Fw: Yoohoo!? Damian...
Martin Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Anderson <martin.a...@virgin.net>
To: Hammond <hrob...@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Yoohoo!? Damian...
> Hello Hammond,
>
> You hadn't said much before I left, but now it seems you are my brother's
> keeper. Comments inline.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hammond <hrob...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Yoohoo!? Damian...
>
>
> > In article <8m2umq$48c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, glenn...@my-deja.com
writes:
> >
> > >
> > >Dear Rotraut,
> > >
> > >I do not intend to intrude on private family matters, but I do want to
> > >wish you and the Andersons every success in regaining your "estranged"
> > >(if I may use that term) son. He is a hard nut to crack, as I and many
> > >others here can attest.
> > >
> > >I did know Damian briefly in DC when he and Rosalie were first married,
> > >and he was pushy and obnoxious then even to other UC members. So time
has
> > >not seemed to mellow him as far as I can see. Quite the opposite, I
> > >think. A luxury afforded him by the relative sanctuary of the Internet,
> > >where he can play hide and seek as it suits his mood. That is my
> > >experience with him here. I regard him as basically a coward.
> > >
> > >To state the obvious: Moon has been exposed by his own family as a
liar,
> > >hypocrite and charlatan. His critics were right all along. This is
plain
> > >to everyone, even the so-called "faithful," though they generally
choose
> > >to live in denial. Why? Because admitting the truth is too painful.
It's
> > >takes an extraordinary amount of courage to admit that the last 20-25
of
> > >one's life--the entire raison d'etre of their existence--was a sham.
> > >They'd prefer to continue living a lie than admit they made a mistake.
> > >
> > >And where is the harm in admitting the mistake? Most of us joined Moon
> > >when we were very young and thought we knew what was best. Why should
> > >anyone be held accountable for a LIFE-LONG commitment to an unknown
> > >person made during the emotion of a workshop, with no opportunity to
> > >reconsider? It's not right and it's not fair.
> > >
> > >I have no doubt that Damian is getting much support for his position
from
> > >the UC leaders and members, including the weak-minded and gullible lot
> > >that frequent this forum. We've all been there; having to "choose"
> > >between Moon and our own families. Usually, as you know, the
"rationale"
> > >behind this choice is Jesus' own words to his disciples, etc.
> > >
> > >I don't know if you will succeed in reasoning with Damian, but know
that
> > >you are right. The truth will out.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >Glenn Emery
> > >
> >
> > Glenn,
> > How thoughtful of you to tell Damian's mother that her son is an
> estranged,
> > obnoxious, cowardly, nut who's wasted his life and is living in denial.
>
> My mother is more than capable of seeing through any possible spin, and
> Glenn's opinion as expressed above looks simply like an honest appraisal
of
> his view of Damian. My family's opinion of Damian was recently updated by
> six months of intensive communication. Nothing anyone says here is likely
to
> outweigh that.
>
> > And
> > how clever of you to reinforce her fears that Damian has chosen SMM over
> his
> > own family (and her) when there is no choice like that. You
manipulative
> SOB;
> > why don't you just watch and see how Damian handles himself--you might
> learn a
> > thing or two.
>
> If only you knew Hamm,.........if only you knew. Glenn has nothing to
learn
> from him on this front. He seems honest, forthright and amazingly lacking
in
> bitterness after his time in the UC.
> His account of the techniques used in the worksops was in exact accord
with
> my own experience of one. The suble way in which birth families are cut
off
> is also a fact.
>
> I have great respect for people who can admit and rectify a mistake in
> public as Glenn and many other ex-members do here and I look forward to
> respecting you too when the time comes..........
>
> Also Dan Feffermann, but that is another post........
>
>
> > JHammR
> > "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the
Cosmic
> > Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
>
> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a funny?
>
> Martin Anderson
>
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
snip
>> >
>> > Glenn,
>> > How thoughtful of you to tell Damian's mother that her son is an
>> estranged,
>> > obnoxious, cowardly, nut who's wasted his life and is living in denial.
>>
>> My mother is more than capable of seeing through any possible spin, and
>> Glenn's opinion as expressed above looks simply like an honest appraisal
>of
>> his view of Damian. My family's opinion of Damian was recently updated by
>> six months of intensive communication. Nothing anyone says here is likely
>to
>> outweigh that.
Martin,
I'm not your brother's keeper; I'm just watching his back. Glenn is obviously
biased; anything or anyone related to SMM is automatically 'baaad, real bad' in
Glenn's mind. Your brother included. And for that matter, me.
Damian, like everyone else, is 'working out their own salvation' and that
restorative process is one of great difficulty; and will involve, among other
things, improving the relationship with one's family. During this informal
process, instead of just asking WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?), we ask ourselves
WWBCD/HCTHDB (What Would the Biblical Characters Do and How Could They Have
Done it Better?)
All relationship problems stem from the relationship of Cain and his brother
Abel. (Actually 'Lucifer' and Adam, but that may too esoteric for some.) We
know that when Cain killed his brother, Heaven on Earth was delayed. All of
human history has been an attempt by God to get people to repair this
relationship.
Why do I have great hopes that the relationship between Damian and his family
gets repaired during this visit? Damian knows what Abel did wrong in his
relationship with his brother. Will Damian be able to win the hearts of his
brothers? Will he be able to get his mother to cooperate with him? Will Cain
kill Abel, again? (Ok, Ok--I don't really think ya'll will attempt to kill
Damian, but the upcoming reunion sure has that 'Daniel in the lion's den' feel
to it.)
Glenn's comments don't help. His careless words, as honest as they may be,
could inflame the situation. And cause Damian to harden his heart just before
coming home. And could cause him to carry a 'chip on his shoulder' which may
cause him to say something stupid, which may result in ya'll 'escorting' him to
the airport ahead of schedule. (Every legitimate student of human history
should be following this situation.)
My hopes are that Damian will say and do the right things to win ya'll's
hearts. If he is able to gain your cooperation, (or at least avoid getting
prematurely sent back to the 'colonies'), his heart will change too. Anyway;
Glenn didn't help.
>>
>> > And
>> > how clever of you to reinforce her fears that Damian has chosen SMM over
>> his
>> > own family (and her) when there is no choice like that. You
>manipulative
>> SOB;
>> > why don't you just watch and see how Damian handles himself--you might
>> learn a
>> > thing or two.
>>
>> If only you knew Hamm,.........if only you knew. Glenn has nothing to
>learn
>> from him on this front. He seems honest, forthright and amazingly lacking
>in
>> bitterness after his time in the UC.
>> His account of the techniques used in the worksops was in exact accord
>with
>> my own experience of one. The suble way in which birth families are cut
>off
>> is also a fact.
>>
>> I have great respect for people who can admit and rectify a mistake in
>> public as Glenn and many other ex-members do here and I look forward to
>> respecting you too when the time comes..........
You may be right about Glenn.
As you may or may not know, I joined before 'workshops', but soon after I
joined, Colorado began experimenting with group lectures over a weekend. New
York and Oakland, with very different styles, got into the act and things began
to change. I was one of the first 120-day International Belvedere Trainees
(NY), back in 19 and seven-two. Oakland began an explosive expansion in
membership and fairly soon after that, accusations of 'brainwashing' began
appearing in the press centering in northern California.
My thinking on the matter was 'basic'. (The truth will out; anyone joining for
some other reason will eventually leave.) Anyone in the movement because it
was a comfortable place to hang out, soon found more mellow places to be.
Those there for truth heard extended lectures, and then moved to the next
level, and were faced with an opportunity to master money. After that, the
next challenge was to learn to win hearts. Then everybody got married and went
home. (Is this so bad?)
I disagree with the separation from family stuff. (There is no way for someone
to sever their relationship with their family and fulfill historical
requirements. In the section on Jacob one of the things he did right was have
a good working relationship with his mother. For some reason this is an
essential point for those who want to be historic figures. So a good
relationship with family is almost a requirement. But nobody can force anyone
to keep in touch with their family. And sometimes center directors would find
members with strong family ties were more of a hinderance in efforts to fulfill
short-term goals. SMM warned folks that their families may attempt to pull
them away, but some use those words as a convenient justification.
