the last night of Hanukkah. Has anyone else noticed that
their kids (or themselves) are fascinated with lighting and burning candles?
Mine have to light the wick, touch the lit candle with the shamos and then do
it again. They also can't stand it not to run their fingers through the fire.
My husband says he understands this because he used to do it to. Nanci

[Martin Finne]

NFR123 <nfr...@aol.com> skrev i artiklen
<19971230144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

....and dip the fingers in the melted wax, wait for it to get stiff, peel
it off and melt it
in the flame.....
....it's kind of magic.....

-martinf.

[NFR123]

Thanks Martin. It all makes sense now. My daughter had a friend over tonight
who is not jewish, and she lit a couple of the candles, only once, touched each
one only once and didn't even attempt to put her fingers in the flame. What
could possibly be wrong with this child? Nanci

Happy New Year to all.

[Chuck Thayer]

Hi, Nanci

What's wrong with *which* child? The one who can't appreciate a good
flame?<g>

Seriously, though... I was always drawn to fire as a child. In fact, I
still have urges to touch hot objects and flames from time to time.
Candles are relatively benign forms of fire. It's the stove, the
furnace, and all hot surfaces and dishes that are causes for concern.
When the OC symptoms are in high gear, I use my microwave to cook for
myself, rather than mess with my gas stove.

This isn't so much a matter of fear as prudence. I just don't want to
deal with the painful feelings that sometimes come as I am resisting the
compulsions. I can't remember the last time I actually touched a hot
object, but I think about it a lot when I see anything that reminds me
of fire.

My mother used to keep me out of the kitchen until she was sure that I
wouldn't hurt myself on the hot stove. That was probably wise. Burns
received in rituals are still burns.

Happy New Year,

Chuck
Who Does NOT Have a Fireplace

[Irina Shoushounova]

NFR123 (nfr...@aol.com) writes:
> Thank goodness it's the last night of Hanukkah. Has anyone else noticed that
> their kids (or themselves) are fascinated with lighting and burning candles?
> Mine have to light the wick, touch the lit candle with the shamos and then do
> it again. They also can't stand it not to run their fingers through the fire.
> My husband says he understands this because he used to do it to. Nanci

Dear Nanci:
We actually had a fire last year where we barely got out alive, where we
did lose the dog and half the house; 8 rooms were totally damaged and had
to be rebuilt.
It was such a frightening and disrupting experience now we don't even
USE candles or flames in the house anymore, not even for Jack 'O Lanterns
or Advent wreaths, or birthday cakes! It's a scary reminder, and now we're
even extra careful!!!(We also no longer leaves appliances plugged-in either)
As a result, the kids are not fascinated with fire, in fact are
terrified, and the one who previously said she had a desire to burn the
house down has changed her mind really fast and hasn't mentioned it since!!
Tell your kids what fire is really like and what happened to us.I bet
then the fascination will wear off when they realize how dangerous it is!!
It's been 19 months now, and I still shudder when I think about it!!

--
******* IRINA SHOUSHOUNOVA bo693 or Lov...@ottawa.com *******
Do not offend the Lord our God any more, because He is already
so much offended. Our Lady of Fatima, 13 October 1917.
**************************************************************

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <01bd1555$f2412140$LocalHost@default>,

"Martin Finne" <martin...@st.telia.no> wrote:
>
>
> NFR123 <nfr...@aol.com> skrev i artiklen
> <19971230144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

> > Thank goodness it's the last night of Hanukkah. Has anyone else noticed
> that
> > their kids (or themselves) are fascinated with lighting and burning
> candles?
> > Mine have to light the wick, touch the lit candle with the shamos and
> then do
> > it again. They also can't stand it not to run their fingers through the
> fire.
> > My husband says he understands this because he used to do it to. Nanci
> >

> ....and dip the fingers in the melted wax, wait for it to get stiff, peel
> it off and melt it
> in the flame.....
> ....it's kind of magic.....
>
> -martinf.

Fire and water, two fluid, dynamic entities. The type of thing that
fasinates children, but especially those who like to focus on parts of
things, parts of things that move and make sounds.

It has been suggested that the personalities of dogs are the
personalities of wolf puppies. They are animals whose social development
has been arrested at some point and they are more child-like that adult
wolves. Perhaps when the development in the womb is interrupted by
whatever results in AS or TS or autism or OCD or... the personality is
also affected so that it does not completely develop in the physically
adult human. Perhaps these people are more emotionally immature, less
interested in social order and social relationships, and more interested
in their physical environment; as if a child just learning about nature
for the first time.

Moving things should be wonderous to those who are strongly visual.
Pictures are stationary, verbal instruction is continuous and dynamic,
but you don't often "see" audio information. Verbal instructions may not
make much of an impression on visual people, however, if one sees
"pictures that move" it might catch one's interest. Perhaps visual
people drive down the road looking for movement to clue them in as to
what is going on, perhaps this is because visual people expect to have
all of the information for something when they look at it the first time
and if suddenly there is new information they must acquire it. Things
that change require constant data acquisition, if the things never stop
changing, one cannot acquire all of the data, how does one know when to
stop acquiring that information? Does one sit glued to that moving
object forever trying to gather all of its visual information?

Watch the people around a campfire. Not all of them have TS or AS or any
other syndrome. Most will be staring into the fire, as if compelled to
do so... Humans who can think and choose not to act only to improve their
social status must not quite be adults... there must still be some puppy
in them... and some have more puppy than others...

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Kathryn Taubert]

>It has been suggested that the personalities of dogs are the
>personalities of wolf puppies.

Yep. I've lived with both. We've "bred out" much of what's good about the
wild canids. What you are describing is known as "neotony."

. Perhaps when the development in the womb is interrupted by
>whatever results in AS or TS or autism or OCD or...

That assumes, of course, that these conditions ARE "interruptions"...
resulting in:

the personality is
>also affected so that it does not completely develop in the physically
>adult human. Perhaps these people are more emotionally immature, less
>interested in social order and social relationships, and more
interested
>in their physical environment; as if a child just learning about nature
>for the first time.

Isn't is also possible that "these people" just "like" these things? Just
have a curiosity about them that requires investigation by the senses?
How can we assume that an interest in "social order and social
relationships" is at the "top" of the hierarchy of learning? Some would
say, including the Native American, that "nature" is at the root of all
things...and that one cannot have an appreciation for anything else,
including "social order" without first understanding "nature," in all its
forms and through all ones senses.

>
>Moving things should be wonderous to those who are strongly visual.
>

With this, I agree.

Pictures are stationary, verbal instruction is continuous and dynamic,
>but you don't often "see" audio information. Verbal instructions may
not
>make much of an impression on visual people, however, if one sees
>"pictures that move" it might catch one's interest.

There is research into the way adults/children learn (androgogy and
pedagogy) that confirms this.

>
>Watch the people around a campfire. Not all of them have TS or AS or
any
>other syndrome. Most will be staring into the fire, as if compelled to
>do so... Humans who can think and choose not to act only to improve
their
>social status must not quite be adults... there must still be some
puppy
>in them... and some have more puppy than others...

Oh, if only EVERYONE had more "puppy" in them.....as well as a healthy
dose of the more natural "wild." And the ability to distinguish between,
appreciate, and cultivate both.

And by the way, just how many of us, with or without TS, have been
tempted to get "too close to the fire," metaphorically speaking, from
time to time. I've never met an adult, yet, who has lived, truly lived,
who hasn't. The kid who has this tendency (barring consistent and
repeated self injurious behavior, of course), has something wonderful
about him/her. Cultivate it.

KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <68o7n8$15ku$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,

BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
>
> >It has been suggested that the personalities of dogs are the
> >personalities of wolf puppies.
>
> Yep. I've lived with both. We've "bred out" much of what's good about the
> wild canids. What you are describing is known as "neotony."

Dogs began evolving themselves. Their ancestors were the first to bring
population members into close proximity with humans where the more
human-friendly members thrived to reproduce.

> . Perhaps when the development in the womb is interrupted by
> >whatever results in AS or TS or autism or OCD or...
>
> That assumes, of course, that these conditions ARE "interruptions"...

Of course there are interruptions! (unless I'm wrong... the implied
caveat attached to every one of my statements, or anyone else's for that
matter, this goes without saying... so how come I gotta keep saying it to
everyone with whom I speak, or write? I must not view language in the
same way as others...)

> resulting in:
>
> the personality is
> >also affected so that it does not completely develop in the physically
> >adult human. Perhaps these people are more emotionally immature, less
> >interested in social order and social relationships, and more
> interested
> >in their physical environment; as if a child just learning about nature
> >for the first time.
>
> Isn't is also possible that "these people" just "like" these things? Just
> have a curiosity about them that requires investigation by the senses?
> How can we assume that an interest in "social order and social
> relationships" is at the "top" of the hierarchy of learning? Some would
> say, including the Native American, that "nature" is at the root of all
> things...and that one cannot have an appreciation for anything else,
> including "social order" without first understanding "nature," in all its
> forms and through all ones senses.

What does it mean to "just like" something? Is is a tic? Is it a
compulsion? What is it that an organism gets from an activity that causes
it to participate in that activity over and over? I would not think that
the mind functions in the realm of magic.

What hierarchy of learning? One may learn about social things or one may
learn about non-social things. Each of these is part of our environment,
each has something to offer. One builds models of the world and uses
these models to intereact with the world based on the information that
one acquires. Those who cannot see do not spend time looking at picture
albums, those who cannot hear do not spend time listening to music yet
there is something to be gained by looking and listening, it is best if
one can do some of both. If society is filled mostly with people who can
hear, listening to music will be seen as more important because that is
what most people can do. The minority who can see will feel that it is
more important to learn how to look at things before one learns how to
listen to things.

> >
> >Moving things should be wonderous to those who are strongly visual.
> >
> With this, I agree.
>

Once, while in a park, I bent down to watch the way water bubbled over a
tiny waterfall. When others came up to see what I was looking at they
walked away shaking their heads. Later, when I was told about someone's
friend who had an autistic child who could go on and on watching jingling
keys I though, "so, what's unusual about that?", then warning bells went
off and I started researching what it means to be autistic. That's when
a lot of things started coming to an end. It appears that the Adam in us
continues to bite the apple...

> Pictures are stationary, verbal instruction is continuous and dynamic,
> >but you don't often "see" audio information. Verbal instructions may
> not
> >make much of an impression on visual people, however, if one sees
> >"pictures that move" it might catch one's interest.
>
> There is research into the way adults/children learn (androgogy and
> pedagogy) that confirms this.
> >
> >Watch the people around a campfire. Not all of them have TS or AS or
> any
> >other syndrome. Most will be staring into the fire, as if compelled to
> >do so... Humans who can think and choose not to act only to improve
> their
> >social status must not quite be adults... there must still be some
> puppy
> >in them... and some have more puppy than others...
>
> Oh, if only EVERYONE had more "puppy" in them.....as well as a healthy
> dose of the more natural "wild." And the ability to distinguish between,
> appreciate, and cultivate both.
>

And to think, I always liked cats better...

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>In article <68o7n8$15ku$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It has been suggested that the personalities of dogs are the
>> >personalities of wolf puppies.
>>
>> Yep. I've lived with both. We've "bred out" much of what's good about
the
>> wild canids. What you are describing is known as "neotony."
>
>Dogs began evolving themselves. Their ancestors were the first to
bring
>population members into close proximity with humans where the more
>human-friendly members thrived to reproduce.

Yep. Ethnologically speaking, they did it because there was an
"advantage" to doing it.......perhaps, even, a symbiotic relationship.
Dogs are, by nature, pack animals...and wolves are highly evolved at it.
Perhaps wild dogs (the Middle Eastern wolf, I believe, is thought to be
the strain from which most domestic dogs descended), sought human
companionship for the occasional left over Mastodon shank...and, in turn,
"helped humans" locate, herd them?

Not outside the realm of possibility.

. Perhaps when the development in the womb is interrupted by
>> >whatever results in AS or TS or autism or OCD or...
>>
>> That assumes, of course, that these conditions ARE "interruptions"...
>
>Of course there are interruptions! (unless I'm wrong..

No, not wrong....I didn't mean to imply that. What I am implying is the
these conditions may not be "interruptions" in the sense I read your
comments...but "natural" conditions along one end or another of the
spectrum. Because they are not common, and do not always benefit the
individual in TODAY'S society doesn't mean that they are, of necessity,
"interruptions" in development.
I'm painting this philosophy with a very broad brush.

>What does it mean to "just like" something? Is is a tic? Is it a
>compulsion? What is it that an organism gets from an activity that
causes
>it to participate in that activity over and over? I would not think
that
>the mind functions in the realm of magic.

Not in the typical sense. "Just liking" may be a combination of
fundamental physiology/anatomy and "personality."

>What hierarchy of learning? One may learn about social things or one
may
>learn about non-social things.

That was my point. I read, perhaps incorrectly, from your words that
interests in "social" things were, somehow, more desirable than things
not typically considered "for the good of the group." I don't entirely
agree with that concept.

Each of these is part of our environment,
>each has something to offer.

Agreed. If that's what you meant, then I misread your intent in the
previous post.

, it is best if
>one can do some of both.

To an extent, and in the ideal world. However, there can no longer be
such thing as a "Renaissance Man"...er.....person......there is just too
much information out there for the single entity to learn.

If society is filled mostly with people who can
>hear, listening to music will be seen as more important because that is
>what most people can do. The minority who can see will feel that it is
>more important to learn how to look at things before one learns how to
>listen to things.
>

And ALL approaches should be given, in my opinion, equal consideration
and weight.

>>
>
>Once, while in a park, I bent down to watch the way water bubbled over
a
>tiny waterfall. When others came up to see what I was looking at they
>walked away shaking their heads. Later, when I was told about
someone's
>friend who had an autistic child who could go on and on watching
jingling
>keys I though, "so, what's unusual about that?", then warning bells
went
>off and I started researching what it means to be autistic.

