CORPSE-PEDDLER McDEATH DYING - SHUTS DOWN RESTAURANTS, SLASHES POSITIONS
Dr. Jai Maharaj
By Deborah Cohen
Friday, November 8, 2002
Chicago (Reuters) - Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. said
on Friday it would shutter about 175 restaurants -- its
second major round of closings in two years -- and slash
up to 600 worldwide corporate positions, as it struggles
to turn around its U.S. performance and trim worldwide
costs.
The Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said the actions
will reduce fourth-quarter earnings by $350 million to
$425 million, forcing its to miss its 2002 earnings
forecast. The shortfall stems from the combined effect of
the cost of closing stores and losing their revenues, a
spokeswoman said.
McDonald's shares fell by as much as 13 percent on the
New York Stock Exchange on Friday, and the news also
pushed down the stock of competitors such as hamburger
rival Wendy's International Inc. and Taco Bell parent
Yum! Brands Inc. . . .
[...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021108/bs_nm/leisure_mcdonalds_outlook_dc_5
News Plus
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Diwali Greetings!
Panchaang for 4 Kartik 5103, Friday, November 8, 2002:
Chitrabhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jeevana Ritau
Tula Mase Shukla Pakshe Shukra Vasara Yuktayam
Poorvashadha Nakshatra Dhriti Yoga
Bava-Balava Karana Panchami Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
harmony
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:health-183...@news.mantra.com...
> McDonald's to Close 175 Restaurants
>
this would have nothing to do with those dalits in harayana, would it?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:health-183...@news.mantra.com...
>> McDonald's to Close 175 Restaurants
> this would have nothing to do with those dalits in harayana, would it?
People who eat corpses of (non-human) animals are just
one step away from being cannibals. This is common to
all nonvegetarians.
Severn
<j...@mantra.com> "Dr." Judas Johnny Maharaj wrote:
> People who eat corpses of (non-human) animals are just
> one step away from being cannibals. This is common to
> all nonvegetarians.
What would you call people who kill elephants and deer, Johnny boy?
Wedig astrologers?
nazardo
> In article <usohdrm...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > news:health-183...@news.mantra.com...
> >> McDonald's to Close 175 Restaurants
>
> > this would have nothing to do with those dalits in harayana, would it?
>
> People who eat corpses of (non-human) animals are just
> one step away from being cannibals. This is common to
> all nonvegetarians.
Today's lesson is:
"THE CANNIBAL EQUATION"
X eats X = CANNIBALISTIC ACTIVITY
Not X eats Y, or X eats Z.
For example:
People (X) who eat people (X) are, in addition to being the luckiest
people in the world, engaging in cannibalistic activity ;-)
Using the above equation:
People (X) who eat the corpse of a non-human animal, let's say a cow
(Y), are not engaging in cannibalistic activity.
However, if the corpse of a non-human animal, say a chicken (X),
decided to eat the corpse of another non-human animal -- also a
chicken (X) -- said chicken will have engaged in cannibalist activity.
A person who eats meat is no more a cannibal than a person who eats
vegetables.
Here endeth the lesson.
Groucho Marxist
The attachment of a symbol, like a word, to a thing, is called the creation
of a sign.
This is a social activity. People do it. It doesn't come down from on
high.
As we learn the language of our society, we learn the values of our society.
It is structurally in the language. But this doesn't mean that the values
attached to objects through words are moral, or proper, or correct.
However, we treat them as though they do. If our language tells us that X =
Y, then we tend to not even see a difference between X and Y. The language
acts like a trance, preventing us from seeing X and Y as different.
Your syllogism/equation can be made to work very simply.
X = Animal.
Y = Vegetable.
Z = Mineral.
Animal = humans and any other organic entity with demonstrable brain
activity.
Ergo, X = X
A proper typology, one with main and sub-classifications, recognizing that
there is more than one kind of thing under a main, broad classification,
holds that human and non-human organic entities with demonstrable brain
activity are subclasses of the entity called animal. Animal is a subclass
of Entity.
Your syllogism merely reflects a social value bias built into archaic uses
of the English language. These biases have a decidedly Christian-religious
context and bias, that does not recognize humans as animals. We were well
to the point of recognizing humans as animals before Darwin. This
recognition goes back at least as far back as Aristotle, who wrote in his
essay, "Politics", that "Man is the political animal".
Now if you are Christian, then you have a hierarchy of entities that goes
something like this:
God
|
Angels - their role is to help humans, and those who rebelled are
Devils
|
Humans
|
Animals
|
Parasites
|
Minerals
Your world has four corners, according to the book of Revelation. And
illness is the result of sin, rather than germs.
"nazardo" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca647f45.02111...@posting.google.com...