>>
>> Also Dan Feffermann, but that is another post........
>>
>>
>> > JHammR
>> > "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the
>Cosmic
>> > Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
>>
>> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a funny?
>>
>> Martin Anderson
>>
>
This is my 'informed' interpretation of SMM's motto for the year 2000. Each
year he releases a motto to set the tone for the year. The motto for this year
is 'The Cosmic Expansion of True Love is the Perfection of the New Millennial
Kingdom of God'. (Kind of esoteric, huh?)
Having followed a certain 'golden thread' which runs through the movement's
history and SMM's words and activities, I interpreted the motto in this way:
'Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth'. Given the historical
moment, and the state of global culture, this seems to be the more appropriate
and useful rendering. (It's about embracing 'the other' in our culture;
harkens back to the Cain and Abel--archangel and Adam--relationship; and
assists in opening new frontiers.) Damian is well versed on my views,
although he may not want to talk about it--he thinks I'm a 'nutter'.
glenn...@my-deja.com
I guess it serves your purpose to vilify me for speaking plainly. I will
resist the temptation to respond in kind.
I once knew a James Robinson, a black brother very much fascinated with
space and how he believed it related to the "providence." Perhaps he had
dreams as a little boy of becoming an astronaut? Anyway, I knew him only
briefly during a short time while I was in New York preparing to go to DC
to found the Washington Times. He had just begun something called the
American Space Federation I think, and he handed me a small booklet he
had put together on it. James was a really sweet guy and I liked him
immensely. His enthusiasm for his pet project was obvious. But the
consensus on James was he was eccentric. Obsessed with "out there," while
the rest of us were preoccupied with "down here." He was harmless,
though, and everyone seemed to quietly tolerate his eccentric views. I
wonder what became of James? I wonder if he ever got the UC leadership to
listen to his ideas? He probably doesn't remember me.
The DP, as the spell was cast at my Boonville workshop, was a revelation.
Many parts of it were profoundly stimulating. And as blueprint for
understanding human behavior (Cain/Abel, Adam/Eve, etc.) it was the very
essence of simplicity and beauty. Every single situation that I looked
at--from global geopolitics to my own family dynamics--suddenly seemed
crytal clear when I applied the DP matrix. Yep, everything always fell
into place and I was certain this had to be the Truth. All I wanted
anyone to do was attend a workshop or study the DP as I had and see for
themselves what a marvelous teaching Moon had given us. Even if Moon
wasn't the messiah, the world would be astounded and transformed by this
teaching, and mankind would be forever grateful to Moon for the
unfathomable sacrifice he made to obtain this truth.
Or so I thought. What I did learn within a couple years is that the DP,
while provides the framework for an inspiring workshop, is useless. It
cannot be applied to the real world. It does not work. It has no
practical value. The world and its cultures and its history and its
issues and problems are far too complex to submit to such black-and-white
fantasies. I'll give you a personal example.
I had been on MFT for a couple years, very gung-ho and a reasonably good
fund-raiser. I liked it. Traveling around the country, knocking on every
door, getting in touch with the "real" America. I was fearless. I was on
fire. I went everywhere and talked to everyone. I never worried about
food or shelter or clothing for myself, because all of those things had
been taken care of. (The quote in Matthew comes to mind, about the
sparrows. You know the one.)
All I did was worry about "the people," helping them connect to True
Parents one dollar at a time. It was a heavenly mission to "restore" all
that money from Satan, and I was deeply honored to have been chosen by
God for such a special and difficult mission. And at night, after the
last bar had been blitzed, I cried tears of repentance to God that I had
not done more, had not reached more people. I begged God to forgive those
who persecuted me, who denounced Rev. Moon, who refused to give. I prayed
that God would open their hearts to the truth, so that the next MFTer
would not be rejected. To the best of my knowledge, those prayers were
never answered. But nevermind that.
In time, I became an MFT captain, and I was both thrilled and humbled to
be given such an important "leadership" position. I was determined to be
the best captain I could be to my members--both pushing them and loving
them to accomplish our sacred duty. I was in Texas and loved it. And I
had a commander--a young American brother--whom I united with instantly.
Surely God would bless our team and region with such a strong bond
centered on True Parents.
Well, guess what? The commander was a homosexual. Not just in his pre-
church life. Now. He was actively preying on the male members of his
region, and in time his attention turned to me. I was asleep in the motel
room (you know how we liked to crowd into rooms but only pay for one
person--a deceptive practice condoned by HQ) and I awoke with a start to
find his hand on my penis.
Now my first reaction was denial. What he had done was impossible and
hadn't happened. Rare Chapter Two problems between brothers and sisters
were bad enough, but homosexuality? Never. This was about 1977, and the
mindset back then was very narrow. I tried to shrug it off, determined to
resume my fighting spirit. I had "gone over" many difficulties in my life
of faith, and I was confident I would get through this one with prayer
and faith and determination. I instantly "forgave" my commander for his
slip.
But it didn't work. The following night he repeated this same behavior--
this time while I was still awake!--and my beautiful, simple life of
faith shattered like a porcelain figurine. Almost immediately I began
spiraling down into rage and severe depression. And the DP only made it
worse. The harder I tried to apply the Principle, the worse the situation
became. I became parallyzed with DP-induced guilt.
All the emphasis on restoration of fallen nature and indemnity for past
generations and so on and so forth gave me no solution to the issue at
hand: What to do? How could I possibly unite with my central figure now?
Should I tell Mr. Sawamukai or Mr. Kamiyama? (Surely they will not
believe me.) What lesson is God trying to teach me? What is the purpose
of such a severe test of my faith? Am I gay and don't even know it? The
list of soul-searching questions went on and on and on...but nothing in
the DP offered any solution. I read the bible. I read DP. I prayed like a
maniac. Only guilt. Remember, this is a central figure we're talking
about, my Abel figure, and someone of fairly high status in the UC. Cain
must overcome his homicidal urges and unite with Abel. No other option
available.
The more I squelched my own feelings to unite heartisically with my
commander, the further into the abyss I slipped. My life within the UC
became dark and depressing, made all the more bleak because I fervently
believed in the DP and now believed I had failed God. One day I'm a
mighty warrior for heaven; the next an unworthy "problem" member doomed
to hell.
Nor was there any refuge for me. As much as I wanted to run away, there
was nowhere to go. I was still stuck on MFT with a team to lead, only now
deeply angry and depressed. And after Mr. Kamiyama was done with me, I
was nearly suicidal.
Eventually the mental stress caused a nervous breakdown (but that didn't
get me off MFT!). Only one person truly cared about me then: Larry
Krishnek. And he didn't use DP. He simply believed me, and gave me the
space to work it out as best he could.
So...you can pin your own hopes on the DP as some sort of master
blueprint for the human race. (Or would that be master race of the blue
prince? No wait, that's the Hari Krishnas. Wrong cult. Sorry.) But I know
from hard-earned experience that when push comes to shove, the DP has no
value. Like Monopoly money, it only has currency within the game itself.
Even the Principle of Creation--the duality of nature--doesn't really
explain anything. It merely states the obvious, and then postulates that
therefore God must be this way too. I say it proves no such thing. Nature
is far more complex than the DP allows. And who knows what exists
elsewhere in the cosmos?
BTW, the incident with my commander was, in the fullness of time, merely
a blip. I got over it (by putting my own interests above the DP) and
eventually moved on. I emerged from the ordeal much stronger and more
committed to True Parents than ever. My personal suffering became a
secret pact between me and God. Eventually I was able to forgive my
commander. Several years later we met in the New Yorker and I forgave him
to his face. And I meant it. I felt then and feel now no animosity to him
for screwing up my spirit. It would be at least another decade before I'd
finally bail out of the UC, and by then the incident was ancient history
and one that had little significance in my life.