Help me understand what you are saying here. Do you suggest that watching
the way water bubbles (or whatever) may be signs of autism? If that's so,
then I'd want to start looking at the definition of autism..and the
potential in it for GOOD things.

>>
>>
>> Oh, if only EVERYONE had more "puppy" in them.....as well as a
healthy
>> dose of the more natural "wild." And the ability to distinguish
between,
>> appreciate, and cultivate both.
>>
>And to think, I always liked cats better...

okay......"if only everyone had more "kitten" in them.....too.......but
then, there we go...expecting one person to "have it all."

:-))
KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

Neat reply, now let's see what I can do with it...(do I sound grown up or
what??)

In article <68qt9o$n7k$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:

(I said:)

> >Dogs began evolving themselves. Their ancestors were the first to
> bring
> >population members into close proximity with humans where the more
> >human-friendly members thrived to reproduce.
>

> Yep. Ethnologically speaking, they did it because there was an
> "advantage" to doing it.......perhaps, even, a symbiotic relationship.
> Dogs are, by nature, pack animals...and wolves are highly evolved at it.
> Perhaps wild dogs (the Middle Eastern wolf, I believe, is thought to be
> the strain from which most domestic dogs descended), sought human
> companionship for the occasional left over Mastodon shank...and, in turn,
> "helped humans" locate, herd them?
>
> Not outside the realm of possibility.
>

Now are you ready to believe that "dogs" helped Homo sapiens sapiens to
evolve themselves and eventually become the sole hominid on earth? The
concept of "socialness" is a very important one with respect to
survivial; this is the aspect that allowed hominid evolution by providing
a survival advantage greater than the disadvantages of life on the
ground. (unless I'm wrong, of course, but that goes without saying for
everything anyone says and since everyone is human and everyone is thus
lacking in complete information of the universe, nothing anyone says can
ever really be right...)

> . Perhaps when the development in the womb is interrupted by
> >> >whatever results in AS or TS or autism or OCD or...
> >>
> >> That assumes, of course, that these conditions ARE "interruptions"...
> >

> >Of course there are interruptions! (unless I'm wrong..
>
> No, not wrong....I didn't mean to imply that. What I am implying is the
> these conditions may not be "interruptions" in the sense I read your
> comments...but "natural" conditions along one end or another of the
> spectrum. Because they are not common, and do not always benefit the
> individual in TODAY'S society doesn't mean that they are, of necessity,
> "interruptions" in development.
> I'm painting this philosophy with a very broad brush.
>

That would be one view, that is that development just varies among
population members without need for an external agent to cause the
variation. I suspect that everything having to do with development is
the result of a response to some sort of external stimulus (but you
probably wouldn't disagree with that); I am being intuitive in using the
idea of an interruption of development. It is not something that I know
as a "fact", it is a guess based on a lot of little things that may seem
unrelated. I'll bet that the "true" process is very messy and difficult
to classify (you probably wouldn't disagree with that either).

> >What does it mean to "just like" something? Is is a tic? Is it a
> >compulsion? What is it that an organism gets from an activity that
> causes
> >it to participate in that activity over and over? I would not think
> that
> >the mind functions in the realm of magic.
>

> Not in the typical sense. "Just liking" may be a combination of
> fundamental physiology/anatomy and "personality."
>

I see personality as physiological. I am leaning toward a view that sees
human behavior as physiological, even if it has to do with cultural
norms.

> >What hierarchy of learning? One may learn about social things or one
> may
> >learn about non-social things.
>

> That was my point. I read, perhaps incorrectly, from your words that
> interests in "social" things were, somehow, more desirable than things
> not typically considered "for the good of the group." I don't entirely
> agree with that concept.
>

I think what I was getting at was that humans would never have survived
if they had not become very skilled socially (I would say that given two
similar populations, Neanderthals and modern humans for instance, the
more social population, that would be the modern humans, would be more
likely to survive and thrive in the long run than the more... um... AS,
or autistic-like population, that would be the Neanderthals). I would
venture to say that those who are more social would have a higher
probability of survival, but then most humans are capable of
sophisticated social behavior even if they aren't good at it. There is
more to our environment that the kind of information that social
individuals process so well, thus there is an advantage to other types of
mental processing (which just happen to bring along certain syndromes as
a byproduct).

> Each of these is part of our environment,
> >each has something to offer.
>

> Agreed. If that's what you meant, then I misread your intent in the
> previous post.
>

> , it is best if
> >one can do some of both.
>

> To an extent, and in the ideal world. However, there can no longer be
> such thing as a "Renaissance Man"...er.....person......there is just too
> much information out there for the single entity to learn.
>

But the "Renaissance Person" doesn't know a lot of facts, they know the
big picture, how to learn what is necessary, and the desire to continue
learning about a lot of different and seemingly unrelated things. Taken
over an entire lifespan it may appear that they have learned a lot of
facts but all they really need to do is learn a few processes and then be
very intuitive in applying thses to all areas of knowledge. Many times
the unrelated things are just the background for information about one
thing in particular. A person with TS who seems to hop around to
different topics may not really be doing so. This person may be squarely
planted at the intersection of many different fields of knowledge while
those who converse with them are actually the ones hopping over unrelated
fields because they do not see the intersection. Seeing that
intersection is done with intuition (guessing a whole from various
parts).

> If society is filled mostly with people who can
> >hear, listening to music will be seen as more important because that is
> >what most people can do. The minority who can see will feel that it is
> >more important to learn how to look at things before one learns how to
> >listen to things.
> >

> And ALL approaches should be given, in my opinion, equal consideration
> and weight.
>

I am not sure about this one, but certainly no approace should be
excluded or minimized.

> >>
> >
> >Once, while in a park, I bent down to watch the way water bubbled over
> a
> >tiny waterfall. When others came up to see what I was looking at they
> >walked away shaking their heads. Later, when I was told about
> someone's
> >friend who had an autistic child who could go on and on watching
> jingling
> >keys I though, "so, what's unusual about that?", then warning bells
> went
> >off and I started researching what it means to be autistic.
>

> Help me understand what you are saying here. Do you suggest that watching
> the way water bubbles (or whatever) may be signs of autism? If that's so,
> then I'd want to start looking at the definition of autism..and the
> potential in it for GOOD things.
>

It is my understanding that symptoms for autistic-like behavior include
focusing on parts of things and a tendency to involve oneself in solitary
pursuits. The ability to focus on parts of things is the basis of
intuition. One cannot guess an entire pattern if one is compelled to
start looking at it at some "beginning" and follow it to some "end".
Intuition makes things happen a lot faster, intuition is the basis of
creativity, creativity is the basis of what humans call "genius". How
many great thinkers like Einstein and Da Vinci have been associated with
various syndromes? This would make autism the unfortunate byproduct of
the human quality of creativity (but unfortunately there was just a
little too much of "this" and not enough of "that"). I would see many
human syndromes as the price we pay for the occasional "genius".

> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, if only EVERYONE had more "puppy" in them.....as well as a
> healthy
> >> dose of the more natural "wild." And the ability to distinguish
> between,
> >> appreciate, and cultivate both.
> >>
> >And to think, I always liked cats better...
>

> okay......"if only everyone had more "kitten" in them.....too.......but
> then, there we go...expecting one person to "have it all."
>
> :-))
> KAT in CT

Dogs are more social creatures, cats are more autistic-like (i.e. keeping
to themselves) creatures. Humans tend to have an average level of dog
and an average level of cat.

Ok, did I say enough to get you going? Remember, everything I say is
right,... unless it's wrong...

(please ignore any spelling mistakes, I'm in a hurry...)

[Kathryn Taubert]

>

>Now are you ready to believe that "dogs" helped Homo sapiens sapiens to
>evolve themselves and eventually become the sole hominid on earth?

Of course not..I'm ready, however, to discuss the POSSIBILITY of
cooperative relationships among and between species...which is not
without precedent.

The
>concept of "socialness" is a very important one with respect to
>survivial; this is the aspect that allowed hominid evolution by
providing
>a survival advantage greater than the disadvantages of life on the
>ground.

Well, that's speculation too. I'm not negating the importance of
"socialness" to human survival, or even wolf survival, prairie dog
survival, et al. I'm just saying that it's not the "end all be all" in
that there are important things to be found in a certain solitude and
solitariness that we don't often give enough credence too, IMHO.

>I see personality as physiological. I am leaning toward a view that
sees
>human behavior as physiological, even if it has to do with cultural
>norms.

As yes, the reductionist approach.....interesting..not without its many
supporters, and completely impossible to prove/disprove at this time. The
thinking presently seems to allow for "somewhere in the middle".....
genes/biology predisposes.....environment shapes....

>
>>>
>
>I think what I was getting at was that humans would never have survived
>if they had not become very skilled socially (I would say that given
two
>similar populations,

Quite possible, considering our rather puny physical stature and rampant
vulnerability. However, we must give some credence to the opposable thumb,
rotating neck, cerebral cortex, and bi lateral vision, as well.

Neanderthals and modern humans for instance, the
>more social population, that would be the modern humans, would be more
>likely to survive and thrive in the long run than the more... um... AS,
>or autistic-like population, that would be the Neanderthals).

Well, if you "believe" in the Sasquatch, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, et al..
.perhaps Neandertal DIDN'T die out...<smiling>

Actually, I vote for bacteria and viruses as the "top dog" so to speak,
of all life forms in terms of longevity, stamina, ability to survive,
thrive. I suppose you could say they are "social" in the purest sense of
the word.......sort of...

>> To an extent, and in the ideal world. However, there can no longer be
>> such thing as a "Renaissance Man"...er.....person......there is just
too
>> much information out there for the single entity to learn.
>>

>. Taken
>over an entire lifespan it may appear that they have learned a lot of
>facts but all they really need to do is learn a few processes and then
be
>very intuitive in applying thses to all areas of knowledge. Many times
>the unrelated things are just the background for information about one
>thing in particular. A person with TS who seems to hop around to
>different topics may not really be doing so.

Or, perhaps, may be processing information differently..there is some
evidence that "we" do..and not without considerable benefit, cognitively..
.
"lateral processing" as it were....

This person may be squarely
>planted at the intersection of many different fields of knowledge while
>those who converse with them are actually the ones hopping over
unrelated
>fields because they do not see the intersection. Seeing that
>intersection is done with intuition (guessing a whole from various
>parts).

Actually, some of us with TS and those who study us suggest that we not
only see the intersection, we "see it" sooner, faster.

>
>> Help me understand what you are saying here. Do you suggest that
watching
>> the way water bubbles (or whatever) may be signs of autism? If that's
so,
>> then I'd want to start looking at the definition of autism..and the
>> potential in it for GOOD things.
>>
>
>It is my understanding that symptoms for autistic-like behavior include
>focusing on parts of things and a tendency to involve oneself in
solitary
>pursuits.

Perhaps this "hyperfocus" is, as you mean it, at the extreme end of
"useful".
In other words....going a bit too far with he pendulum becomes
counterproductive?

I would see many
>human syndromes as the price we pay for the occasional "genius".

Yep, interesting thought. And perhaps, in another "world" those
"syndromes" would be as valuable as the "genius" they paid for. For
example, certain people with autism..form of it...hyperlexia....are
prodigys when it comes to reading, absorbing information from the written
word....

>
>Dogs are more social creatures, cats are more autistic-like (i.e.
keeping
>to themselves) creatures. Humans tend to have an average level of dog
>and an average level of cat.

Well, actually, there is a recent study of "barn cats" that shoots that
theory about cats all to hades. Couple of hundred cats lived on a farm,
and observers noted that with sufficient food, they developed the SAME
social structure that dogs/humans did. They key is this: the size of the
territories required to support a single cat..the usually solitary hunter.

Cats ARE social....they just have larger territorities. When the
environment supports their physical needs, the social atmosphere develops
in ways that can be noted, observed....."aunts" taking care of kittens,
common grooming among related cats..and sometimes unrelated ones.

It all has to do with the amount of food/shelter available.

>
>Ok, did I say enough to get you going? Remember, everything I say is
>right,... unless it's wrong...

I luv this kind of stuff.....of the mind....discussion......thought
provoking.....you can ALWAYS get me going with it..:-))

>
>(please ignore any spelling mistakes, I'm in a hurry...)

No problem....me too...spelling mistakes galore.....sigh...

KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <68rupt$1dbs$2...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,

BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
> >
>
> >Now are you ready to believe that "dogs" helped Homo sapiens sapiens to
> >evolve themselves and eventually become the sole hominid on earth?
>
> Of course not..I'm ready, however, to discuss the POSSIBILITY of
> cooperative relationships among and between species...which is not
> without precedent.
>

Humans are now social creatures that have reached population densities
that will support certain crowd diseases. Some early epidemics took
place in Egypt and the early Roman Empire. Since then plagues and
epidemics have been recorded frequently in history. The major factor in
the disappearance of Native American populations was disease; within the
first two hundred years after the voyage of Columbus the Native American
population was reduced to five percent of its pre-Columbian level most of
this was due to exposure to diseases such as smallpox to which native
populations had not previously been exposed (there's a neat article in an
old Discover magazine on this, I think from 1992). Those who dominated
North and South America were of populations that had already been exposed
to various crowd diseases, the village and tribal nature of most of the
native populations did not provide the population density necessary to
support crowd diseases and there was not a large scale domestication of
creatures that would increase human exposure to animal pathogens from
social animal populations (such as pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, and so
forth). There must have been a time when human populations were very
small and exposure to social animals almost non-existent. At these times
humans would be vulnerable to animal pathogens which had not fully
adapted to a human host and were therefore more virulent. Dogs would
represent a social population that had encountered crowd diseases. The
pathogens for such diseases would have, over a number of years, adapted
to their hosts so that these diseases were endemic to the canine
population. Contact with hominid populations would have exposed these
populations to disease. Hominid populations would have responded as did
Native American populations to the diseases brought by Europeans to the
New World except that the canine borne diseases should have been more
lethal since they had not yet adapted to hominid populations. Continued
exposure to canine populations may have held these hominid populations in
check and served to accelerate physiological changes by continually
reducing the breeding hominid populations to a fraction of what they had
been thus increasing the frequency of occurrence of any traits that might
have given members a survival advantage (perhaps being introverted was
helpful). Over time different hominid populations may have diverged. If
one group continued to be exposed to canines, eventually canine pathogens
would have evolved strains that were adapted to human hosts and therefore
less deadly. Eventually these hominid populations would begin to
increase; without disease to keep this population growth in check there
would have been a need to expand the territory occupied by these
hominids. Any contact with other hominids would have resulted in a
situation similar to that of Native American populations where crowd
diseases were carried to new isolated populations as Europeans expanded
to fill the void left as entire villages and tribes succumbed to disease.
With this scenario warfare between Neanderthals and modern humans would
not have been necessary for the Neanderthal population to disappear. In
addition, in this scenario exposure to "dogs" created an external
pressure to which a hominid population responded through physiological
evolution. So, is this stretching it too far? (I know there are a lot of
"may haves" and "could haves" but I bet you could use this argument for
physiological changes in modern humans on a small scale, something like
the genetic diseases that continue to plague various minority populations
whose members have resided in the same areas for thousands of years;
anyway I just like the ideas and if they are based on sound theories
things should have worked this way given the right initial conditions) In
some way or another anything external to a population can be seen as a
shaping influence. I would not be surprised to find a number of external
shaping factors in places that we had never before thought to look.

> The
> >concept of "socialness" is a very important one with respect to
> >survivial; this is the aspect that allowed hominid evolution by
> providing
> >a survival advantage greater than the disadvantages of life on the
> >ground.
>
> Well, that's speculation too. I'm not negating the importance of
> "socialness" to human survival, or even wolf survival, prairie dog
> survival, et al. I'm just saying that it's not the "end all be all" in
> that there are important things to be found in a certain solitude and
> solitariness that we don't often give enough credence too, IMHO.
>

I think that solitariness is appreciated, as is genius, after the fact.
Before hand, when people are gaining the benefits of solitude, they have
to pay a price for their lack of socialness. Things might be easier if
people would recognize that there are differences in everyone and that
noting is right for everyone.

>
>I see personality as physiological. I am leaning toward a view that
> sees
> >human behavior as physiological, even if it has to do with cultural
> >norms.
>
> As yes, the reductionist approach.....interesting..not without its many
> supporters, and completely impossible to prove/disprove at this time. The
> thinking presently seems to allow for "somewhere in the middle".....
> genes/biology predisposes.....environment shapes....
>

But humans are built to be able to modify behavior as a response to their
environment; humans can learn. Because of this I would say that even
environmental influences are in a sense genetically based because people
will inherit the ways in which they acquire and process external
information (which would be personality). I have a feeling that I must
see, and hold as important, concepts and ideas in ways different from
many others.

>
> >>>
> >
> >I think what I was getting at was that humans would never have survived
> >if they had not become very skilled socially (I would say that given
> two
> >similar populations,
>
> Quite possible, considering our rather puny physical stature and rampant
> vulnerability. However, we must give some credence to the opposable thumb,
> rotating neck, cerebral cortex, and bi lateral vision, as well.
>

All very useful traits, many of which occur better developed in apes.
Something had to help keep populations alive for these traits to appear;
once they had been acquired they would undoubtedly give a survival
advantage greater than that of similar populations without them.

> Neanderthals and modern humans for instance, the
> >more social population, that would be the modern humans, would be more
> >likely to survive and thrive in the long run than the more... um... AS,
> >or autistic-like population, that would be the Neanderthals).
>
> Well, if you "believe" in the Sasquatch, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, et al..
> .perhaps Neandertal DIDN'T die out...<smiling>

But who are we absolutely positive didn't die out?

>
> Actually, I vote for bacteria and viruses as the "top dog" so to speak,
> of all life forms in terms of longevity, stamina, ability to survive,
> thrive. I suppose you could say they are "social" in the purest sense of
> the word.......sort of...
>

They are all the same creature aren't they? Don't they use asexual
reproduction? (and we think we're special for cloning a few animals...)

> >> To an extent, and in the ideal world. However, there can no longer be
> >> such thing as a "Renaissance Man"...er.....person......there is just
> too
> >> much information out there for the single entity to learn.
> >>
> >. Taken
> >over an entire lifespan it may appear that they have learned a lot of
> >facts but all they really need to do is learn a few processes and then
> be
> >very intuitive in applying thses to all areas of knowledge. Many times
> >the unrelated things are just the background for information about one
> >thing in particular. A person with TS who seems to hop around to
> >different topics may not really be doing so.
>
> Or, perhaps, may be processing information differently..there is some
> evidence that "we" do..and not without considerable benefit, cognitively..
> .
> "lateral processing" as it were....
>

I think I was sort of trying to get at this. Intuitive processing is a
different approach than sensing (to use the Myers-Briggs terminology).

> This person may be squarely
> >planted at the intersection of many different fields of knowledge while
> >those who converse with them are actually the ones hopping over
> unrelated
> >fields because they do not see the intersection. Seeing that
> >intersection is done with intuition (guessing a whole from various
> >parts).
>
> Actually, some of us with TS and those who study us suggest that we not
> only see the intersection, we "see it" sooner, faster.
>

Yep, this is definitely one of the things I was getting at. It is the
difference between guessing the answer on "Wheel of Fortune" with only a
few letters visible (and no vowels?...I don't watch it so I don't know
much about it) and having to first get each letter displayed.

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <68rupt$1dbs$2...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:

> >
> >Dogs are more social creatures, cats are more autistic-like (i.e.
> keeping
> >to themselves) creatures. Humans tend to have an average level of dog
> >and an average level of cat.
>
> Well, actually, there is a recent study of "barn cats" that shoots that
> theory about cats all to hades. Couple of hundred cats lived on a farm,
> and observers noted that with sufficient food, they developed the SAME
> social structure that dogs/humans did. They key is this: the size of the
> territories required to support a single cat..the usually solitary hunter.
>
> Cats ARE social....they just have larger territorities. When the
> environment supports their physical needs, the social atmosphere develops
> in ways that can be noted, observed....."aunts" taking care of kittens,
> common grooming among related cats..and sometimes unrelated ones.
>
> It all has to do with the amount of food/shelter available.

Well, I imagine that cats have a certain level of socialness but in
general they don't tend to be social in the way that dogs are. A barn
cat society is somewhat contrived when considering the way cats generally
live without humans. Some cats are more social in the wild than others
(lions? but then it's a harem kinda thing isn't it?). I think you know
what I was driving at without trying to find exceptions to shoot down the
general concept; there are always exceptions. (and if there aren't we'll
make some!)

> >
> >Ok, did I say enough to get you going? Remember, everything I say is
> >right,... unless it's wrong...
>
> I luv this kind of stuff.....of the mind....discussion......thought
> provoking.....you can ALWAYS get me going with it..:-))
>

It seems that most women aren't stimulated by such discussions. Are
there ever any on "Bay Watch"? I never look at television any more...
(probably for the better, but if I could get the discover channel I would
be in real trouble...)

[Kathryn Taubert]

lots of stuff snipped...in the interest of time and bandwidth...not lack
of interest in the topic!!

>>
>
>I think that solitariness is appreciated, as is genius, after the fact.

>Before hand, when people are gaining the benefits of solitude, they
have
>to pay a price for their lack of socialness.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said so well: "It is easy to live in the world
after the world's opinion. It is easy for one to live in solitude, on
one's own. But the great man is he, who in the midst of the crowd, keeps
with perfect sweetness, the independence of solitude."

Things might be easier if
>people would recognize that there are differences in everyone and that
>noting is right for everyone.
>

Amen.

>>
>
>
>But humans are built to be able to modify behavior as a response to
their
>environment; humans can learn.

One of the criteria for "sentient being" is the ability to learn.

Because of this I would say that even
>environmental influences are in a sense genetically based because
people
>will inherit the ways in which they acquire and process external
>information (which would be personality).

To some extent, certainly. However, we cannot overrule the importance of
external forces that can, as you said so well above, cause the individual
to "learn" to overcome his/her natural proclivities, yes?

I have a feeling that I must
>see, and hold as important, concepts and ideas in ways different from
>many others.

Many others, yes. But not all. You share kindred spirits among many.

>
>
>All very useful traits, many of which occur better developed in apes.

Except, of course, for the cerebral cortex, vocal folds, etc. Even that
may be suspect..since language is now known NOT to be the sole province
of sapiens sapiens, nor is our brain/body ratio the greatest.
(Certain Cetaceans, i.e. bottle nosed dolphins have us beat. )
It is also possible that Neandertal did, as well.

>Something had to help keep populations alive for these traits to appear;

>once they had been acquired they would undoubtedly give a survival
>advantage greater than that of similar populations without them.

Agriculture kept us alive. And was, according to some theorists, the
beginning of the "end" of the species.

>
>>
>> Well, if you "believe" in the Sasquatch, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, et
al..
>> .perhaps Neandertal DIDN'T die out...<smiling>
>
>But who are we absolutely positive didn't die out?

I'm not so sure "they" did either. We STILL don't know who made "those"
footprints.........

>>
>> Actually, I vote for bacteria and viruses as the "top dog" so to speak,

>> of all life forms in terms of longevity, stamina, ability to survive,
>> thrive. I suppose you could say they are "social" in the purest sense
of
>> the word.......sort of...
>>
>They are all the same creature aren't they?

Bacteria and viruses are a bit different.

>>
>> Or, perhaps, may be processing information differently..there is some
>> evidence that "we" do..and not without considerable benefit,
cognitively..
>> .
>> "lateral processing" as it were....
>>
>I think I was sort of trying to get at this. Intuitive processing is a
>different approach than sensing (to use the Myers-Briggs terminology).

Heard a great definition of intuition vs esp the other night:
"intuition"-foresight with some foreknowledge.
esp-foresight with NO foreknowledge.

Methinks that "sensing" is part and parcel of "intuition."

>>>
>> Actually, some of us with TS and those who study us suggest that we
not
>> only see the intersection, we "see it" sooner, faster.
>>
>
>Yep, this is definitely one of the things I was getting at. It is the
>difference between guessing the answer on "Wheel of Fortune" with only
a
>few letters visible (and no vowels?...I don't watch it so I don't know
>much about it) and having to first get each letter displayed.
>
>-------------------=

ah yes, and now we've come full circle. Back to the reel world of "Wheel".
.
:-))
KAT in CT

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>Well, I imagine that cats have a certain level of socialness but in
>general they don't tend to be social in the way that dogs are.

True. Cats require more "personal space" than dogs do.

I think you know
>what I was driving at without trying to find exceptions to shoot down
the
>general concept; there are always exceptions. (and if there aren't
we'll
>make some!)

Perhaps I don't...please enlighten me. I wasn't trying to shoot you down..
merely explore the concept..which requires looking at all aspects of it..
...and when dealing with animal behavior...we are all much more alike
than typical Westernized society would have us believe....

>
>> >
>> >Ok, did I say enough to get you going? Remember, everything I say is
>> >right,... unless it's wrong...
>>
>> I luv this kind of stuff.....of the mind....discussion......thought
>> provoking.....you can ALWAYS get me going with it..:-))
>>
>

>It seems that most women aren't stimulated by such discussions. Are
>there ever any on "Bay Watch"?

Nope, not since I left
(har har)

I never look at television any more...
>(probably for the better, but if I could get the discover channel I
would
>be in real trouble...)

Try The Learning Channel...it's one of the better ones.....and then I
happen to love UPN because of STAR TREK in all it's versions........I can
get really biased in a hurry over THAT topic....
>
>KAT in CT

[John Morten Malerbakken]

My second son have always been facinated with open fire, and although being very
well avare of what might happen, he never misses an opportunity to try out
lighters and matches. Since we are non-smokers in the house, we keep matches (for
the open fireplace) well hidden. He is uncontrolable around these things.

That damage from burns should teach you not to play with fire, has been proven
wrong a number of times. The house still stands though (touch wood).

John Morten

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <68ung1$1cui$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>

> >But humans are built to be able to modify behavior as a response to
> their
> >environment; humans can learn.
>

> One of the criteria for "sentient being" is the ability to learn.
>

Well that leaves out my wife's cousin William, of whom it was once said
provided a very good example of the fact that humans can survive without
a brain... this caused my son some confusion about human physiology at
the time (no, I didn't say it, but after hearing a story or two about him
I had to really wonder...)

> >All very useful traits, many of which occur better developed in apes.
>

> Except, of course, for the cerebral cortex, vocal folds, etc. Even that
> may be suspect..since language is now known NOT to be the sole province
> of sapiens sapiens, nor is our brain/body ratio the greatest.
> (Certain Cetaceans, i.e. bottle nosed dolphins have us beat. )
> It is also possible that Neandertal did, as well.

Hmmm... well, spoken and written (which are spoken once removed)
languages are not the only languages. Art, for example, is also a
language; one that was developed to express things that cannot be
expressed by spoken or written languages. Mathematics is also a
language, which means that it is created by man and does not exist on its
own independent of man (the things it tries to express may be independent
of man but since it is man who is trying to express them, they wouldn't
necessarily even be expressed the same way without man.) Neanderthals
brain size is supposed to be partially related to an adaptation to the
cold (I think...) Size isn't everything, brain/body ratio isn't
everything (you can't run any more software for a 286 on a pentium with
32 meg of memory than you can on the 286, because of how the memory is
used; you gotta be able to use it for it to be any advantage... <Hey!,
stop thinking that everyone!!! go back and start at the beginning of the
paragraph and stop jumping in at the middle!! yeah, yeah, sure you
weren't thinking that way... well you shoulda kept those thought bubbles
hidden!>)

>
> >Something had to help keep populations alive for these traits to appear;
>
> >once they had been acquired they would undoubtedly give a survival
> >advantage greater than that of similar populations without them.
>

> Agriculture kept us alive. And was, according to some theorists, the
> beginning of the "end" of the species.