Severn
Groucho Marxist wrote:
>
> Your syllogism/equation can be made to work very simply.
>
> X = Animal.
>
> Y = Vegetable.
>
> Z = Mineral.
>
> Animal = humans and any other organic entity with demonstrable brain
> activity.
>
> Ergo, X = X
A lion is not considered to be a cannibal, neither is a whale, or an
eagle or a salmon or an owl or a chicken.......
People who eat beef and fish and fowl are *not* cannibals.
On the other hand, I would make a case that people such as "Jai Maharaj"
who have been documented in calling for the extermination of certain
categories of people, are worse than cannibals. They are brutish
terrorists who derive pleasure from the act of killing other human beings.
Groucho Marxist
What criteria was used to determine cannibal?
As I understand it, it is based on species/genus, which is a sub-type of
animal.
I just wanted to show you that depending on how deep or how broadly one
looks and defines a thing, we are all animals: cattle, fish, fowl, humans.
There are even a few of us who are vegetarians and virtual vegans because of
health concerns. Frankly, given the opportunity, a lion would kill and eat
me in a heartbeat if it could. Still, though I still eat fish once a week,
I wouldn't eat whale meat because it is an endangered species.
Amazingly, though, my health has improved tremendously since starting this
new lifestyle. If your cholesterol is high or you're having heart problems,
it should really be considered as a new way of living. Uncanny results.
"Severn" <servern@jay's-queer.domain> wrote in message
news:AjFz9.199$6Z....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Severn
Groucho Marxist wrote:
> Now, who has decided that is and is not a cannibal?
>
> What criteria was used to determine cannibal?
>
>
> As I understand it, it is based on species/genus, which is a sub-type of
> animal.
Please see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=cannibal
> I just wanted to show you that depending on how deep or how broadly one
> looks and defines a thing, we are all animals: cattle, fish, fowl, humans.
>
>
> There are even a few of us who are vegetarians and virtual vegans because of
> health concerns. Frankly, given the opportunity, a lion would kill and eat
> me in a heartbeat if it could. Still, though I still eat fish once a week,
> I wouldn't eat whale meat because it is an endangered species.
>
> Amazingly, though, my health has improved tremendously since starting this
> new lifestyle. If your cholesterol is high or you're having heart problems,
> it should really be considered as a new way of living. Uncanny results.
Undoubtedly. "Modern" foods tend to overuse ingredients such as sugars,
fats and starches, which is the source of the problem. Moderate meat
consumption along with adequate excercise is significantly(in my
opinion) better than a vegan or vegetarian diet with minimal physical
activity. Fish(I prefer less-polluted Pacific catches, skinless chicken
or turkey, lean cuts of red meat and lean pork cooked in a healthy way
can actually be beneficial to health. IMO, we need to address abusive
consumption, rather than consumption itself.
> "Severn" <servern@jay's-queer.domain> wrote in message
> news:AjFz9.199$6Z....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
>>
jack
because it is an endangered species.>>
...not that whales are FISH...
Groucho Marxist
I think you need a major colonic to take care of that anal fixation you
have.
"jack" <_jac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13883d3c.02111...@posting.google.com...
Groucho Marxist
anybody.
Social pressures are inherently political. They are power seeking and power
holding pressures. They are there to ensure that the right people gain and
keep the power. So the makers of dictionaries tend to support the status
quo politically, and that is why definitions in dictionaries should be
treated, at best, as LOOSE references.
A suggestion, in all seriousness, is to read up on Michel Foucault's theory
of the Panopticon. Language is the panopticon. The implication being he
who controls the definitions of words controls how and what people perceive.
I couldn't agree more with his theory.
"Severn" <servern@jay's-queer.domain> wrote in message
news:gk5A9.7522$6Z....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Severn
Groucho Marxist wrote:
> The people who make dictionaries are as influenced by social pressures as
> anybody.
>
> Social pressures are inherently political. They are power seeking and power
> holding pressures. They are there to ensure that the right people gain and
> keep the power. So the makers of dictionaries tend to support the status
> quo politically, and that is why definitions in dictionaries should be
> treated, at best, as LOOSE references.
It appears that you are saying that one need not be bound by dictionary
definitions of what a specific word means, but one _could_ choose to. In
this particular instance, I am in complete agreement with the definition
given in the link I provided.
Groucho Marxist
> It appears that you are saying that one need not be bound by dictionary
> definitions of what a specific word means, but one _could_ choose to. In
> this particular instance, I am in complete agreement with the definition
> given in the link I provided.
This is a long response to what may be a flippant statement.
But, by god, it has to be made. Enough of the ignorance of this age!