But it did teach me a valuable lesson about protecting my own spirit from
harm--which is why I have put 10 years and many miles between me and that
buffoon you call "father" and the worthless DP. I don't need him or it to
tell me what is right for me, and neither do you. And anyone who thinks
the UC somehow makes them a better person, has no love for themselves or
appreciation of their true potential. They have surrendered their
personal power to another, and for that they will one day pay a very dear
price.
Now, if you'll forgive me, I have a little boy who is potty training. Yet
another area where the DP has no practical value.
Glenn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martin Anderson
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000810103510...@nso-cb.aol.com...
> In article <HPlk5.12992$9A1.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
> snip
> >> >
> >> > Glenn,
> >> > How thoughtful of you to tell Damian's mother that her son is an
> >> estranged,
> >> > obnoxious, cowardly, nut who's wasted his life and is living in
denial.
> >>
> >> My mother is more than capable of seeing through any possible spin, and
> >> Glenn's opinion as expressed above looks simply like an honest
appraisal
> >of
> >> his view of Damian. My family's opinion of Damian was recently updated
by
> >> six months of intensive communication. Nothing anyone says here is
likely
> >to
> >> outweigh that.
>
> Martin,
> I'm not your brother's keeper; I'm just watching his back. Glenn is
obviously
> biased; anything or anyone related to SMM is automatically 'baaad, real
bad' in
> Glenn's mind. Your brother included. And for that matter, me.
To me, Glenn appears to be biased towards the truth. The bias which you
detect is evidently a feeling that he is against what you stand for. This is
perhaps better described as a point of view rather than a bias. As an ex-UC
member who has seen both points of view and made his decision accordingly, I
am more inclined to accept Glen's point of view as unbiased than yours.
Who's point of view prevails with the undecided is what this forum is all
about. The refusal of the current UC members to consider the weight of
evidence proving that SMM cannot be a Messiah demonstrates a mindset which
makes all their judgements appear suspect to impartial observers.
>
> Damian, like everyone else, is 'working out their own salvation' and that
> restorative process is one of great difficulty; and will involve, among
other
> things, improving the relationship with one's family. During this
informal
> process, instead of just asking WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?), we ask
ourselves
> WWBCD/HCTHDB (What Would the Biblical Characters Do and How Could They
Have
> Done it Better?)
>
> All relationship problems stem from the relationship of Cain and his
brother
> Abel. (Actually 'Lucifer' and Adam, but that may too esoteric for some.)
We
> know that when Cain killed his brother, Heaven on Earth was delayed. All
of
> human history has been an attempt by God to get people to repair this
> relationship.
This is classic UC simplicity. There are seven boys and four girls in our
family. Damian is the third child. Who is/ are the Cain(s). Who the Abel(s)?
You cannot hope to comprehend the dynamics present even the relatively
simple situation pertaining in one family by such primitive analytical
models. To hope to rationalise the progress of the history of mankind in
such a way is preposterous to most thinking people.
Your assumption here is simplistic even by your own theology. Surely there
is some relationship problem evident between God and man, and between man
and wife, before Cain and Abel are even born......
>
> Why do I have great hopes that the relationship between Damian and his
family
> gets repaired during this visit? Damian knows what Abel did wrong in his
> relationship with his brother. Will Damian be able to win the hearts of
his
> brothers? Will he be able to get his mother to cooperate with him? Will
Cain
> kill Abel, again? (Ok, Ok--I don't really think ya'll will attempt to
kill
> Damian, but the upcoming reunion sure has that 'Daniel in the lion's den'
feel
> to it.)
Why do we assume that Damian is Abel? I am younger than him. My sacrifices
(in life thus far) have been more pleasing to God than his. Maybe I am more
Abel than he. Is he coming to slay me out of jealousy do you think?
After all, he is the one who approves more of the use of guns and other
weapons.
Do you never get the feeling that every man's hand is set against you.? Your
leader himself states that he was driven out of Korea and now feels driven
from America and in between from many other countries, my own included.
(thus the Jardim foundation). With this in mind is it not more likely that
it is he and his followers who, if anyone, bears the "mark of Cain"
>
> Glenn's comments don't help. His careless words, as honest as they may
be,
> could inflame the situation. And cause Damian to harden his heart just
before
> coming home. And could cause him to carry a 'chip on his shoulder' which
may
> cause him to say something stupid, which may result in ya'll 'escorting'
him to
> the airport ahead of schedule. (Every legitimate student of human history
> should be following this situation.)
The only Moonies I have seen who do not appear to have a "chip on their
shoulder" in their attitude to life in general are you, Dan Fefferman and
Sunny, which is why I am prepared to talk reasonably to you. Damian has
already said all the stupid and hurtful things he could, but is still coming
to visit without apology or explanation. If the visit is a success I do not
think that you should put a victory down to him, but to his long-suffering
parents and siblings. I am somewhat surprised that you see this as a
situation of any historical significance.
Lonely unofficial Moonie webmaster goes home to visit family before aging
parents die........Important to us, but in historical perspective....so
what?
>
> My hopes are that Damian will say and do the right things to win ya'll's
> hearts. If he is able to gain your cooperation, (or at least avoid
getting
> prematurely sent back to the 'colonies'), his heart will change too.
Anyway;
> Glenn didn't help.
I hope that he is able to redeem my family's opinion of him, but they will
never cooperate with anything to do with Sun Myung Moon. I have seen to
that.
Sounds very nice, but rather a short paragraph with which to airbrush over
the lives of so many people. some of them remember it differently and many
are very bitter. What level were / are you in the organisation ? Rank seems
to radically alter people's perceptions and experiences of membership.
>
> I disagree with the separation from family stuff. (There is no way for
someone
> to sever their relationship with their family and fulfill historical
> requirements. In the section on Jacob one of the things he did right was
have
> a good working relationship with his mother. For some reason this is an
> essential point for those who want to be historic figures. So a good
> relationship with family is almost a requirement. But nobody can force
anyone
> to keep in touch with their family. And sometimes center directors would
find
> members with strong family ties were more of a hinderance in efforts to
fulfill
> short-term goals. SMM warned folks that their families may attempt to
pull
> them away, but some use those words as a convenient justification.
What is this about "historical requirements" again? Regarding Damian's
relationship with his mother, I think in his last phonecall to her he
accused her of being an unreformed Nazi. (She was brought up in Hitler's
Germany and along with all the other kids attended "Hitler Youth", which was
the equivalent of being in the scouts or Guides in that society.) She was 13
when WW2 ended......and rapidly sought out religion as a truth she could
rely on after the lies and betrayal of the Nazis.
Considering her shame at something she had no conception of, and a life of
faith and Christian good works, he could hardly have been more crassly
insulting.
If this reconciliation suceeds, it will not just be to his credit I assure
you.
>
>
> >>
> >> Also Dan Feffermann, but that is another post........
> >>
> >>
> >> > JHammR
> >> > "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the
> >Cosmic
> >> > Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
> >>
> >> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a funny?
> >>
> >> Martin Anderson
> >>
> >
>
> This is my 'informed' interpretation of SMM's motto for the year 2000.
Each
> year he releases a motto to set the tone for the year. The motto for this
year
> is 'The Cosmic Expansion of True Love is the Perfection of the New
Millennial
> Kingdom of God'. (Kind of esoteric, huh?)
Esoteric is a very kind word. "A load of bollocks" is how we would describe
such pompous nonsense here.
>
> Having followed a certain 'golden thread' which runs through the
movement's
> history and SMM's words and activities, I interpreted the motto in this
way:
> 'Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth'. Given the
historical
> moment, and the state of global culture, this seems to be the more
appropriate
> and useful rendering. (It's about embracing 'the other' in our culture;
> harkens back to the Cain and Abel--archangel and Adam--relationship; and
> assists in opening new frontiers.) Damian is well versed on my views,
> although he may not want to talk about it--he thinks I'm a 'nutter'.