But it is just an additional example of humans evolving themselves. It's
not simply a case of responding to external stimuli anymore. For those
of you who tend to be more religious, it's the original sin, the quest
for knowledge and understanding, the aspiring to be God and the
consequent tresspassing on His realm... but that was the way humans were
made and that is their destiny, to be tormented with doubt as they assume
more and more of the powers that were once only God's (which then leads
into all kinds of arguments over capital punishment, euthanasia, human
rights, animal rights, the definition of death and of birth, and on and
on and on... and we sit here chained to this rock called "earth" for
stealing fire, the whole time scheming to get away...)

> >
> >>
> >> Well, if you "believe" in the Sasquatch, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, et
> al..
> >> .perhaps Neandertal DIDN'T die out...<smiling>
> >
> >But who are we absolutely positive didn't die out?
>

> I'm not so sure "they" did either. We STILL don't know who made "those"
> footprints.........
>

I've known a few size 14 EEE's in my time, I'm quite a bit smaller in the
foot department...

> >>
> >> Actually, I vote for bacteria and viruses as the "top dog" so to speak,
>
> >> of all life forms in terms of longevity, stamina, ability to survive,
> >> thrive. I suppose you could say they are "social" in the purest sense
> of
> >> the word.......sort of...
> >>
> >They are all the same creature aren't they?
>

> Bacteria and viruses are a bit different.
>

No... I meant aren't creatures that multiply asexually all the same
genetically, i.e. all the x bacteria are esentially the same and all the
y bacteria and so on, of course there are the occasional mutants but
wouldn't it be like having all humans looking virtually identical? (in
which case males and females would be different species... which might
explain a lot... but fortunately there is a nice variety...)

> >> Actually, some of us with TS and those who study us suggest that we
> not
> >> only see the intersection, we "see it" sooner, faster.
> >>
> >
> >Yep, this is definitely one of the things I was getting at. It is the
> >difference between guessing the answer on "Wheel of Fortune" with only
> a
> >few letters visible (and no vowels?...I don't watch it so I don't know
> >much about it) and having to first get each letter displayed.
> >

Where guessing would be what I call intuition and having to get all the
letters first is what I call sensing (i.e. one kind of person guesses and
the other doesn't... in general, mind you... I guess...)

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <68unnt$m06$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,

BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Well, I imagine that cats have a certain level of socialness but in
> >general they don't tend to be social in the way that dogs are.
>
> True. Cats require more "personal space" than dogs do.
>
> I think you know
> >what I was driving at without trying to find exceptions to shoot down
> the
> >general concept; there are always exceptions. (and if there aren't
> we'll
> >make some!)
>
> Perhaps I don't...please enlighten me. I wasn't trying to shoot you down..
> merely explore the concept..which requires looking at all aspects of it..
> ...and when dealing with animal behavior...we are all much more alike
> than typical Westernized society would have us believe....
> >

Ok, the old stereotype: dogs = pack mentality = socialness; cats =
independent mentality = non-socialness. I'm sure you could find
exceptions to these but I think they are the ideas that first come to
mind for most people. The cat and dog thing is the same as diagnosing
TS, AS, OCD, etc. or the same as the concept of "race", it is just a
shorthand for an idea and not something real.

> >> >

> >It seems that most women aren't stimulated by such discussions. Are
> >there ever any on "Bay Watch"?
>
> Nope, not since I left
> (har har)

Oh, are you a valley girl too? (um... better not go there... but lets
just say that I couldn't take a Bay Watch girl for very long if the lamp
in her lighthouse wasn't lit...um... if she was dim... you know, a 25
watter or so... ah, not so bright?... beauty is not just skin deep, but
of course a beautiful outside doesn't detract... er... maybe I better
stop now befor I get in way too deep... if I haven't already...)

>
>
> Try The Learning Channel...it's one of the better ones.....and then I
> happen to love UPN because of STAR TREK in all it's versions........I can
> get really biased in a hurry over THAT topic....

Learning channel? But that presupposes that I am a sentient being...

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>I

>>
>> One of the criteria for "sentient being" is the ability to learn.
>>
>
>Well that leaves out my wife's cousin William, of whom it was once said
>provided a very good example of the fact that humans can survive
without
>a brain..

ROFL....great line....sorry I took so long to laugh out loud...been
preoccupied with other things lately...haven't logged on in a week, now
have 500 posts to wade through...sigh....
>

>Hmmm... well, spoken and written (which are spoken once removed)
>languages are not the only languages. Art, for example, is also a
>language; one that was developed to express things that cannot be
>expressed by spoken or written languages.

Have you heard of the "bower bird?" Builds this beautiful little "house"
for his intended..decorates it with flowers, pretty rocks...etc. Amazing
feat of "art" and "architecture." The prettier the "bower" the more
likely the male is to win his mate.

) Neanderthals
>brain size is supposed to be partially related to an adaptation to the
>cold (I think...)

I don't think anyone knows for certain. I don't, that's for sure! Makes
for some interesting speculation, however.

Size isn't everything, brain/body ratio isn't
>everything

Well, I'll try to keep this on topic (GUFFAW)......

(you can't run any more software for a 286 on a pentium with
>32 meg of memory than you can on the 286,

You'd know more about that than I, as I'm barely out of the realm of
computer illiterate.....however, what STILL amazes me is how complicated
a computer is, and yet, how insignificant it is in that regard relative
to the "computer" of the human brain.

>>>
>> Agriculture kept us alive. And was, according to some theorists, the
>> beginning of the "end" of the species.
>
>But it is just an additional example of humans evolving themselves.

Actually, I'm not so sure that we are "evolving" in that regard. Hunter
gatherers had better health, (more varied diet), more free time, less
social tumoil, from what we've been able to determine from what few such
"tribes" we were able to actually study before we pilloried their
lifestyles with T-shirts and Walkmans...sigh...

What killed them were diseases, probably, and some of the same things as
we currently have..arthritis, severe injury. And, yes, the probable,
occasional "war." Homo sapiens was "designed" to live in groups of no
more than about 50 people. Once agriculture allowed us to live
"congested" in groups much larger, many of our most significant societal
problems began to surface, according to Tiger and Fox in, The Imperial
Animal.

and we sit here chained to this rock called "earth" for
>stealing fire, the whole time scheming to get away...)
>

I love this statement......wonderfully metaphoric....and very, very true,
IMHO.

>> >
>>
>> I'm not so sure "they" did either. We STILL don't know who made
"those"
>> footprints.........
>>
>
>I've known a few size 14 EEE's in my time, I'm quite a bit smaller in
the
>foot department...
>

LOL

.
>> >>
>> >They are all the same creature aren't they?
>>
>> Bacteria and viruses are a bit different.
>>
>
>No... I meant aren't creatures that multiply asexually all the same
>genetically, i.e. all the x bacteria are esentially the same and all
the
>y bacteria and so on, of course there are the occasional mutants

and this is the biggest difference. Their "time lines" are so vastly
different than ours. They mutate VERY quickly..which is what makes them
so "dangerous" at once, so "safe."

For example, the book The Hot Zone details very well what happens in the
virus world....with the simian ebola that "escaped" in the Virginia
installation...and mutated to be harmless to humans...thank the Lord.

Same with the common cold.....speculation is that there are about 200
different forms.....if you had one cold a year...you'd never get them all.
.at least nobody I know would.....and some probably still mutating....

I think viruses are the real mutation experts. I don't know about
bacteria. I'm sure they have more mutations per period of time than WE do,
however.

th TS and those who study us suggest that we
>> not
>> >> only see the intersection, we "see it" sooner, faster.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yep, this is definitely one of the things I was getting at. It is
the
>> >difference between guessing the answer on "Wheel of Fortune" with
only
>> a
>> >few letters visible (and no vowels?...I don't watch it so I don't
know
>> >much about it) and having to first get each letter displayed.
>> >
>

hmmm..interesting. What I don't know if this would require additional
brain functions not precisely included in the "visual processing"
category. For example, seeing it quickly is not necessarily being able to
DO anything with the information that quickly, although one would assume
so. It would suggest why some folks with TS did so well on some of the
"tests," such as the Wisconsin Card Sort, I believe (don't quote this as
gospel, ya'll..I don't know this for certain...)...

KAT in CT ...back from TX

[Kathryn Taubert]

>> Perhaps I don't...please enlighten me. I wasn't trying to shoot you
down..
>> merely explore the concept..which requires looking at all aspects of
it..
>> ...and when dealing with animal behavior...we are all much more alike
>> than typical Westernized society would have us believe....
>> >
>
>Ok, the old stereotype: dogs = pack mentality = socialness; cats =
>independent mentality = non-socialness. I'm sure you could find
>exceptions to these but I think they are the ideas that first come to
>mind for most people. The cat and dog thing is the same as diagnosing
>TS, AS, OCD, etc. or the same as the concept of "race", it is just a
>shorthand for an idea and not something real.
>

Okay, gotcha'. Sometimes, in these kinds of discussions, I get very
literal......

>> >> >
>
>>
>Oh, are you a valley girl too?

Naw, I grew up on the Farm in S.E. TX...'bout as far away from THAT
valley as ya can git.

(um... better not go there... but lets
>just say that I couldn't take a Bay Watch girl for very long if the
lamp
>in her lighthouse wasn't lit...um... if she was dim... you know, a 25
>watter or so... ah, not so bright?... beauty is not just skin deep, but
>of course a beautiful outside doesn't detract... er... maybe I better
>stop now befor I get in way too deep... if I haven't already...)

Yep. Yer in it up to yer earlobes....

>
>Learning channel? But that presupposes that I am a sentient being...
>

Yeah, aka TLC......ironic, isnt' it?

Sentience (sp?) is, of course, relative. WE like to think WE are.....but
when one reads or studies octopi, dolphins, etc...one wonders.....

KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69iq42$tvu$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:

> Have you heard of the "bower bird?" Builds this beautiful little "house"
> for his intended..decorates it with flowers, pretty rocks...etc. Amazing
> feat of "art" and "architecture." The prettier the "bower" the more
> likely the male is to win his mate.

But you are projecting your concepts of pretty and architecture onto the
bower bird. You are then using this to draw conclusions. Art,
recognized spoken and written languages, mathematics, music, dance, etc.
are all human languages. They are languages because they are used to
intentionally convey information from one human to another, if they do
not facilitate communication they are not language, if they do facilitate
communication between humans they are language. Language is subjective.
This should give you an idea of what art is, if it communicates it is
art, if it doesn't it is gibberish. A language understood by only one is
no longer a language, it is babble. What we call art and mathematics and
so forth exist only because humans invented them. The reality they are
meant to convey will always remain unknown to us, we may agree on models
of our universe but they will always be nothing more than working models
subject to change. So the concept of art associated with a different
species must be applied with caution and perhaps the idea of its function
among its users rather than with what humans feel human art is.

(so did I really say anything here? I think I kinda meant that no matter
what we do, we are still anthropomorphic)

>
> I don't think anyone knows for certain. I don't, that's for sure! Makes
> for some interesting speculation, however.

In regard to the larger Neanderthal head associated with adaptation to
the cold, I heard Sunday, when I sneaked out to Jamestown rather than
come straight home from the convention, that the earth was going through
a mini-ice age during the 17th century and that the temperature was on
average three degrees cooler back then. I was also told that humans had
larger heads back then (just another tid bit to add to the observation
that the largest average human head size belongs to those populations in
the arctic). It was a neat visit, they've found the original pre-1610
fort ya know... and they found a burial... the guy had been shot in the
back of the leg with a musket, the lead ball was still there! it is
speculated that the bullet hit an artery and he blead to death very
quickly, there are no signs of healing, they removed him in situ in a
large block of earth and have him laid out in the lab where they are
working on him, you can see him through the window, it's a pretty cool
site!

>
> You'd know more about that than I, as I'm barely out of the realm of
> computer illiterate.....however, what STILL amazes me is how complicated
> a computer is, and yet, how insignificant it is in that regard relative
> to the "computer" of the human brain.
>

The physical laws that determine how a computer functions must also apply
to other physical entities, such as brains. A computer does not have
infinite resources to store data, it is constrained by size. Data
processing and data acquisition are two different things, they put
keystroke buffers in to computers but one may still type so fast that
the buffer fills up and you lose information (at least you used to be
able to do that).

> >But it is just an additional example of humans evolving themselves.
>
> Actually, I'm not so sure that we are "evolving" in that regard. Hunter
> gatherers had better health, (more varied diet), more free time, less
> social tumoil, from what we've been able to determine from what few such
> "tribes" we were able to actually study before we pilloried their
> lifestyles with T-shirts and Walkmans...sigh...
>
> What killed them were diseases, probably, and some of the same things as
> we currently have..arthritis, severe injury. And, yes, the probable,
> occasional "war." Homo sapiens was "designed" to live in groups of no
> more than about 50 people. Once agriculture allowed us to live
> "congested" in groups much larger, many of our most significant societal
> problems began to surface, according to Tiger and Fox in, The Imperial
> Animal.
>

You are so judgemental! Evolution doesn't mean improve, it means change.
I think most of the time it is a change toward more complexity, but the
betterness is a subjective evaluation. (Don't take that comment as a mean
statement, I just want to point out that there is an implied agenda in
what you said, that evolution means things are better than before, I am
sure I make the same types of statements, it is almost impossible not to,
but they reflect opinion rather than "fact")

I am not sure I agree with you view regarding the health of
hunter-gatherers. It was my understanding that the development of cities
in the area of central Turkey around 7,000 B.C. or so help to lengthen
the average life span from about 30 to about 35-ish (these values are not
actually correct, I can't remember the correct ages but it was very much
on the order of what I have stated as I recall.) Culture is a major
adaptation to the environment and those with a more complex and flexible
culture tended to do better I think. This would argue that survivability
is enhanced by cultural development and that we should see much larger
populations with complex cultures than we do with more simple cultures.
If survivability is a measure of superiority, those with the most complex
cultures should be the most likely to survive and thus superior, while
those with simpler cultures should die off and be replaced.