And I apologize to those in other groups, but I have no clue which the guy
is writing from. Nevertheless, you might find this all interesting enough
to read. (And if you are a Star Wars fan, you may recognize the Plato
references are similar to those made throughout Star Wars about "the force".
And Lucas keeps giving you clues throughout Star Wars that they are using
The Republic as a reference for movies.)
Severen, if you wish to be a slave of your society, you can accept
everything it tells you as fact.
For example, if you lived in the U.S. South before 1865 (and, sadly,
probably now in some quarters), your society told you that people of black
African ancestry were inferiors, not really human, and as our Constitution
says, only 2/3ds of a person for purposes of Congressional apportionment.
They were the decendants of Ham, the son of Noah from the Bible, and
destined to be the servants of mankind. This is how you would see them, and
would not question it.
How did you know this was the nature of things? It said so in the Bible.
Even more authoritative for those people than any dictionary. Indeed, the
Webster dictionaries, beginning in 1823, were influenced by it. So was the
original English dictionary compiled by Samuel Johnson in the 1750s.
Why would a society perceive black Africans this way? Because the word
"black" carries many meanings in English, and does not just referring to the
lack of color. It also means evil. And, of course, including its synonym
"dark", all things black/dark were evil. Therefore, people of black African
descent were inherently evil. Therefore, they could be turned into beasts
of burden.
It would take a very, very strong person to rise above such a worldview,
which was absolutely incorporated into the culture of the day, specifically
into its language. Language is the product of social interactions, and
helps to determine how each person who learns it views the world.
See how this works?
Here's a quick and dirty on Foucault's idea of the Panopticon.
The Panopticon is an interesting metaphor for language and how it
shapes/narrows perception.
The idea was created by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who had a
great influence on English and American society.
I found a pretty good description of it in technical terms:
The Panopticon is an architectural figure which "incorporates a tower
central to an annular building that is divided into cells, each cell
extending the entire thickness of the building to allow inner and outer
windows. The occupants of the cells . . . are thus backlit, isolated from
one another by walls, and subject to scrutiny both collectively and
individually by an observer in the tower who remains unseen. Toward this
end, Bentham envisioned not only venetian blinds on the tower observation
ports but also mazelike connections among tower rooms to avoid glints of
light or noise that might betray the presence of an observer."
Here is how I would describe it in plain English. The Panopticon is a
prison shaped like a wheel. In the center is the tower where the guards
reside. On the outside are the cells. The guards can see into every cell
from the center. But the prisoners can only see what's in front of them,
limiting their perceptions to a small portion of the whole prison. They
cannot see the guards. They cannot see the other prisoners. Their
'reality' is what they can perceive. It is "subjective" reality. It is
only a small part of what constitutes overall, or what I'd call "objective
reality". They would have to have pretty strong imaginations to imagine
beyond what they can perceive.
Language is the panopticon, directing what we can perceive.
It also has a power dimension to it. If you can see all things, you have
power because you have access to ultimate knowledge. If your ability to see
is narrowed, you have little power because you have access to and acquire
little knowledge.
Plato expressed pretty much the same idea in "The Republic", in the Myth of
the Cave in book seven.
It is printed below:
The character of Socrates is speaking with a sophist philosopher named
Glaucon.
AND now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened
or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which
has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they
have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so
that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the
chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is
blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a
raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way,
like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which
they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of
vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and
various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking,
others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the
shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the
cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were
never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only
see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose
that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that
the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the
images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are
released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is
liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and
walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will
distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his
former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to
him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is
approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real
existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may
further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass
and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy
that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are
now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a
pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the
objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in
reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he now
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged
ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun
himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the
light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at
all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And
first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other
objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze
upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he
will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of
the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in
the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another;
and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the
years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a
certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been
accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his
fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the
change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on
those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which
of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and
who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you
think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the
possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything,
rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain
these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be
replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full
of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows
with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was
still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would
be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable)
would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he
came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of
ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the
light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
---
The ability to see beyond what your society says is all there is is both a
gift and a curse. How many throughout history were put away in prisons or
assylums for seeing objective reality clearer and speaking or writing about
what he/she saw? How many were stigmatized? I can think of no better
example in recent history than Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was sent to the
Gulag Archipelago in the former Soviet Union. He was the highest decorated
Soviet soldier from WWII. But Stalin didn't want him stirring the pot after
the war. So to prison he went. Then there was Andrei Sakharov and Elena
Bonner, who were dissident human rights activists in the Soviet Union.
Sakharov invented the Soviet hydrogen bomb. He won the Nobel Peace Prize
for his efforts, but ended up stigmatized and isolated until the Soviet
Union fell.
And how many throughout history were put to death because they spoke out
about what they saw, beyond the official interpretation of reality?