I think that you are far from being a "nutter". You are obviously a very
able man, but I am having some difficulty in getting a bead on your
motivation in being on this group. There is definitely an element of
competitive play, but whether there is anything deeper than wishing to show
how smart you are I am not sure.
It could even be that you are "taking the piss" out of Moonies and
non-Moonies alike. Now that I can understand to some extent, but as a
regular thing in life? You are a lonely Hammster, that is for sure.
> JHammR
> "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
Soon your file will arrive anyway, but in the meantime, keep posting. I
enjoy the mental exercise of working it out for myself.
Good hunting,
Martin Anderson
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hi again Hammond,
>> Martin,
>> I'm not your brother's keeper; I'm just watching his back. Glenn is
>obviously
>> biased; anything or anyone related to SMM is automatically 'baaad, real
>bad' in
>> Glenn's mind. Your brother included. And for that matter, me.
>
>To me, Glenn appears to be biased towards the truth. The bias which you
>detect is evidently a feeling that he is against what you stand for. This is
>perhaps better described as a point of view rather than a bias. As an ex-UC
>member who has seen both points of view and made his decision accordingly, I
>am more inclined to accept Glen's point of view as unbiased than yours.
>Who's point of view prevails with the undecided is what this forum is all
>about. The refusal of the current UC members to consider the weight of
>evidence proving that SMM cannot be a Messiah demonstrates a mindset which
>makes all their judgements appear suspect to impartial observers.
>
Martin,
Glenn's feelings against what I stand for may be a point of view, but it is so
consistent, so shrill, and so knee-jerk that it makes me wonder if his point of
view is a hysterical response to all things Moon-related. I've always seen
this newsgroup as the battle ground for the hearts and minds of its readers.
But I don't know why the critics (primarily the X-mems) think it's irrational
for members to reject suggestions that SMM is not the Messiah, when such a
decision is expected to be made based on how emotionally distraught folks
interpret their experiences and the experiences of others. This, to me, is the
mind-set which is suspect. I feel as though people with a hidden agenda are
attempting to steer me, (and other readers) in a certain direction. So I
reject most of it out of hand.
God is simple; God's creation is simple. The key to understanding God and the
creation is understanding God's point of view (purposes and motives for doing
stuff). Birth order is a handy tool, but as you point out, it's difficult to
apply to every situation. It's easy to understand the French Revolution as a
rampage by first-borns; it's easy to understand that America was founded by
second-borns; it's more difficult to overlay the Cain/Abel template on a large
family, but it can be done. Who is closer/closest to God's heart? Who
reflects more of God's point of view? These are the questions I like to ask
when I have to determine who's 'Abel'.
As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the anomolies;
the things which by their very existence prove that something more is going on
than casual observation reveals. There are events in history and in science
which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational) explainations; but once
understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so preposterous to
think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And that human
history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of God's ideal for
mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of Heaven on Earth?
And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the development of Heaven
on Earth?
The relationship problem between God and mankind is the crux of the matter. Is
it preposterous to seek out the nature of that relationship problem; and to see
how that relationship problem is played out in human relationships; and is it
impossible to figure out how to resolve those relationship problems. Although
preposterous, these things are not beyond our reach; they're just hard to do.
(SMM figured out the solution and then said: 'here you go' as he handed the key
to folks who were interested. His efforts and open-heartedness saved me a lot
of time.)
Of course, this seems preposterous. But so did several technologies which are
now indispensible: radio, tv, computers, cars, airplanes, electrification, open
heart surgery; did I mention going to the Moon? (I still can't get over
computers--a piece of sand--silicon--with little lines on it is in every
computer made!!! and this piece of sand is not for decoration, but is the very
heart of the device!!!! Come on; >that's< preposterous! And even though a
minority of the planet's population have one, they have totally changed the
world in less than a handful of decades. Who could have imagined such
preposterous things?
>>
>> Why do I have great hopes that the relationship between Damian and his
>family
>> gets repaired during this visit? Damian knows what Abel did wrong in his
>> relationship with his brother. Will Damian be able to win the hearts of
>his
>> brothers? Will he be able to get his mother to cooperate with him? Will
>Cain
>> kill Abel, again? (Ok, Ok--I don't really think ya'll will attempt to
>kill
>> Damian, but the upcoming reunion sure has that 'Daniel in the lion's den'
>feel
>> to it.)
>
>Why do we assume that Damian is Abel? I am younger than him. My sacrifices
>(in life thus far) have been more pleasing to God than his. Maybe I am more
>Abel than he. Is he coming to slay me out of jealousy do you think?
>After all, he is the one who approves more of the use of guns and other
>weapons.
I presume Damian is Abel because he knows the DP, which elucidates--I like that
word--the less-obvious parts of God's heart. I worry more about his ability to
apply what he knows, than anything else. While big D may know the DP, you may
be more adept at applying it than him, (for it may be written on you heart).
But this is the tricky part in mending a relationship; how will ya'll relate to
each other? The only test I'm sure of is a contest to see who loves the most,
but even that is frought with pitfalls. But if everyone is smiling at the end,
then things went well.
>Do you never get the feeling that every man's hand is set against you.? Your
>leader himself states that he was driven out of Korea and now feels driven
>from America and in between from many other countries, my own included.
>(thus the Jardim foundation). With this in mind is it not more likely that
>it is he and his followers who, if anyone, bears the "mark of Cain"
>>
I freely acknowledge that I am Cain--it gives me more leaway to do what I need
to do. But I know how to relate to Abel. And I know how to be Abel (if I have
to) for the sake of others. Bearing the 'mark of Cain' is kind of a blessing
in disguise, but it's also kind of a curse if you're less-Cain-like than
everyone around you. SMM's solution is pretty simple--treat everyone as though
they were Abel. (It saves a lot of time and energy.)
>> Glenn's comments don't help. His careless words, as honest as they may
>be,
>> could inflame the situation. And cause Damian to harden his heart just
>before
>> coming home. And could cause him to carry a 'chip on his shoulder' which
>may
>> cause him to say something stupid, which may result in ya'll 'escorting'
>him to
>> the airport ahead of schedule. (Every legitimate student of human history
>> should be following this situation.)
>
>The only Moonies I have seen who do not appear to have a "chip on their
>shoulder" in their attitude to life in general are you, Dan Fefferman and
>Sunny, which is why I am prepared to talk reasonably to you. Damian has
>already said all the stupid and hurtful things he could, but is still coming
>to visit without apology or explanation. If the visit is a success I do not
>think that you should put a victory down to him, but to his long-suffering
>parents and siblings. I am somewhat surprised that you see this as a
>situation of any historical significance.
>Lonely unofficial Moonie webmaster goes home to visit family before aging
>parents die........Important to us, but in historical perspective....so
>what?
>
If things go well, as I expect they will, the 'victory' will actually belong to
the entire family, and the entire family will benefit. This is important
(IMHO) because Damian influences a lot of people. Everyone who has some kind
of relationship with him will also benefit from your family's victory; just as
everyone you know will also benefit.
>>
>> My hopes are that Damian will say and do the right things to win ya'll's
>> hearts. If he is able to gain your cooperation, (or at least avoid
>getting
>> prematurely sent back to the 'colonies'), his heart will change too.
>Anyway;
>> Glenn didn't help.
>
>I hope that he is able to redeem my family's opinion of him, but they will
>never cooperate with anything to do with Sun Myung Moon. I have seen to
>that.
>>
Then I suggest cooperating with Damian, or getting him to cooperate with
ya'll--the main thing is to work together.
Yeah, so? The best poems have only 17 syllables. Human history is filled with
the activities of billions of people; do you find fault with history books
because they devote so little space to each one? Each person who has had any
contact with anything Moon-related has to decide for themselves how they handle
the relationship and whether they let the relationship keep them separated from
God's point of view or not.