> and we sit here chained to this rock called "earth" for
> >stealing fire, the whole time scheming to get away...)
> >
>
> I love this statement......wonderfully metaphoric....and very, very true,
> IMHO.
> >> >

I love this statement... it's so infrequent that anyone says anything nice
like that about things that I say...so I'll leave it in...

> and this is the biggest difference. Their "time lines" are so vastly
> different than ours. They mutate VERY quickly..which is what makes them
> so "dangerous" at once, so "safe."

There are those who suspect that evolution may ultimately found to be the
result of a battle for superiority between pathogens and their hosts.
(like maybe strep... causing the development of creatures with slightly
different brains that can take advantage of an increase of size or change
in wiring to run some new and more powerful software...)

>
> For example, the book The Hot Zone details very well what happens in the
> virus world....with the simian ebola that "escaped" in the Virginia
> installation...and mutated to be harmless to humans...thank the Lord.
>

WHAT??? Where in Virginia??? When did it happen??? (do you think I
coulda stepped in some on Sunday?)

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69iq42$tvu$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:

> hmmm..interesting. What I don't know if this would require additional
> brain functions not precisely included in the "visual processing"
> category. For example, seeing it quickly is not necessarily being able to
> DO anything with the information that quickly, although one would assume
> so. It would suggest why some folks with TS did so well on some of the
> "tests," such as the Wisconsin Card Sort, I believe (don't quote this as
> gospel, ya'll..I don't know this for certain...)...
>

There is sequential and random data acquisition and then there is
sequential and random data processing...

> KAT in CT ...back from TX

Where in Texas? I was in Texas once, Amarillo... it was flat... instead
of going to the mountains you would go to the canyon.

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>In article <69iq42$tvu$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
>> Have you heard of the "bower bird?" Builds this beautiful little
"house"
>> for his intended..decorates it with flowers, pretty rocks...etc.
Amazing
>> feat of "art" and "architecture." The prettier the "bower" the more
>> likely the male is to win his mate.
>
>But you are projecting your concepts of pretty and architecture onto
the
>bower bird. You are then using this to draw conclusions. Art,
>recognized spoken and written languages, mathematics, music, dance, etc.

>are all human languages.

Well, I can argue this point. To wit: elephants and chimps who "paint"
abstract art that appeals to us humans so much we pay thousands for it.
Define art. It's in the eye of the beholder, and in these cases, the
"beholder" are other species. Why are they painting? There's no "reward"
in it....other than the apparent intrinsic value of merely doing it.
How does one separate the art of the Bower Bird or brush wielding
pachyderm from a Calder or Van Gogh? (especially a Calder...:-))

They are languages because they are used to
>intentionally convey information from one human to another, if they do
>not facilitate communication they are not language, if they do
facilitate
>communication between humans they are language. Language is subjective.

And that assumes that "language" and "communication" are inherent ONLY to
our species.

>This should give you an idea of what art is, if it communicates it is
>art, if it doesn't it is gibberish.

Again, I have to suggest that the definition of art is virtually
impossible. And one person's (species??) "gibberish" is another's Picasso.

So the concept of art associated with a different
>species must be applied with caution and perhaps the idea of its
function
>among its users rather than with what humans feel human art is.

AGain, I refer to the elephants and chimps with paintbrushes. These
animals were given these "tools"...and they created "art." Out of nothing.
Without external "reward." They appear(ed) to be "enjoying" it.

>
>(so did I really say anything here? I think I kinda meant that no
matter
>what we do, we are still anthropomorphic)
>

Yep. And I have a lot of trouble with that word, indeed, that entire
concept. Anthropomorphism, in the usual context, connotes that we are
vastly different than other species. When one studies animal life in most
of its most complex forms, one is struck by just how SIMILAR we are.
>>

>
>In regard to the larger Neanderthal head associated with adaptation to
>the cold, I heard Sunday, when I sneaked out to Jamestown rather than
>come straight home from the convention, that the earth was going
through
>a mini-ice age during the 17th century and that the temperature was on
>average three degrees cooler back then.

Or perhaps we are digressing......we have brain functions that are
deteriorating for lack of use.....

it is
>speculated that the bullet hit an artery and he blead to death very
>quickly, there are no signs of healing, they removed him in situ in a
>large block of earth and have him laid out in the lab where they are
>working on him, you can see him through the window, it's a pretty cool
>site!
>

OOOOHHHHH....interesting!!!

>>
>>>
>
>The physical laws that determine how a computer functions must also
apply
>to other physical entities, such as brains. A computer does not have
>infinite resources to store data, it is constrained by size. Data
>processing and data acquisition are two different things, they put
>keystroke buffers in to computers but one may still type so fast that
>the buffer fills up and you lose information (at least you used to be
>able to do that).
>

To date, the limits to the human brain have not been identified, however.
And our "pcs" function, in parallel, at virtually the speed of light
(well...almost), without service warranties, for about 70 years. And,the
more one uses it, the healthier it is......not even INTEL can beat that.

>
>
>> we currently have..arthritis, severe injury. And, yes, the probable,
>> occasional "war." Homo sapiens was "designed" to live in groups of no
>> more than about 50 people. Once agriculture allowed us to live
>> "congested" in groups much larger, many of our most significant
societal
>> problems began to surface, according to Tiger and Fox in, The
Imperial
>> Animal.
>>
>
>You are so judgemental! Evolution doesn't mean improve, it means change.

Evolution usually results in something that is better suited to its
environment. If it isn't, the environment changes, or something "goes
wrong," then it dies out.Often times, we use the "evolution" to mean
"improve." That was the context in which I thought you meant it,
considering your earlier comment.

>I am not sure I agree with you view regarding the health of
>hunter-gatherers

You're entitled to disagree :-)). However, for a better educated opinion
on the subject, check out the book I mentioned earlier, "The Imperial
Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, an anthropologist and ethnologist
who've studied this subject extensively. Interesting..no FASCINATING
reading.

This would argue that survivability
>is enhanced by cultural development and that we should see much larger
>populations with complex cultures than we do with more simple cultures.
>If survivability is a measure of superiority, those with the most
complex
>cultures should be the most likely to survive and thus superior, while
>those with simpler cultures should die off and be replaced.
>

Unless we go "back" to viruses and bacteria...and sharks......these
animals do not appear to have "culture," and yet, they've survived
millions of years beyond anything we've been able to. In a relatively
short time, we've not only managed to cause the extinction of hundreds of
other species, but we're risking our own extinction with some of our
"cultural" interventions.

>
>
>There are those who suspect that evolution may ultimately found to be
the
>result of a battle for superiority between pathogens and their hosts.
>(like maybe strep... causing the development of creatures with slightly
>different brains that can take advantage of an increase of size or
change
>in wiring to run some new and more powerful software...)

The Selfish Gene is another book which discusses this kind of thing.
There is also some thinking that our very mitochondria are the result of
some ancient bacteria who colonized, reproduced, ad infinitum, and
"built" the higher life form that turned into "us" around themselves to
carry on their business of living, reproducing, etc.

>
>> For example, the book The Hot Zone details very well what happens in
the
>> virus world....with the simian ebola that "escaped" in the Virginia
>> installation...and mutated to be harmless to humans...thank the Lord.
>>
>
>WHAT??? Where in Virginia??? When did it happen??? (do you think I
>coulda stepped in some on Sunday?)
>

Somewhere near Washington DC. Perhaps others on line recall..it was a
facility that imported monkeys for medical research. Happened within the
last 10 or so years, I believe.

KAT in CT

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>> KAT in CT ...back from TX
>

>Where in Texas? I was in Texas once, Amarillo... it was flat...
instead
>of going to the mountains you would go to the canyon.

TX is like five different states: topographies, dialects, geographies,
economies, etc. Amarillo is at the "edge" of the Edwards Plateau....and
very, very flat.

I grew up in and around Galveston, which is a barrier island 1.5 miles
off the mainland in the Gulf of Mexico. About an hour from Houston...
southeastern part of the state. Galveston is a port city.....interesting
mix of people from all over the world as a result. Growing up there, I
didn't hear country western music till I moved to "deep East" Texas and
went to college a few miles from the Louisiana border. THAT'S how
"different" it was. THings however, have changed a bit.
I spent the best years of my young life on the family farm, which was on
the mainland between Houston and Galveston Island.
But that's a whole 'nother thread....
KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69lvhd$1ja4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
> >

> Well, I can argue this point. To wit: elephants and chimps who "paint"
> abstract art that appeals to us humans so much we pay thousands for it.
> Define art. It's in the eye of the beholder, and in these cases, the
> "beholder" are other species. Why are they painting? There's no "reward"
> in it....other than the apparent intrinsic value of merely doing it.
> How does one separate the art of the Bower Bird or brush wielding
> pachyderm from a Calder or Van Gogh? (especially a Calder...:-))
>

You just called it art! It is art if it communicates so you must get
something out of it if you are willing to characterize it as art, or you
realize that some people get something out of it and are thus willing to
consider it as art.

> They are languages because they are used to
> >intentionally convey information from one human to another, if they do
> >not facilitate communication they are not language, if they do
> facilitate
> >communication between humans they are language. Language is subjective.
>
> And that assumes that "language" and "communication" are inherent ONLY to
> our species.
>

Where did I assume that??? I didn't say that non-human information
transfer was not a language, but, depending on semantics, the term
"language" may just apply to humans. I think this would be subjective
though. I would say that non-humans communicate with things that some
would consider to be languages, I would not rule out languages and art
from non-humans but remember these qualities are assessed by human
standards and this may not be fair

> >This should give you an idea of what art is, if it communicates it is
> >art, if it doesn't it is gibberish.
>
> Again, I have to suggest that the definition of art is virtually
> impossible. And one person's (species??) "gibberish" is another's Picasso.
>

I think art as a language pretty much sums it up.

> So the concept of art associated with a different
> >species must be applied with caution and perhaps the idea of its
> function
> >among its users rather than with what humans feel human art is.
>
> AGain, I refer to the elephants and chimps with paintbrushes. These
> animals were given these "tools"...and they created "art." Out of nothing.
> Without external "reward." They appear(ed) to be "enjoying" it.
> >

Again I suggest that when humans call something art they are really
saying that it looks like something a human would do and then they try to
project human motivations on the creatures that produce it. There are
things that humans produce, and appear happy while doing so,' that would
not be considered as art.

> >(so did I really say anything here? I think I kinda meant that no
> matter
> >what we do, we are still anthropomorphic)
> >
> Yep. And I have a lot of trouble with that word, indeed, that entire
> concept. Anthropomorphism, in the usual context, connotes that we are
> vastly different than other species. When one studies animal life in most
> of its most complex forms, one is struck by just how SIMILAR we are.
> >>

Yeah, so... we all came from the same place and are built of the same
kinds of components, wouldn't it be more amazing if we were less similar?
Humans are special in that they are the only creature who's thinking
process we feel we understand (well, not exactly that but I think you
know what I mean)

>
> >
> it is
> >speculated that the bullet hit an artery and he blead to death very
> >quickly, there are no signs of healing, they removed him in situ in a
> >large block of earth and have him laid out in the lab where they are
> >working on him, you can see him through the window, it's a pretty cool
> >site!
> >
> OOOOHHHHH....interesting!!!
> >>

Yep, you can see the musket ball plain as day, in situ too! (I wonder if
he was dancing a German ballet when he was shot...) It's lodged next to
his leg bone.

> >>>
> >
> >The physical laws that determine how a computer functions must also
> apply
> >to other physical entities, such as brains. A computer does not have
> >infinite resources to store data, it is constrained by size. Data
> >processing and data acquisition are two different things, they put
> >keystroke buffers in to computers but one may still type so fast that
> >the buffer fills up and you lose information (at least you used to be
> >able to do that).
> >
> To date, the limits to the human brain have not been identified, however.

But if we only use 10 percent of our brain, why is it being a little
smaller in say, TS sufferers considered to be significant?

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69lvhd$1ja4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,

BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
> >I am not sure I agree with you view regarding the health of
> >hunter-gatherers
>
> You're entitled to disagree :-)). However, for a better educated opinion
> on the subject, check out the book I mentioned earlier, "The Imperial
> Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, an anthropologist and ethnologist
> who've studied this subject extensively. Interesting..no FASCINATING
> reading.
>

I'll have to put this on my list of things to do, right behind those two
master'e theses I'll never write and a buncha other stuff...

> This would argue that survivability
> >is enhanced by cultural development and that we should see much larger
> >populations with complex cultures than we do with more simple cultures.
> >If survivability is a measure of superiority, those with the most
> complex
> >cultures should be the most likely to survive and thus superior, while
> >those with simpler cultures should die off and be replaced.
> >
> Unless we go "back" to viruses and bacteria...and sharks......these
> animals do not appear to have "culture," and yet, they've survived
> millions of years beyond anything we've been able to. In a relatively
> short time, we've not only managed to cause the extinction of hundreds of
> other species, but we're risking our own extinction with some of our
> "cultural" interventions.

Is this a case of apples and oranges? I was comparing competing cultures
(things competing for the same niche, I don't think a shark is competing
for the niche that human culture fills, well, maybe lawyers...). How
many species have gone extinct without the benefit of human cultural
inventions? Whose fault was it?