Socrates? Jesus Christ (if such a person existed)? Every heretic, whether
religious, political, or social since the beginning of time?
Why did the Romans have the library at Alexandria, Egypt destroyed in the
4th century AD, shortly after Rome adopted Christianity as the official
religion? Speculation is they didn't want any competition of ideas for its
new, official Bible, created by the Council of Nicea.
We only have about 1% of the information from that and earlier eras, and
only because the Arabs kept some of the texts in their libraries, beyond the
reach of Rome. Without the Arab libraries, we would never have heard of
Plato or Aristotle, because the Church suppressed their ideas by burning the
books. This was the Church's Panopticon. The books were not re-introduced
to the West until the Crusades. And when they were read in the west, they
changed EVERYTHING!
How can we possibly improve society and make things better if the only
things we can perceive are the dogmatic things approved by our society? How
can we possibly rise above narrow interpretations of reality if we accept
without question the dogmas found in our officially recognized scripture and
dictionaries?
Go grab a number of dictionaries, including the Oxford (probably the best,
because it is so comprehensive). Look up the word "faith". You will see
two definitions right off: belief, and trust. However, they alternate them
as the first and second definitions. How come? If it is all supposedly so
clear, why do the compliers of these dictionaries place the definitions of
such a simple word in different orders of significance?
Now do you get it? Or are you merely a slave to dogma?
Severn
Groucho Marxist wrote:
> "Severn" <servern@jay's-queer.domain> wrote in message
> news:96qA9.5017$i03....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
>>It appears that you are saying that one need not be bound by dictionary
>>definitions of what a specific word means, but one _could_ choose to. In
>>this particular instance, I am in complete agreement with the definition
>>given in the link I provided.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a long response to what may be a flippant statement.
>
> But, by god, it has to be made. Enough of the ignorance of this age!
> Now do you get it? Or are you merely a slave to dogma?
Because I believe that eating the meat of deer or sheep is not
cannibalism, I'm a slave to dogma? Get real!
Groucho Marxist
No. It is because you unquestioningly accept the definition of a dictionary
as gospel. You treat it as scripture. That makes you a slave to dogma.
Accept your nature. But beware. Many a sheep has made a lovely chop for
meateaters.
Just say "Baaah".
Roy Basan
So you like to eat grass (vegetables) and drink urine from your
sacred cow,hmnn?
If meat eater will see you doing that it will be considered as
despicable act as what you believe that corpse eater did with meat.
How different is that to a deaf laughing at the the blind man who is
given garbage by him to eat;nor the blind man laughing at the deaf
person as he cannot hear him telling he is a big moron.
Why not pracice some tolerance and shut up?
If you prided yourself being a vegetarian why dont you give the same
respect to non vegetarians;as they have their own convictions about
eating meat.
You have come to the point of a fanatic and your title as a doctor has
lost its meaning.You are too narrowminded to understand the disparity
of human nature with regards to food preferences.
Whateever are the differences of vegetarianism and meat eating give
each individual freedom to follow what they like and not what your
neurosis dictates.
Severn
Roy Basan wrote:
> use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<health-189...@news.mantra.com>...
>
>
>>
>>People who eat corpses of (non-human) animals are just
>>one step away from being cannibals. This is common to
>>all nonvegetarians.
>>
>>Jai Maharaj
>
>
>
>
> Why not pracice some tolerance and shut up?
> If you prided yourself being a vegetarian why dont you give the same
> respect to non vegetarians;as they have their own convictions about
> eating meat.
> You have come to the point of a fanatic and your title as a doctor has
> lost its meaning.
Johnny boya's title is self-conferred. He has shown absolutely no
evidence of it, and has not even provided the subject on which he claims
to be a "Dr.". That he is not a medical doctor has been proven by scads
of mis-informed posts that he has made, but it is still being debated
whether he has even an undergrad degree. At one time, he attended Case
Western, but dropped out to pursue other "interests", possibly at the
urging of a professor at another university in Cleveland who, although a
naturalized US citizen, is engaged in activities incompatible with the
values of his adopted country, and unfortunately also has a Department
of Defense clearance. DoD appears to think that his activities are
tolerable for the moment, at least while they pick his substantial brains.
Roy Basan
Yeah, I think you are right.
His supposed doctoral degree was doctored as well, in order that he
can proudly post his prejudice against non- Indian habits,and non
vegetarian habits.
From how he talks he may belong to a brahmin caste in his native
country;who look down on lower castes; and people who do not share his
habits nor beliefs and think them as despicable untouchables;like what
he label as corpse eaters.
Well as for me a Brahmin is just as a specie of farm cattle
(which is even exported for breeding)in which these Hindus worship
the female ones.
Roy