Because I understand that state of heart is the important thing, and not
position, I focus on experiences. (Yeah; OK--I'm black and blacks don't
usually get 'high' positions; but we learn a lot about the heart of God.)
Anyway, I seem to be either cannon fodder or an intrepid pioneer. I've done a
little bit of everything and have been a part of a lot of new stuff. I always
seemed to be assigned to stuff that was never done before. (It gave me the
opportunity to learn something new--all of which I'm able to use now that I'm
in my home town.) There's no rank better than 'son of God', is there? (I
know; you think this is preposterous....)
Well, he has his work cut out for him. (Better him than me.)
>If this reconciliation suceeds, it will not just be to his credit I assure
>you.
>>
I agree.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Also Dan Feffermann, but that is another post........
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > JHammR
>> >> > "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the
>> >Cosmic
>> >> > Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
>> >>
>> >> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a funny?
>> >>
>> >> Martin Anderson
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> This is my 'informed' interpretation of SMM's motto for the year 2000.
>Each
>> year he releases a motto to set the tone for the year. The motto for this
>year
>> is 'The Cosmic Expansion of True Love is the Perfection of the New
>Millennial
>> Kingdom of God'. (Kind of esoteric, huh?)
>
>Esoteric is a very kind word. "A load of bollocks" is how we would describe
>such pompous nonsense here.
>
Well I felt almost the same way. There was no way to get a handle on it so
that it could be applied to daily life throughout the year. And I know that
was not SMM's intention.
>>
>> Having followed a certain 'golden thread' which runs through the
>movement's
>> history and SMM's words and activities, I interpreted the motto in this
>way:
>> 'Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
>> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth'. Given the
>historical
>> moment, and the state of global culture, this seems to be the more
>appropriate
>> and useful rendering. (It's about embracing 'the other' in our culture;
>> harkens back to the Cain and Abel--archangel and Adam--relationship; and
>> assists in opening new frontiers.) Damian is well versed on my views,
>> although he may not want to talk about it--he thinks I'm a 'nutter'.
>
>I think that you are far from being a "nutter". You are obviously a very
>able man, but I am having some difficulty in getting a bead on your
>motivation in being on this group. There is definitely an element of
>competitive play, but whether there is anything deeper than wishing to show
>how smart you are I am not sure.
>It could even be that you are "taking the piss" out of Moonies and
>non-Moonies alike. Now that I can understand to some extent, but as a
>regular thing in life? You are a lonely Hammster, that is for sure.
>
Ahhh; my motivation. What good is smarts if nothing is done with them? So
what should a smart guy do? Given the environment, and the tools at my
disposal, and what I know, and what I'm still learning, what can I do but try
to improve the quality of life for people on the planet? And since I don't
have a bunch of money; and since money doesn't change hearts--but it is a very
useful tool--I persue activities which don't cost a lot, but which can have an
impact wildly out of proportion to the effort, time, and energy required. So I
write, and encourage others to write, and carefully choose what I read and
write about, (applied philosophy, history, science, culture, and the way ideas
spread). My main interest is the industrialization of outer space and the
education process because they involve all my interests, including money; (and
I can do them until I get really really old--and by that time all I'll need to
do is show up, say a few words, and then go to the bank). I know; it's
preposterous.....
So, my product has basically no cost--research materials and time--and can be
'sold' for whatever the market will bear. It provides a social benefit which
is out of proportion with what one would expect from the various elements
involved (synergy). And the more I do it, the better I get at it. (Yes; I
admit it; I'm shamelessly practicing on everyone who reads my posts. And I'm
preparing for the day when I can begin influencing the direction of the world.
You know the saying: 'if it ain't global, it ain't worth the effort'?) After
all; I'm Cain.
I'm a Capricorn, so 'loneliness' is my lot in life--but I'm at the age when
I've pretty much mastered myself and environment, and feel comfortable about
having a family, attending gatherings just to be seen, and, among other things,
just about ready to start leaving a big public footprint.
>> JHammR
>> "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
>> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
>
>Soon your file will arrive anyway, but in the meantime, keep posting. I
>enjoy the mental exercise of working it out for myself.
>
>Good hunting,
>Martin Anderson
>
>
Ooohhh! My 'file'.....
(Which file are you refering to?) Don't worry; I'll keep posting....
Hammond
>
>Hamm,
>
>I guess it serves your purpose to vilify me for speaking plainly. I will
>resist the temptation to respond in kind.
>
>I once knew a James Robinson, a black brother very much fascinated with
>space and how he believed it related to the "providence." Perhaps he had
>dreams as a little boy of becoming an astronaut?
Glenn,
Tis I of whom you speak; the one and same. But I never dreamed of being an
astronaut. (Is that what folks really thought? That my 'concerns' were
because I wanted to be an astronaut? I'm slightly amused.)
> Anyway, I knew him only
>briefly during a short time while I was in New York preparing to go to DC
>to found the Washington Times. He had just begun something called the
>American Space Federation I think, and he handed me a small booklet he
>had put together on it.
That's the 'American Space Culture Foundation'; this booklet I handed you, was
it titled 'Bringing UFOs Down To Earth'? If you still have it, I'd very gladly
pay......$5 or maybe more, plus shipping and handling, for a copy of it.
This was a 'brilliant' piece of work, IMHO. It dealt with the shift in human
culture as we entered the space age. It outlined, with documentation, the then
current cultural situation, and suggested what might be done in order to be
victorious over the forces threatening to create major-hell on Earth under the
guise of 'superior beings from another planet coming to save us from
ourselves'.
In order to keep this short, I'll see if I can summarize it in a
paragraph--although alotting only a paragraph is not doing it justice....
God's elect were/are being diverted into a delusional mind-set in which they
view themselves as reincarnated ETs--the star children or Indigo children as
they're called now--who are arriving with the mission of making sure humans
don't destroy the planet. Unfortunately, the star children were/are vulnerable
to the machinations of the new age movement, which has it's roots in the
occult, which produced the Nazis. And the only way to prevent them from
dominating the world is to not accept them as representatives of a superior
culture from outer space, but to treat them as angels, (work with them, learn
from them, but don't give them control over your life). Nowhere did I mention
SMM's name, but I did wax elequent about Jesus and how he pioneered the
'technique of love' which, when combined with an aggressive benevolence would,
at this time in history, would turn the tide; even though the first person to
use this technique died a horrible death. Anyway, I took the esoteric ideas
about the UFO phenomena and pointed out the cultural and political
ramifications of the star-child phenomena for the future of mankind if folks
weren't aware of what was going on. And the UFO-section would be the
educational instrument to lead the world into building Heaven on Earth.
Well, the big shots figured the section was not worth the expense and didn't
re-start the section. This forced me to establish the American Space Culture
Foundation and build my own platform for 'saving the world'. I didn't save a
copy of 'Bringing UFOs Down To Earth' and have since done a few other things
including a booklet titled 'Secrets of Spiritual Growth in the Space Age' and
am currently working on a booklet about the origins of human beings and human
society. (So far research has shown that mankind became civilized either by
the efforts of a talking fish from outer space--Oannes; or we pulled ourselves
up out of the mud through the 'inspiration' of an exploding star (Vela) about
6000 years ago.)
>James was a really sweet guy and I liked him
>immensely. His enthusiasm for his pet project was obvious. But the
>consensus on James was he was eccentric. Obsessed with "out there," while
>the rest of us were preoccupied with "down here." He was harmless,
>though, and everyone seemed to quietly tolerate his eccentric views. I
>wonder what became of James? I wonder if he ever got the UC leadership to
>listen to his ideas? He probably doesn't remember me.
>
Glenn, I recognized your name from the beginning, but for the life of me I
can't get a picture of you in my mind. (But it was over 20 years ago.) Being
preoccupied with 'down here' is important, but it won't last if something from
'out there' comes in and destroys what's 'down here'. Ensuring that nothing
'out there' can destroy what's 'down here' is what I'm interested in; and I
think this was the message SMM was trying to get us to understand. (Don't be
satisfied with what's here and now, because that will pass in a relatively
short time. But to preserve what's worth saving in the here and now we have to
make sure that everything 'out there' supports what's going on 'down
here'--strategic thinking on a large scale.)