>
> >
> >> For example, the book The Hot Zone details very well what happens in
> the
> >> virus world....with the simian ebola that "escaped" in the Virginia
> >> installation...and mutated to be harmless to humans...thank the Lord.
> >>
> >
> >WHAT??? Where in Virginia??? When did it happen??? (do you think I
> >coulda stepped in some on Sunday?)
> >
>
> Somewhere near Washington DC. Perhaps others on line recall..it was a
> facility that imported monkeys for medical research.

What?? We had an outbreak in the Senate and House of Representatives??
This is really big!!! It could go all the way to the president!! (Wasn't
there something about a boat named "monkey business" and a politician
about 10 years ago?)

Happened within the
> last 10 or so years, I believe.
>
> KAT in CT

So is that one reason why its KAT in CT and not KAT in DC? (I always
hated DC because of all the people and the awful traffic)

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69lvpg$tfs$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>

> I spent the best years of my young life on the family farm, which was on
> the mainland between Houston and Galveston Island.
> But that's a whole 'nother thread....
> KAT in CT

I'm still looking for the place to spend the best years of my young life.
(I think if I don't use them soon I'll loose them, sort of like a state
agency at the end of the fiscal year sort of thing)

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>You just called it art! It is art if it communicates so you must get
>something out of it if you are willing to characterize it as art, or
you
>realize that some people get something out of it and are thus willing
to
>consider it as art.

I don't have a problem with that at all. It's "art" if it's perceived as
"art." I am, however, still trying to DEFINE "art."

>
>
I didn't say that non-human information
>transfer was not a language, but, depending on semantics, the term
>"language" may just apply to humans.

Well, if you insist...although methinks we spend too much time trying to
distinguish ourselves from the OTHER apes when, indeed, we are just a
different variety of same.

I would not rule out languages and art
>from non-humans but remember these qualities are assessed by human
>standards and this may not be fair

agreed...
>
-

There are
>things that humans produce, and appear happy while doing so,' that
would
>not be considered as art.
>

Oh boy, ain't THAT the truth....referring back to Calder.....<s>..hope
there aren't any Calder fans out there...the best thing he did, IMO, was
the Braniff jet.

>
>Yeah, so... we all came from the same place and are built of the same
>kinds of components, wouldn't it be more amazing if we were less similar?

Don't think it'll happen, however. We are, genetically, about 99.
something % THE SAME as chimps. There are greater genetic differences
among humans than between the two families of "chimps" (man and chimp).
It's that one percent or so that keeps us from a steady diet of bananas...

[Kathryn Taubert]

>
>Is this a case of apples and oranges?

Aw heck, I don't know. At this hour, anything goes...
<s>
well, ALmost....

I don't think a shark is competing
>for the niche that human culture fills, well, maybe lawyers...).

LOL! Just don't get in the water with either of them....

How
>many species have gone extinct without the benefit of human cultural
>inventions? Whose fault was it?

Bout 95% of all species that ever were aren't anymore. The question is
this:
how many of those species made the environment unhabitable FOR THEMSELVES,
as we seem so wont to do.

>
>>>
>> Somewhere near Washington DC. Perhaps others on line recall..it was a
>> facility that imported monkeys for medical research.
>

>What?? We had an outbreak in the Senate and House of Representatives??

hmmmm...shame it mutated too soon....snicker ....

>This is really big!!! It could go all the way to the president!

NO NO..not before Paula and Bill make their depositions.....

! (Wasn't
>there something about a boat named "monkey business" and a politician
>about 10 years ago?)

Yeah, Gary Hart...blew him right out of the water...he got caught. Unlike
so many others.....

>
>>
>So is that one reason why its KAT in CT and not KAT in DC?

Well if it wasn't, it sure could qualify as a possibility...actually, KAT
is in CT 'cause a former employer transferred her here and she liked it
so well she STAYED...and then met ART who was FROM around here and they
got together...and well, you can guess the rest....
:-))
KAT in CT.......who wonders if anybody from DC is readin' this and if
there's still a place called The Flagship restaurant there with those
wunderful rum buns with each course that MORE than make up for any of the
bad things we've said about DC I hope I hope.....

[Haggis Reg]

In article <69pa0n$13c4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, BWH...@prodigy.com
(Kathryn Taubert) writes:

.>>I don't think a shark is competing for the niche that human culture fills,
.>>well, maybe lawyers...).
.
.>LOL! Just don't get in the water with either of them....
.
.Actually, you're right.
.Being in the water with both sharks AND Lawyers is VERY dangerous, because
.sharks don't EAT Lawyers.
.(It's a professional courtasy...)
.
.-Haggis Reg.

[RandallBart]

Kathryn Taubert wrote:
>
> "The Imperial
> Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox,

Do you expect me to believe there is such a book? Those names are just
too cute for words.

It reminds me of my lawfirm: Will Mayhew-Owen O'Moore.

--
I |\ Randall Bart mailto:Bart...@usa.spam.net
L |/
o |\ Bart...@worldnet.att.spam.net Bart...@hotmail.spam.com
v | \ 1-818-985-3259 Please reply without spam
e |\
Y |/ Panic in the Year Zero Zero: http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00
o |\
u |/ Have you solved http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00/Sequence.html

[Irina Shoushounova]

RandallBart (Bart...@worldnet.att.spam.net) writes:

> Kathryn Taubert wrote:
>>
>> "The Imperial
>> Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox,
>

> Do you expect me to believe there is such a book? Those names are just
> too cute for words.
>
> It reminds me of my lawfirm: Will Mayhew-Owen O'Moore.
>
> --
> I |\ Randall Bart mailto:Bart...@usa.spam.net
> L |/
> o |\ Bart...@worldnet.att.spam.net Bart...@hotmail.spam.com
> v | \ 1-818-985-3259 Please reply without spam
> e |\
> Y |/ Panic in the Year Zero Zero: http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00
> o |\
> u |/ Have you solved http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00/Sequence.html

Dear Randall:
How about the law firm Dewey Cheetham and Howe?
hee, hee!

Irina, just over 5 weeks left to go now until baby # 7 is here.....

--
******* IRINA SHOUSHOUNOVA bo693 or Lov...@ottawa.com *******
Just as parents are kind to their children, the Lord
is kind to all who worship Him. Psalm - 103:13
**************************************************************

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69p9jp$14c8$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:
>
>
> >

> There are
> >things that humans produce, and appear happy while doing so,' that
> would
> >not be considered as art.
> >
> Oh boy, ain't THAT the truth....referring back to Calder.....<s>..hope
> there aren't any Calder fans out there...the best thing he did, IMO, was
> the Braniff jet.
>

I would say that was a fair example of non-art, but I think there are many
better at non-art.
> >

> We are, genetically, about 99.
> something % THE SAME as chimps. There are greater genetic differences
> among humans than between the two families of "chimps" (man and chimp).
> It's that one percent or so that keeps us from a steady diet of bananas...

That one percent packs quite a punch!

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69pa0n$13c4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
BWH...@prodigy.com (Kathryn Taubert) wrote:

> How
> >many species have gone extinct without the benefit of human cultural
> >inventions? Whose fault was it?
>
> Bout 95% of all species that ever were aren't anymore. The question is
> this:
> how many of those species made the environment unhabitable FOR THEMSELVES,
> as we seem so wont to do.
> >

I would not be surprised to find out there were a few. Population
explosion and consequent over-grazing is one way.

> >>>

> KAT in CT.......who wonders if anybody from DC is readin' this and if
> there's still a place called The Flagship restaurant there with those
> wunderful rum buns with each course that MORE than make up for any of the
> bad things we've said about DC I hope I hope.....

Hmmm.... (looking down behind...) no rum buns here....

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <69t56g$k...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Irina Shoushounova) wrote:
>
>
> RandallBart (Bart...@worldnet.att.spam.net) writes:
> > Kathryn Taubert wrote:
> >>

> >> "The Imperial
> >> Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox,
> >

> > Do you expect me to believe there is such a book? Those names are just
> > too cute for words.
> >
> > It reminds me of my lawfirm: Will Mayhew-Owen O'Moore.
> >
> > --
> > I |\ Randall Bart mailto:Bart...@usa.spam.net
> > L |/
> > o |\ Bart...@worldnet.att.spam.net Bart...@hotmail.spam.com
> > v | \ 1-818-985-3259 Please reply without spam
> > e |\
> > Y |/ Panic in the Year Zero Zero: http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00
> > o |\
> > u |/ Have you solved http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00/Sequence.html
>
> Dear Randall:
> How about the law firm Dewey Cheetham and Howe?
> hee, hee!
>

Hmmm.... maybe I shouldn't have turned down law school... oh yeah, I
don't have a cute name...

[David Bryant]

How about Porter & Potty?

David Who Couldn't Think of Anything Else

[Kathryn Taubert]

>> "The Imperial
>> Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox,
>

>Do you expect me to believe there is such a book? Those names are just
>too cute for words.
>

Yeah, there REALLY is...in fact, reference to their names is made in the
Foreward.....it's obviously "too cute" to pass up!
If yer interested, I'll go downstairs and get you the publication info...

KAT inCT

[Kathryn Taubert]

>I would not be surprised to find out there were a few. Population
>explosion and consequent over-grazing is one way.
>

If the "normal" ecology is left untouched....for example, all natural
predators remain....there will be no such thing as "over-grazing" and
population explosion. These are man made things. What's interesting is
the fact that, throughout man's own recorded history, there are examples
of things happening to reduce our numbers also..SOME of which we've been
able to stave off, temporarily, such as certain viral/bacterial
infections with antibiotics...which, by the way, are mutating wildly out
of sinc with our current plans...

Pestilence, war, geological disasters, etc....would suggest that we are
subject to the same ecological controls, checks and balances, as the rest
of nature. Although we seem to be better able to stave off the
"inevitable."

The question, is, however, when will "it" happen next? And how?
KAT in CT..who's wonderin' if the title of this thread is somehow drawing
this conversation back to correspond with it...hmmm.....

[Dagoobster]

>
>> KAT in CT.......who wonders if anybody from DC is readin' this and if
>> there's still a place called The Flagship restaurant there with those
>> wunderful rum buns with each course that MORE than make up for any of the
>> bad things we've said about DC I hope I hope.....
>
>Hmmm.... (looking down behind...) no rum buns here....
>
>-------------------====

Just wait till Im senator..with Faye keeping me in line...Ill be agood
one!!!!!!!!!
__________________________________________________________________________
I have met my Faye and destiny!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chaim

[FANGBASHER]

You have my vote--but what do you stand for?

[Hulk]

FANGBASHER wrote:
>
> You have my vote--but what do you stand for?

Has anybody heard about the new non-profit organization that is trying
to put a stop to these politicians who hold the threat of losing their
jobs over the head of female office staffers if they don't grant sexual
favors? It's called;

POLITICANS AGAINST UNWANTED LEWED ADVANCES (Paula for short).

Mark

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

FANGBASHER (fangb...@aol.com) wrote:
: You have my vote--but what do you stand for?

What do I stand for......hmmm ....more women like Faye!!!!!!!!!
Chaim

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6b544b$6f0$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
Z. Shapiro) writes:

Oh no!! He's in favor of cloning!!!!

Haggis Regina Who Thinks That Chaim Has Picked A Strange Platform

[Bagels0000]

>What do I stand for......hmmm ....more women like Faye!!!!!!!!!
>>Chaim
>
>Oh no!! He's in favor of cloning!!!!
>
>

I am one of a kind, no clonning allowed.
faye

[David Bryant]

I thought that the Haggis Queen was in charge of cloning; after all, the
animal cloned last year was a sheep.

David Who Knows That Haggis Can Never Have Too Much Sheep Guts For
Dinner

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Haggis Reg (hagg...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <6b544b$6f0$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
: Z. Shapiro) writes:

: >>FANGBASHER (fangb...@aol.com) wrote:You have my vote--
: >>but what do you stand for?

: >What do I stand for......hmmm ....more women like Faye!!!!!!!!!
: >Chaim

: Oh no!! He's in favor of cloning!!!!

: Haggis Regina Who Thinks That Chaim Has Picked A Strange Platform

Well it wouldnt be abad thing.....figure this.....I clone her so if she
has to go out of town..thereis always a Faye around.......which btw was
my OJ Simpson idea.....they said that DNA wasn't sufficient
evidence....I say clone the blood....and if the baby looks like
OJ.....you got him. Of course If Im right you would also have a great
football player.....and a murderer.....anyways.....
What ya think Faye can we clone ya.....oh thats right first she'd have
to get a blood test.....and well we know how some people are with
that.......
Chaim

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Bagels0000 (bagel...@aol.com) wrote:
: >What do I stand for......hmmm ....more women like Faye!!!!!!!!!
: >>Chaim
: >
: >Oh no!! He's in favor of cloning!!!!
: >

: >

: I am one of a kind, no clonning allowed.
: faye

I agree....even if i figure out what clonning is!!!!!!!!
Chaim

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <6b7k3c$elk$7...@artemis.it.luc.edu>,

Pssst, hey Chaim, I don't want you to look foolish... clonning is when
you have the orange hair and the big red nose and those size 52 extra
extra wide shoes, you know, like at the circus...

[David Bryant]

What woud you get if you just cloned faye?

A day-old Bagel!

David

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

David Bryant (dlbr...@webtv.net) wrote:
: What woud you get if you just cloned faye?

: A day-old Bagel!

: David

So..would the ring cost half price then????????
Chaim

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6ba93p$kio$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
Z. Shapiro) writes:

>>: A day-old Bagel!

>>: David

Cheep, Cheep, cheep!!!

Haggis Regina Who thinks That Joke Is For The Birds

[Haggis Reg]

In article <886569288....@dejanews.com>, rwpo...@vcu.edu writes:

>> I agree....even if i figure out what clonning is!!!!!!!!
>> Chaim

>Pssst, hey Chaim, I don't want you to look foolish... clonning is when
>you have the orange hair and the big red nose and those size 52 extra
>extra wide shoes, you know, like at the circus...

Quick, Chaim! Reporter is right! You'd better hurry up and put on the
clothes!
(Maybe Faye can help you with your makeup...)

Haggis Regina Who Can't WAIT To See Chaim In His New Outfit

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6b94k9$s2o$1...@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, dlbr...@webtv.net
(David Bryant) writes:

>What woud you get if you just cloned faye?

>A day-old Bagel!

>David

Q. - What do you get for making jokes like that???

A. - A boot to the head!

Haggis Regina who Is Amused In Spite Of Herself

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Haggis Reg (hagg...@aol.com) wrote:

Maybe someone can help Faye with her makeup....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
Chaim who is really asking for it!!!!

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Haggis Reg (hagg...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <6ba93p$kio$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
: Z. Shapiro) writes:

: >>David Bryant (dlbr...@webtv.net) wrote:
: : What woud you get if you just cloned faye?

: >>: A day-old Bagel!

: >>: David

: >So..would the ring cost half price then????????
: >Chaim

: Cheep, Cheep, cheep!!!

: Haggis Regina Who thinks That Joke Is For The Birds

I told you that Fayes hebrew name means "bird" right???? So Haggis...you are right!!!!!
Chaim who didnt realize that haggis knew what she was talking about

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

rwpo...@vcu.edu wrote:
: In article <6b7k3c$elk$7...@artemis.it.luc.edu>,

: csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim Z. Shapiro) wrote:
: >
: > Bagels0000 (bagel...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : >What do I stand for......hmmm ....more women like Faye!!!!!!!!!
: > : >>Chaim
: > : >
: > : >Oh no!! He's in favor of cloning!!!!
: > : >
: > : >
: >
: > : I am one of a kind, no clonning allowed.
: > : faye

: >

: > I agree....even if i figure out what clonning is!!!!!!!!
: > Chaim

: Pssst, hey Chaim, I don't want you to look foolish... clonning is when
: you have the orange hair and the big red nose and those size 52 extra
: extra wide shoes, you know, like at the circus...

Oh so she said that she is one of a kind......and we can't joke about it!!!!
Chaim....who wouldn't even need makeup now (though he is trying to save face)

: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6bcvve$6e7$3...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
Z. Shapiro) writes:

>Oh so she said that she is one of a kind......and we can't joke about it!!!!
>Chaim....who wouldn't even need makeup now (though he is trying to
>save face)

Sweetie, you're gonna NEED makeup...do you really want Bagels to
recognize you right now...? (She sounds kinda dangerous...)

Haggis Regina Who Is More Than Willing To Help Chaim With His Rubber Nose And
Eye Patch

[Bagels0000]

>What woud you get if you just cloned faye?
>
>A day-old Bagel!
>
>David
>
>

NOT FUNNY!!!!!!!!
Faye

[Bagels0000]

>Maybe someone can help Faye with her makeup....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
>Chaim who is really asking for it!!!!

Yes you really are.
Faye

[Bagels0000]

>So..would the ring cost half price then????????
>Chaim
>
>

Double for you my dear.
Faye

[Bagels0000]

>Q. - What do you get for making jokes like that???
>
>A. - A boot to the head!
>
>Haggis Regina who Is Amused In Spite Of Herself
>
>

>Thank you Haggis.
Faye
>
>
>
>

[Armdell]

In article <19980206010...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, bagel...@aol.com
(Bagels0000) writes:

Why don't you guys communicate back and forth with each other privately and
leave it off the newsgroup. Go to some private chat room. I don't care one
iota about your relationship but if you wanted to banter back and forth for a
short while when this relationship started what seems like eons ago, that was
fine. You just keep putting out on the newsgroup the same stuff that is
meaningful only to you. Get on with life.
Richard

[FANGBASHER]

Subject: Re: Fascination with fire
From: fangb...@aol.com (FANGBASHER)
Date: Fri, Feb 6, 1998 4:43 AM
Message-id: <19980206044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>

Richard wrote:
>>Get on with life. >>
--gosh I thought they were. I very much enjoy hearing about good "old
fashioned" 'romance' and humor--it lightens the day. And it offers many with
TS much hope. I am sure many recall the concerns Chaim had about ever finding
someone whose religious beliefs were consistent with his in his religious
community who could ever accept the fact he had TS because of how he had been
raised and taunted. What better place to share this than with the group who
gave him support and helped him see an alternative view of TS and of himself.
It was the flame war posts that I abhored--and those had been cross-posted from
another newsgroup. If I don't want to read something--I don't click onto
it--but, perhaps, that's an exclusive feature of aol.

[BlessedBy2]

Fangbasher wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>>>Get on with life. >>
>--gosh I thought they were. I very much enjoy hearing about good "old
>fashioned" 'romance' and humor--it lightens the day. And it offers many with
>TS much hope. I am sure many recall the concerns Chaim had about ever
>finding
>someone whose religious beliefs were consistent with his in his religious
>community who could ever accept the fact he had TS because of how he had been
>raised and taunted. What better place to share this than with the group who
>gave him support and helped him see an alternative view of TS and of himself.
>
>It was the flame war posts that I abhored--and those had been cross-posted
>from
>another newsgroup. If I don't want to read something--I don't click onto
>it--but, perhaps, that's an exclusive feature of aol.

I have not read any of the humor threads for most of this week as I have been
swamped with "real life" work ... so I apologize for not following the portions
of this thread that led up to this post.

But, I DO appreciate the fact that the people who participate in the joke
threads have tried to identify them, so that I was ABLE to skip them when I had
a busy week. I appreciate that the humor is here and available when I have
time to participate in it. (BTW, Haggis Reg has a following of lurkers who are
intimidated to post here, but check in daily to see what the Sheep Queen has
come up with for the day!! In the process, they get the answers to their TS
questions ... )

Second, all of the joy and glee generated from Chaim and Faye's engagement is
one of the most meaningful reasons to me for continuing to participate in
alt.SUPPORT.tourette.

I hope there's room here for all of us ... adults with TS, parents of children
with TS; folks who are serious, folks who are happy; folks who share with us
their humor, their joy, their successes, their suffering, and so on.

[Pamzee1]

>(BTW, Haggis Reg has a following of lurkers who are
>intimidated to post here, but check in daily to see what the Sheep Queen has
>come up with for the day!!

BLESSED!!!!!!!! You promised not to spill the beans!!!!!!!

[BlessedBy2]

PamZee wrote as her ast debut!

..but ... but ... I didn't spill the beans (you did though :-))) Welcome to
ast !!!

[Dagoobster]

>BLESSED!!!!!!!! You promised not to spill the beans!!!!!!!
>
>
>

well I think we got a lurker!!!! WElcome welcome welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chaim
__________________________________________________________________________
I have met my Faye and destiny!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chaim

[Haggis Reg]

In article <19980206184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, dagoo...@aol.com
(Dagoobster) writes:

>well I think we got a lurker!!!! WElcome welcome welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Chaim

Shhhh! I think you're right! Quiet everybody...don't scare her...
...somebody get the net! That's right...easy...easy...
GOT HER!!! Quick! Somebody tag her!
YES!!! TEN SECONDS!! IT'S A NEW RECORD!!! YAY!!!

Haggis Regina Who Declares This An Official Holliday

[Armdell]

In article <19980206143...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, bless...@aol.com
(BlessedBy2) writes:

>I hope there's room here for all of us ... adults with TS, parents of
>children
with TS; folks who are serious, folks who are happy; folks who share
>with us
their humor, their joy, their successes, their suffering, and so on.

I agree with the above and when I wrote that I didn't care about their
relationship, I don't wish them any ill will. I feel like I know a few people
from this group in a more personal way and I sometimes write to them privately.
I don't know Chaim and his fiance (along with many others here)and so don't
have any interest in their personal affairs. If personal posts show up on ast,
especially on an UNRELENTING basis, at least, keep them under one thread. I
don't know how personal posts began showing up under the thread Fascination
with fire. If individuals know each other and like each other and wish to post
to each other it would also be good to email individuals individually. You can
email to whole groups of individuals if you want to share with more than just
one person without posting non-TS related stuff to the TS newsgroup.
Richard

[David Bryant]

She was already in the net....USENET!

David Who Started The Original Puns Thread

[Pamzee1]

In article <19980206212...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, hagg...@aol.com
(Haggis Reg) writes:

>GOT HER!!! Quick! Somebody tag her!
>

OUCH! That hurt!!!!.......wait a minute....what does that tag
say?....A.S.T.Corral?
no.....hold on...........C-L-O-S-E-T........AAAARRRGGGGHHHH.....NO......PLEASE
...... NOT THE CLOSET!!!!

Pam Who Promises to Keep Quiet If She Is Allowed To Return To Lurking

[Kathryn Taubert]

bless...@aol.com (BlessedBy2) wrote:
>
>PamZee wrote as her ast debut!
>
>>>(BTW, Haggis Reg has a following of lurkers who are
>>>intimidated to post here, but check in daily to see what the Sheep
Queen has
>>>come up with for the day!!
>>

>>BLESSED!!!!!!!! You promised not to spill the beans!!!!!!!
>

>...but ... but ... I didn't spill the beans (you did though :-)))
Welcome to
>ast !!!

Ditto, and welcome to the "visible" world, PamZee...
KAT in CT

[BlessedBy2]

>
>OUCH! That hurt!!!!.......wait a minute....what does that tag
>say?....A.S.T.Corral?
>no.....hold
>on...........C-L-O-S-E-T........AAAARRRGGGGHHHH.....NO......PLEASE
>...... NOT THE CLOSET!!!!
>
>Pam Who Promises to Keep Quiet If She Is Allowed To Return To Lurking

No Queens in the Closet !!

Blessed Who Knows that the Closet was Full before Pam Came to AST

[Haggis Reg]

In article <19980207142...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, pam...@aol.com
(Pamzee1) writes:

>>GOT HER!!! Quick! Somebody tag her!
>

>OUCH! That hurt!!!!.......wait a minute....what does that tag

>say?....A.S.T.Corral? >no.....hold
on...........C-L-O-S-E-T........AAAARRRGGGGHHHH.....NO......PLEASE
>...... NOT THE CLOSET!!!!

>Pam Who Promises to Keep Quiet If She Is Allowed To Return To Lurking

CLOSET??? No!! You Guys...! That was NOT very nice...
Now if Pam will just come here for a second, we can attach the PROPER tag...
Hey!! Grab her...quick!! Now, now...this will only hurt for a second....
Well of all the...She BIT me!! I HATE it when they do that!!

Haggis Regina Who Wonders If This Little Mix-Up Will Spoil Our Record

[David Bryant]

Finally a post from Haggis that had some "bite" to it! :0)

David Who Speaks From His Wisdom Tooth

[David Bryant]

So as closets are for men, doghouses are for queens? A pun just came
to mind......but I wisely refrain from telling it!

David Who Only Tells Clean Puns

[PParent112]

>Finally a post from Haggis that had some "bite" to it! :0)
>
>David Who Speaks From His Wisdom Tooth

And Pamzee doggedly pursued Haggis with her canines!

Pat, Who thinks we should let Pamzee out of the doghouse

[Jeff & Barbara Hopkins]

When messages that are posted under a thread with a serious topic are
nonsense, there is no way to tell what it is before you click on it. I'm
sorry but I don't have time to waste reading nonsense.

FANGBASHER <fangb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980206044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

> Richard wrote:
> >>Get on with life. >>
> --gosh I thought they were. I very much enjoy hearing about good "old
> fashioned" 'romance' and humor--it lightens the day. And it offers many
with
> TS much hope. I am sure many recall the concerns Chaim had about ever
finding
> someone whose religious beliefs were consistent with his in his religious

> community who could ever accept the fact he had TS because of how we had

[Jeff & Barbara Hopkins]

AMEN AGAIN!

Armdell <arm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980206014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

[Pamzee1]

In article <19980207215...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, hagg...@aol.com
(Haggis Reg) writes:

>CLOSET??? No!! You Guys...! That was NOT very nice...
Now if Pam will just
>come here for a second, we can attach the PROPER tag...
Hey!! Grab
>her...quick!! Now, now...this will only hurt for a second....
Well of all
>the...She BIT me!! I HATE it when they do that!!

Haggis Regina Who Wonders
>If This Little Mix-Up Will Spoil Our Record

Ooops, Sorry Haggis. That nip was meant for David.
Pam Who Really Is Having A Problem With Her Aim As Of Late

P.S. Not to worry - I don't THINK I have rabies.
Pam Who Is Checking Her New Tag But Doesn't See A Current Rabies
Vacination.....

[BlessedBy2]

>When messages that are posted under a thread with a serious topic are
>nonsense, there is no way to tell what it is before you click on it. I'm
>sorry but I don't have time to waste reading nonsense.

Dear Jeff or Barbara, Maybe because you're new you don't realize that to some
of us, Chaim and Fayes' engagement is anything but nonsense. The people
engaging in jokes have already recognized that their intent is to somehow mark
those posts, even though they (we) often forget to do so.

On the days that I found myself so busy that I don't have time for "nonsense",
I realize that I have to revisit my priorities. It's not always possible to
make time for fun, but striving to remember to do so is still important to me.

Kindly, Blessed

[Jeff & Barbara Hopkins]

I do have my priorities straight-finding the best medical care possible for
my son with TS or is that not what this news group is about! If this group
is not about TS MY APOLOGIES, I'LL GO ELSEWHERE!

BlessedBy2 <bless...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980208171...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

[Jeff & Barbara Hopkins]

yeah right.