As for your horrific experience, I'm surprised the situation didn't suggest a
variation on the Archangel/Adam senario--the Archangel attempting to dominate
Adam through unrighteous sexual activity. As for practical application, the DP
doesn't say what to do about such a situation--Adam didn't know what to do
either--but I've got a few suggestions about what to do when someone seeks to
invade my personal space. Bust him in the nose and wear the bloody clothes to
prayer service and when asked about what happened, wave the bloody shirt around
and passionately explain the situation.....but you internalized the situation
and spent years working through it. This resolved the situation for you, but
not for anyone else. (Instead of the short ugly route, you took the scenic
route--this is no crime, but it could have been handled in a better way. But
that's easy to say now.)
As for potty-training, the DP doesn't say what to do in this situation, but as
your son's Able-figure (because of your years of experience) you can show him a
better way of relieving himself and using available information you can
formulate some kind of training program that befits a young child of God, and
he'd love you for it. (Yeah, I'm still an eccentric; and I'm serious about
wanting to buy-back a copy of 'Bringing UFOs Down to Earth'.)
JHammR
Glenn's testimony:
"Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
Martin Anderson
Why do you now call yourself Hammond?
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811023715...@nso-mg.aol.com...
Most of those people who appear "emotionally distraught" to you are
ex-members who have at some point come to the chilling realisation that they
have been duped out of a large portion of their lives in some instances. I
consider it understandable that they should exhibit a certain amount of
urgency and emotion in what they are trying to tell current members. If they
did not I would possibly wonder about their sincerity.
As it is, I think that it is good for them to admit their mistake and to use
their energy in trying to help save others from repeating it, instead of
hiding away in shame. I take my hat off to them for their courage. If you
reject most of it out of hand, you should possibly expect to have your own
views treated in the same way.
Are you suggesting that all those who rampaged in the French Revolution were
first borns ? America founded by second borns ? Come on James old chap, this
is a "crock". You ask "Who is closer to God's heart", and therefore by
implication, you assume that you know the heart of God......Why bother with
the Cain & Abel bollocks. Deal with the problem directly using your
knowledge of the "heart of God" which I do not deny that you could possess.
You then have no need for Moon's limiting Cain & Abel simplicity.
As advanced sentient beings we can now consider all sorts of moral "shades
of grey", why limit your outlook to black and white. Leave the UC entirely
and you might even experience the joys of moral perception in color ;-)
>
> As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the
anomolies;
> the things which by their very existence prove that something more is
going on
> than casual observation reveals. There are events in history and in
science
> which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational) explainations; but once
> understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so preposterous
to
> think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And that
human
> history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of God's ideal
for
> mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of Heaven on
Earth?
> And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the development of
Heaven
> on Earth?
I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were created
6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
different perspective.
If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you might
have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
>
> The relationship problem between God and mankind is the crux of the
matter. Is
> it preposterous to seek out the nature of that relationship problem; and
to see
> how that relationship problem is played out in human relationships; and is
it
> impossible to figure out how to resolve those relationship problems.
Although
> preposterous, these things are not beyond our reach; they're just hard to
do.
> (SMM figured out the solution and then said: 'here you go' as he handed
the key
> to folks who were interested. His efforts and open-heartedness saved me a
lot
> of time.)
He saved you a lot of thought, but I think that in the long run you will
find that you have not saved any time. You are assuming that he has given
you the right answer.
>
> Of course, this seems preposterous. But so did several technologies which
are
> now indispensible: radio, tv, computers, cars, airplanes, electrification,
open
> heart surgery; did I mention going to the Moon? (I still can't get over
> computers--a piece of sand--silicon--with little lines on it is in every
> computer made!!! and this piece of sand is not for decoration, but is the
very
> heart of the device!!!! Come on; >that's< preposterous! And even though
a
> minority of the planet's population have one, they have totally changed
the
> world in less than a handful of decades. Who could have imagined such
> preposterous things?
I thought that you were into science fiction....As I remember it HG Wells
foretold going to the moon, Aldous Huxley foretold genetic engineering,
Almost all the classic sci-fi writers of the 60's and 70's foresaw the
computer revolution coming. Most famously Arthur C Clarke in 2001 a Space
Odyssey. Should we go back as far as Leonardo DaVinci's helicopter
plans..... ?
Many people imagine such preposterous things,....you know this James. Don't
try to "Pull the wool" on a fellow sci-fi nut :-)
The DP is not written on my heart. I had a peek and all I could see was
"Made in England" stamped on the bottom. That just means that it is slightly
out-of-date looking and prone to failure, but comes from a marque with a
history that has "seen it all".
A contest to see who loves the most........sorry, we could see the inherent
contradiction in such a nauseous concept. Possibly on Fox network, but not
in Blighty old chap!
>
>
>
> >Do you never get the feeling that every man's hand is set against you.?
Your
> >leader himself states that he was driven out of Korea and now feels
driven
> >from America and in between from many other countries, my own included.
> >(thus the Jardim foundation). With this in mind is it not more likely
that
> >it is he and his followers who, if anyone, bears the "mark of Cain"
> >>
>
> I freely acknowledge that I am Cain--it gives me more leaway to do what I
need
> to do. But I know how to relate to Abel. And I know how to be Abel (if I
have
> to) for the sake of others. Bearing the 'mark of Cain' is kind of a
blessing
> in disguise, but it's also kind of a curse if you're less-Cain-like than
> everyone around you. SMM's solution is pretty simple--treat everyone as
though
> they were Abel. (It saves a lot of time and energy.)
Sorry James, but this is gibberish.
Let's hope so.
>
>
> >>
> >> My hopes are that Damian will say and do the right things to win
ya'll's
> >> hearts. If he is able to gain your cooperation, (or at least avoid
> >getting
> >> prematurely sent back to the 'colonies'), his heart will change too.
> >Anyway;
> >> Glenn didn't help.
> >
> >I hope that he is able to redeem my family's opinion of him, but they
will
> >never cooperate with anything to do with Sun Myung Moon. I have seen to
> >that.
> >>
>
> Then I suggest cooperating with Damian, or getting him to cooperate with
> ya'll--the main thing is to work together.
We will cooperate with him when he starts to behave in a respectful and
civil manner to us.
This is another generalisation to justify the first. Neither is proven.
Which are the "best poems"? History deals in generalisations but is
generally argued about back and forth before the final "truth" is accepted,
or version thereof.
You present your own snapshot of UC membership implying that all was/is
"rosy in the garden". It does not even concur with your own experience. What
happened after "Got married and went home"? How rosy is your life now? I
suppose your time in the MFT looks quite attractive in rosy nostalgic
reverie of innocence lost.
Your perception must be weighed against those of other people undergoing the
same experiences before an objective view can be formed. The picture that is
forming for me is considerably less attractive than the colourful
impressionist daub you present.
Ain't realism a bitch? Maybe you are better to keep your eyes shut and
dream.
>
> Because I understand that state of heart is the important thing, and not
> position, I focus on experiences. (Yeah; OK--I'm black and blacks don't
> usually get 'high' positions; but we learn a lot about the heart of God.)
> Anyway, I seem to be either cannon fodder or an intrepid pioneer. I've
done a
> little bit of everything and have been a part of a lot of new stuff. I
always
> seemed to be assigned to stuff that was never done before. (It gave me
the
> opportunity to learn something new--all of which I'm able to use now that
I'm
> in my home town.) There's no rank better than 'son of God', is there?
(I
> know; you think this is preposterous....)
Now what is really preposterous is a man accepting that he will be
discriminated against simply because of the color of his skin in an
organisation run by a living instrument of God. You don't really expect much
of a Messiah do you?
Thinking that your rank of "Son of God" is at least equivalent to that of
Moon.....No, I do not find *that* preposterous, on the contrary, perhaps
there is some pride and hope left in you after all.
Good on you James. If you can smell the "horseshit", you are coming back to
your senses.
Yup.........You can do it, but it will always be hard work. To get paid for
just turning up requires another route. You must aspire to some level of
political power and then the influence purchasers like your boss will be
round with their check books open. Ask George Bush, Ted Heath, et al.
>
> So, my product has basically no cost--research materials and time--and can
be
> 'sold' for whatever the market will bear. It provides a social benefit
which
> is out of proportion with what one would expect from the various elements
> involved (synergy). And the more I do it, the better I get at it. (Yes;
I
> admit it; I'm shamelessly practicing on everyone who reads my posts. And
I'm
> preparing for the day when I can begin influencing the direction of the
world.
> You know the saying: 'if it ain't global, it ain't worth the effort'?)
After
> all; I'm Cain.
I can see you are just sparring here, but you are not Cain. You are James
which is infinitely more complex and rounded. Why try to limit yourself to
such two dimensional role models?
>
> I'm a Capricorn, so 'loneliness' is my lot in life--but I'm at the age
when
> I've pretty much mastered myself and environment, and feel comfortable
about
> having a family, attending gatherings just to be seen, and, among other
things,
> just about ready to start leaving a big public footprint.
Ahhh,...Bollocks again my friend, loneliness is not your lot. Astrology is
yet another load of claptrap. Are you suggesting that the lonely people in
the world are simply so because of when they were born?
James, I really hope that you start revving up that grey matter of yours to
some more productive ends in your personal life.
You can influence no-one and nothing with DP and astrology as your
touchstones. Look at what it has done to your boss. He has had a warchest of
billions supplied by trusting and loyal supporters to promote an agenda of
familial love.....and he disparages his parents, cheats on his wife and lets
his spoilt brats run amok with drugs and sex while he goes fishing.
Even when he has something good to say nobody listens because he is a
blatant hypocrite and failure by his own standards.
>
> >> JHammR
> >> "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the
Cosmic
> >> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
> >
> >Soon your file will arrive anyway, but in the meantime, keep posting. I
> >enjoy the mental exercise of working it out for myself.
> >
> >Good hunting,
> >Martin Anderson
> >
> >
>
> Ooohhh! My 'file'.....
> (Which file are you refering to?) Don't worry; I'll keep posting....
Naturally we wicked deprogrammers have access to your personal details in
order to torture you more effectively.
Now let's see....Robinson- James. St Louis. Aspiring journalist/ author.
Would like to complete teaching qualification, but lacks funds. Married in
UC, wife left. Difficulty in relating to family & erstwhile friends from
home. Dreamer, jumps from one scheme to another without seeing anything
through. Problems in finding interesting, fulfilling and reasonably paid
work since leaving UC centre life.
Hmmmmm,..........hmmmm,.........Oh well nothing too bad here.
We shouldn't need the scrotum electrodes to sort you out :-)
> JHammR
>
> "Truly loving Extra-Terrestrials is the final step in creating the Cosmic
> Family of God centered on the Heavenly Kingdom of Earth"
Keep thinking,
Regards,
Martin
Eric B. Richardson
Martin Anderson wrote:
> > And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the development of
> Heaven
> > on Earth?
>
> I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were created
> 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> different perspective.
There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few hundred miles away
from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in such a tiny
nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as the U.S.
>
> If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
> remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you might
> have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey have real
connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one, it is no
wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
Martin Anderson
You have chosen to answer only one tiny portion of a very long message so I
will assume that you have no problem with the rest.
Of the bit you have chosen to answer, you have snipped some of the argument.
Here is the exchange on this point in its entirity:
> Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39956E00...@home.com...
> > Martin Anderson wrote:
> > >Hammond wrote:
>
> > >As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the
> > >anomolies; the things which by their very existence prove that
something more is
> > >going on than casual observation reveals. There are events in history
and in
> > >science which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational)
explainations; but once
> > >understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so
preposterous to
> > >think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And that
human
> > >history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of God's
ideal for
> > >mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of Heaven on
Earth?
> > >And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the development
of Heaven
> > >on Earth?
> >
> > I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were
created
> > 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> > settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> > different perspective.
>
> There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few hundred miles
away
> from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in such a
tiny
> nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as the U.S.
So you accept that there were civilized settlements at least as old as
10,000 years, This is 4,000 years before James(Hammond) believes humankind
was created. Are you not supporting my argument here?
I take the point that the USA is vastly bigger than the UK and feel a
suitable sense of our insignificance and your greatness ;-)
>
> >
> > If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
> > remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you
might
> > have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
>
> If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey have real
> connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one, it is no
> wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
I read a book on the findings of Dr Leakey about twenty years ago so my
memory of it is a little sketchy, but I have no memory of these early
hominids having been so small. Where can I verify this assertion? I know
where to lay hands on a copy of the book I read and will check this out.
In any case, if such pre-human evolutionary traces of our ancestry are in
existence in any way, does this not rather point to evolution rather than
instantaneous creation?
As to your final attempt to insult and imply gullibility on my part I can
only point out the existence of "Holy Candy" and the fact that your father
was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries. (this to be said in a
French accent)
So nice talking to you again,
Martin :-))
Eric B. Richardson
you.
Glad to see you like Monty Python. Are you a lumberjack?
Martin Anderson wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> You have chosen to answer only one tiny portion of a very long message so I
> will assume that you have no problem with the rest.
>
> Of the bit you have chosen to answer, you have snipped some of the argument.
> Here is the exchange on this point in its entirity:
>
> > Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39956E00...@home.com...
> > > Martin Anderson wrote:
> > > >Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > >As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the
> > > >anomolies; the things which by their very existence prove that
> something more is
> > > >going on than casual observation reveals. There are events in history
> and in
> > > >science which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational)
> explainations; but once
> > > >understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so
> preposterous to
> > > >think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And that
> human
> > > >history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of God's
> ideal for
> > > >mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of Heaven on
> Earth?
> > > >And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the development
> of Heaven
> > > >on Earth?
> > >
> > > I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were
> created
> > > 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> > > settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> > > different perspective.
> >
> > There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few hundred miles
> away
> > from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in such a
> tiny
> > nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as the U.S.
>
> So you accept that there were civilized settlements at least as old as
> 10,000 years, This is 4,000 years before James(Hammond) believes humankind
> was created. Are you not supporting my argument here?
> I take the point that the USA is vastly bigger than the UK and feel a
> suitable sense of our insignificance and your greatness ;-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
> > > remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you
> might
> > > have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
> >
> > If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey have real
> > connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one, it is no
> > wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
>
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hello James,
>
>Why do you now call yourself Hammond?
>
Martin,
Do you know how many James Robinsons there are in the US? There are too many.
Back in the 80's my name kept appearing in the newspapers, and each time it was
for something different: an elite track and field star, a criminal, fired from
American Express, movie producer, etc, etc. but none of them were me. So I
began using my middle name. So now I'm plauged by people with my last name
getting in the papers, or who have a similar name and look like me; or who are
named Hammond, or Hamm, or some variation. But this, I can handle.
'Hamm(ond)' is still rare enough that I don't feel infringed-upon; and it lends
creedence to my favorite fantasy: the social environment is calling my name,
and wants me to step forward.....
>Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000811023715...@nso-mg.aol.com...
>> In article <%1Gk5.15378$9A1.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
>> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>>
>> >
snip
>>
>
>Most of those people who appear "emotionally distraught" to you are
>ex-members who have at some point come to the chilling realisation that they
>have been duped out of a large portion of their lives in some instances. I
>consider it understandable that they should exhibit a certain amount of
>urgency and emotion in what they are trying to tell current members. If they
>did not I would possibly wonder about their sincerity.