[Chuck Thayer]

Posted & mailed

Jeff & Barbara Hopkins wrote:
>
> I do have my priorities straight-finding the best medical care possible for
> my son with TS or is that not what this news group is about! If this group
> is not about TS MY APOLOGIES, I'LL GO ELSEWHERE!

[snip]

Jeff, Barbara, or whoever you are [pseudonyms are OK here]

Excuse me for pointing this out, but this is the very first mention of
your own connection to Tourette Syndrome in your initial flurry of posts
to this newsgroup: alt.support.tourette, or a.s.t. Your previous posts
contained only snide remarks about what people were not talking about.
Had you mentioned your son's difficulties earlier in the process, we
could have begun to cook up some suggestions that would be of some use
to your family. Instead, we have wasted time and bandwidth defending
ourselves, and getting you more and more upset in the process. But no
matter, we'll go on from here if you still want to talk things over.

Let's get down to business, then. It would help to some specifics of
your situation: what you are looking for, what you've already done,
whether you want to use medications to help him stay on course in school
[and deal with their many side effects], or sundry other issues.

If you live in the US, you can get suggestions about physicians and
specialists who might be able to help you by asking the National TSA or
your local chapter for a referral list. You can reach National at (718)
224-2999, or by e-mail at tour...@ix.netcom.com. If you put "HELP with
Referral" in the Subject line, that will help with routing your
request. It will also speed things up.

You seem so upset right now that there must be some specific issue that
you'd like to bring up to the group. If it's school stuff, we have
advocates, educators and very experienced parents reading a.s.t. If
he's hurting himself, there are families that deal with this problem,
too. How long have you been dealing with this? Recall that we do not
know how old he is, when the symptoms began, or any other specifics. Is
it bothering him at all right now, or are you panicky about what might
happen?

Are you embarrassed by his tics, and wondering how to help your son with
"damage control" while this thing runs its course? That is quite
understandable, too. I know of no law against getting some help to
support you *as parents* in this whole process of parenting a child with
Tourette Syndrome. It's rough.

I may have seemed a bit rough on you at the beginning, but you did speak
harshly about some people without seeming to know the issues involved.
Perhaps you will understand Chaim's exuberance about his engagement when
your son is ready to start considering marriage: whether to marry at all
when TS is involved, whether he will ever be able to find a wife when he
has TS symptoms or OCD or what have you, etc. Chaim has been aching
with a deep longing to marry a woman from his own faith community for a
long time now, so he's thrilled out of his mind to have met Faye. I
hope you never have to know that kind of pain in your son's case, and
that his symptoms will abate in early adulthood, as they often do.

It won't be long before midterms make the entire younger set begin to
think of more serious issues. Not to mention their parents.

Come on back and let us know what is on your mind. You can always
ignore the spurious posts for now, and look them up in the archives when
you find that some of them were not so spurious, after all.

Welcome to a.s.t., Jeff & Barbara

Chuck
Who is also tired of the degeneration of real threads into endless jokes

PS -- Maybe we could learn how to spin new threads?

[Vickser]

I agree with Chuck. At first I was sympathetic to these two (or one), but the
rudeness is unbelieveable, especially for someone brand new to the newsgroup.

Vicki

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Pamzee1 (pam...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <19980206212...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, hagg...@aol.com
: (Haggis Reg) writes:

: >GOT HER!!! Quick! Somebody tag her!
: >

: OUCH! That hurt!!!!.......wait a minute....what does that tag
: say?....A.S.T.Corral?
: no.....hold on...........C-L-O-S-E-T........AAAARRRGGGGHHHH.....NO......PLEASE
: ...... NOT THE CLOSET!!!!

: Pam Who Promises to Keep Quiet If She Is Allowed To Return To Lurking

Excuse me..only males in dat closet..the female closet is at the hair
salon
Chaim

[Kathryn Taubert]

>I do have my priorities straight-finding the best medical care possible
for
>my son with TS or is that not what this news group is about! If this
group
>is not about TS MY APOLOGIES, I'LL GO ELSEWHERE!

J&B....ask questions....any questions....start your own thread....don't
just LURK there...GET INVOLVED.....WRITE....ASK...
that's all ya' gotta' do.

If you are that interested in finding care...then you've come to the
right place as one source of help. But don't expect it to just fall into
your lap. You have to prime the pump...with questions......just like life,
huh? Welcome aboard.
KAT in CT

[rwpo...@vcu.edu]

In article <6bnjjf$3pl$3...@artemis.it.luc.edu>,

csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim Z. Shapiro) wrote:
> Excuse me..only males in dat closet..the female closet is at the hair
> salon
> Chaim

You mean they gota special place where rabbits go drinkin'?

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Kathryn Taubert]

At first I was sympathetic to these two (or one), but the
>rudeness is unbelieveable, especially for someone brand new to the
newsgroup.
>

Okay....so whadda' ya'll say about lettin' bygones be bygones and get
down to what J&B really want/need from AST?

Frustration is one source of anger....which can manifest as hostility,
rudeness...etc.

Perhaps these folks need info, and they aren't getting what they need.

Yep, it takes "two" so to speak. If they need it, then they need to ASK
for it. I suspect they know that, in their hearts.

And we need to encourage them to ASK, as well.

Now that we've gotten all this out of the way (I hope), what say we start
again?

J&B....WHAT PRECISELY DO YOU NEED FROM AST? WHat kinds of information,
solace, commiseration, direction, whatever...do you want?
Some folks "need" humor from time to time...I suspect you do too. However,
now doesn't appear to be that time for you two....so help us understand
what it is you DO Want. ASK US!!!!!!
(bein' serious here, ya'll)

KAT in CT

[BlessedBy2]

>Perhaps these folks need info, and they aren't getting what they need.
>
>Yep, it takes "two" so to speak. If they need it, then they need to ASK
>for it. I suspect they know that, in their hearts.

J and B, I know you had posted a question about risperdal under the thread
Risperdal, where you explained to us a tiny bit about your son. I wanted to
make you aware of two things about newsgroups:

First, you can't be sure everyone even saw your original message -- many of us
(not only on AOL now) are having a very hard time getting all of the posts.
Sometimes I only know about a post when I see someone responding to it, and
then I have to go back to the ng looking for the original post.

Second, there may not be many folks with experience with risperdal on ast right
now. It's quite possible that everyone who is using risperdal or who could
answer your question did.

As far as your question there about other alternatives, I didn't re-post
answers to those questions under your risperdal thread, as the infomation that
I could give you was simultaneously posted under other threads. Some folks
here have limited time online which becomes very expensive for them, and they
shouldn't have to reread me posting the same thing simultaneously under several
threads. Did you have an opportunity to look up old threads, or can I help you
find the ones that pertain to alternatives to medication?? I could also have
e-mailed you, but I was swamped with outside obligations last week, and I
didn't post to you because the info I could give was already there under
several other threads.

Please tell us more about you and ask your questions ...
Kindly, Blessed

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6bnjjf$3pl$3...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim

Z. Shapiro) writes:

>>: Pam Who Promises to Keep Quiet If She Is Allowed To Return To Lurking

>Excuse me..only males in dat closet..the female closet is at the hair salon
>Chaim

That was an extremely sexist joke! It was patently offensive and I, for one,
...oh... wait a minute...can we get our nails done, too...?

Haggis Regina Who Is NOT Vain

[Chaim Z. Shapiro]

Haggis Reg (hagg...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <6bnjjf$3pl$3...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
: Z. Shapiro) writes:

LOL.....scared me there for a minute!!!!!!!
Chaim who is wiping the sweat from his brow

[Hulk]

Kathryn Taubert wrote:
>
> At first I was sympathetic to these two (or one), but the
> >rudeness is unbelieveable, especially for someone brand new to the
> newsgroup.
> >
>
> Okay....so whadda' ya'll say about lettin' bygones be bygones and get
> down to what J&B really want/need from AST?
>
> Frustration is one source of anger....which can manifest as hostility,
> rudeness...etc.
>

> Perhaps these folks need info, and they aren't getting what they need.
>
> Yep, it takes "two" so to speak. If they need it, then they need to ASK
> for it. I suspect they know that, in their hearts.
>

> And we need to encourage them to ASK, as well.
>
> Now that we've gotten all this out of the way (I hope), what say we start
> again?
>
> J&B....WHAT PRECISELY DO YOU NEED FROM AST? WHat kinds of information,
> solace, commiseration, direction, whatever...do you want?
> Some folks "need" humor from time to time...I suspect you do too. However,
> now doesn't appear to be that time for you two....so help us understand
> what it is you DO Want. ASK US!!!!!!
> (bein' serious here, ya'll)
>
> KAT in CT

Boy, sounds like I missed a good fight. Anybody want to tell me what all
the hub bub is about?

Mark

[Haggis Reg]

In article <6bstet$ccc$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, csh...@orion.it.luc.edu (Chaim
Z. Shapiro) writes:

>LOL.....scared me there for a minute!!!!!!!
>Chaim who is wiping the sweat from his brow

Baaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

Haggis Regina Who Is Giving You A Big sheep Laugh

[BlessedBy2]

>Boy, sounds like I missed a good fight. Anybody want to tell me what all
>the hub bub is about?
>
>Mark

Not really a good fight, Mark, at least not on Texas terms!

Some folks just didn't understand and/or like all of the recent
light-heartedness here and wanted more serious posts. Some folks have limited
computer time and the jokes were getting expensive and weren't always marked.

There is a very serious post today, which reminds some of us why at times we
might need the light-hearted jokes to keep our spirits up and stay in touch
when things are going well.

The recent events have left me in no mood for a fight ...so if you're in the
mood, I won't be of much help :-)

Blessed Who Is Suddenly Very Aware of the Full Moon

[Hulk]

BlessedBy2 wrote:
>
> >Boy, sounds like I missed a good fight. Anybody want to tell me what all
> >the hub bub is about?
> >
> >Mark
>
> Not really a good fight, Mark, at least not on Texas terms!
>

Drats, drats, and double drats.

> Some folks just didn't understand and/or like all of the recent
> light-heartedness here and wanted more serious posts.

Sweetie, you know me fairly well (as well as one can get to know one
over the net that is). Should I really respond to this? I only have
about two dozen different comments. All of which would probably get my
ass in hot water again. But of course if I don't catch hell at least
once a day I consider the day a total loss.

Some folks have limited
> computer time and the jokes were getting expensive and weren't always marked.
>

Some people just ain't got no sense of humor. Kind of reminds me of my
first wife after I told her they name street signs after people like
her. i.e. One Way, Dead End, Do Not Enter. <giggle> She got mad and
threatened to cut me off and put me on the couch. I told her that she
couldn't cut me off because she didn't know where I was gettin it. BTW,
I have a question. I have been wondering about sex after ten years of
marriage. Should I tell my wife?

> There is a very serious post today, which reminds some of us why at times we
> might need the light-hearted jokes to keep our spirits up and stay in touch
> when things are going well.

Which post is it?

> The recent events have left me in no mood for a fight ...so if you're in the
> mood, I won't be of much help :-)

I'm always in the mood for a good fight. I think it is from the pressure
that builds up from not gettin any. Right now I have enough saved up to
lather a buffalo. I know, POOR BABY!

Mark

[Haggis Reg]

In article <887092175....@dejanews.com>, rwpo...@vcu.edu writes:

>You mean they gota special place where rabbits go drinkin'?

Yah - That's where you go for a little "Hare of the dog".

Haggis Regina Who Wonders If It Was Bunnieath Her To Say That

[BradHAWK]

Haggis Reg wrote:
>
> rwpo...@vcu.edu writes:
>
> >You mean they gota special place where rabbits go drinkin'?
>
> Yah - That's where you go for a little "Hare of the dog".
>
> Haggis Regina Who Wonders If It Was Bunnieath Her To Say That

WARNING...WARNING...approaching pun overload...

BradHAWK, who can't bear any more of this so it might be time to start
a gnu thread, and I'd say I ain't lion if I didn't think somebunny would
rat on me for using such an owled pun.

[Hulk]

Chuck Thayer wrote:
>
> Posted & mailed
>
> Jeff & Barbara Hopkins wrote:
> >

> > I do have my priorities straight-finding the best medical care possible for
> > my son with TS or is that not what this news group is about! If this group
> > is not about TS MY APOLOGIES, I'LL GO ELSEWHERE!

Okay, enough is enough. Jeff & Barbara, get a life. Chuck, you make some
very good points. We are all here to try to help each other as best we
can. But we all have different ways of dealing with our own pain. Has
anybody stopped to think that the people who make the jokes might be
using humor as their way of dealing with what is a very uncomfortable
situation at best?

I find humor to be very helpful to me when I am hurting. Can ANYONE
provide me with ANY kind of proof that laughing is bad for you? It's
certainly better than sitting around crying, "Whoa is me!"

I know from personal experience about the pain of being a touretter. I
also know the pain TS can cause when your child has TS. I have a seven
year old daughter.

Jeff & Barbara, how in heavens name can we make any helpful suggestions
if we don't know what is going on? To the best of my knowledge I don't
know of anyone here on AST who has a crystal ball or is a psychic. You
got to tell us what is going on if you expect any help.

Okay, I'm getting down off my soap box for now.

Mark

[TBurke]

Mark et al,

Unfortunately, as you've cited, humor is a mask of sorts and can be
easily misinterpreted as a result. Oftentimes, as you can attest I'm
sure, the humor degenerates into sarcasm, pointed digs, poor-taste
innunedos, and inner circle joshing. Therefore, it's no wonder many are
taken aback (too put it mildly) by the vast majority of these postings.

I'm sure everyone is "all for fun" at times and that humor does
help. However, the overwhelming spate of non-serious and whimsical
posts in recent monthsis catching a lot of people (newbies, old-timers,
and lurkers) a bit off-guard (he says understatingly).

Tom

Tom