>As it is, I think that it is good for them to admit their mistake and to use
>their energy in trying to help save others from repeating it, instead of
>hiding away in shame. I take my hat off to them for their courage. If you
>reject most of it out of hand, you should possibly expect to have your own
>views treated in the same way.
>>
Correction; they come to the chilling realization that they think they've been
duped. And it's appreciated that they exhibit a certain amount of urgency and
emotion--no quarrel there; it's just that when they're informed that they sound
'hysterical' they fly off the handle. And they seem stuck in the past; they
keep repeating the same old hurt over and over again, without realizing that
what they're talking about exists no longer. And they don't seem to realize
that they're no longer vibrant teenagers, no longer are 'immortal', and regret
that they didn't learn something with commercial potential while in the
movement. I've been there; and have done that; and am using what I learned.
If they believe everybody should be the same, then why don't they count their
blessings and change the world. (I became such a hard-nose about this when
considering the Vietnam Vets. At one point I thought all of them were made
crazy by their experiences. Then one day I found out that Federal Express,
which revolutionized package delivery, was founded by some Vietnam
Vets.....yadda, yadda, yadda...)
>> >>
snip
>> >
>>
>
>Are you suggesting that all those who rampaged in the French Revolution were
>first borns ? America founded by second borns ? Come on James old chap, this
>is a "crock". You ask "Who is closer to God's heart", and therefore by
>implication, you assume that you know the heart of God......Why bother with
>the Cain & Abel bollocks. Deal with the problem directly using your
>knowledge of the "heart of God" which I do not deny that you could possess.
>You then have no need for Moon's limiting Cain & Abel simplicity.
>As advanced sentient beings we can now consider all sorts of moral "shades
>of grey", why limit your outlook to black and white. Leave the UC entirely
>and you might even experience the joys of moral perception in color ;-)
>>
No, not all who rampaged in France were first borns, but almost all the
ringleaders were; check it out. Of course there were some suck-up third borns
who jumped right in. And one of the reasons that second borns came to America
was that their older brothers inherited everything; and relocation gave them
the opportunity for a fresh start; check it out. The Cain/Abel scenario is a
convenient template that fits with the physiology of the brain, (its structure
and function--on/off, writing/drawing, etc). Cain/Abel is simple, Men/Women is
simple, and so is God. 'Advanced sentient beings' know how to accentuate the
positive/elimate the negative/and not mess with mr. in-between. What good are
moral perceptions in color? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only seem useful
for creating chaos, (or something like it). Please give some examples of the
usefulness of prismatic morality, other than bedazzlement.
snip
>
>I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were created
>6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
>settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
>different perspective.
>If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
>remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you might
>have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
>
Oh contrare my friend; sure there were hominids around for millions of years,
but were they human (in the sense that they were similar to the beings who
walked the earth, oh....6000 years ago)? Something unique happened about 6000
years ago which resulted in Mesopotamia becoming the unexpected source of
innovations which eased the lives of the folks living at that time, and these
innovations became the hallmarks which no civilization can exist without. Most
especially, it was a time when the first written phonetic language was
invented. Please explain the sudden shift in human consciousness, if not an
'act of God'.
snip
>>
>>
>
>He saved you a lot of thought, but I think that in the long run you will
>find that you have not saved any time. You are assuming that he has given
>you the right answer.
>>
Well I have tested it pretty thouroughly, and it's held up so far. But how can
you know what will happen in the long run? Are you psychic?
snip
>>
>
>I thought that you were into science fiction....As I remember it HG Wells
>foretold going to the moon, Aldous Huxley foretold genetic engineering,
>Almost all the classic sci-fi writers of the 60's and 70's foresaw the
>computer revolution coming. Most famously Arthur C Clarke in 2001 a Space
>Odyssey. Should we go back as far as Leonardo DaVinci's helicopter
>plans..... ?
>Many people imagine such preposterous things,....you know this James. Don't
>try to "Pull the wool" on a fellow sci-fi nut :-)
>>
>>
Is this a French farce, or what? Sure folks imagine preposterous things all
the time, but they hardly ever can produce a working model, or find funding to
mass produce the working model. Who has time for science fiction? (For the
most part I've only read Asimov, and he depicted computers as being scarce,
huge, slow, and really limited.) 2001!! (I've seen the movie); what did he
imagine in that--neurotic computers and humanity's curiosity being sparked by
something from outer space? You know, I hope, that I'm not talking about wild
imaginings; I'm refering to real inventions--airplanes, horseless carriages,
splitting of the atom, etc. (I've never seen a working model of DaVinci's
'helicopter'--how does it work; does the operator cause the screw-propeller to
grab the air and pull the entire thing off the ground?)
>> >>
snip
>
>The DP is not written on my heart. I had a peek and all I could see was
>"Made in England" stamped on the bottom. That just means that it is slightly
>out-of-date looking and prone to failure, but comes from a marque with a
>history that has "seen it all".
>A contest to see who loves the most........sorry, we could see the inherent
>contradiction in such a nauseous concept. Possibly on Fox network, but not
>in Blighty old chap!
>>
>>
You have a strange concept of 'love'.
>>
snip
>> >>
>>
>> I freely acknowledge that I am Cain--it gives me more leaway to do what I
>need
>> to do. But I know how to relate to Abel. And I know how to be Abel (if I
>have
>> to) for the sake of others. Bearing the 'mark of Cain' is kind of a
>blessing
>> in disguise, but it's also kind of a curse if you're less-Cain-like than
>> everyone around you. SMM's solution is pretty simple--treat everyone as
>though
>> they were Abel. (It saves a lot of time and energy.)
>
>Sorry James, but this is gibberish.
>>
Sorry Martin, let me translate for you. 'Be humble to everyone you meet.'
>>
snip
>> >
>>
snip
>> Then I suggest cooperating with Damian, or getting him to cooperate with
>> ya'll--the main thing is to work together.
>
>We will cooperate with him when he starts to behave in a respectful and
>civil manner to us.
>>
And this is the crux of the matter. He should know how to behave in a
respectful and civil manner; but you know how some people are--mis-place a
dinner fork and they denounce you as a barbarian....
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
snip
>
>This is another generalisation to justify the first. Neither is proven.
>Which are the "best poems"? History deals in generalisations but is
>generally argued about back and forth before the final "truth" is accepted,
>or version thereof.
>You present your own snapshot of UC membership implying that all was/is
>"rosy in the garden". It does not even concur with your own experience. What
>happened after "Got married and went home"? How rosy is your life now? I
>suppose your time in the MFT looks quite attractive in rosy nostalgic
>reverie of innocence lost.
>Your perception must be weighed against those of other people undergoing the
>same experiences before an objective view can be formed. The picture that is
>forming for me is considerably less attractive than the colourful
>impressionist daub you present.
>Ain't realism a bitch? Maybe you are better to keep your eyes shut and
>dream.
>
Which two generalizations are you refering to? History is all neat and
sanitized, unless you're living in the middle of it. If I gave the impression
that all was 'rosy in the garden' then I apologize. It was as rosy as life in
the military or any other intensive training program. Uh, why are you
seemingly trying to plant thoughts in my mind? My life is a lot simpler and
easier than it used to be, but it's still rosy and full of promise. My only
feelings toward MFT (I helped pioneer that too) are that I'm glad its over.
How you picture life is of no concern of mine, unless of course you want to
work together. But I don't know about taking you on as a partner; you've got
this bad habit of telling me what's on my mind; and that my perception of my
religious experiences aren't valid unless confirmed by other people. Why are
only 'the injured' believed by people who don't like SMM? Take off the dark
glasses before you bump into a wall.
No time to dream, (in your use of the term). I love realism/reality; it gives
me something to measure my thoughts and my progress.
snip
>
>Now what is really preposterous is a man accepting that he will be
>discriminated against simply because of the color of his skin in an
>organisation run by a living instrument of God. You don't really expect much
>of a Messiah do you?
>Thinking that your rank of "Son of God" is at least equivalent to that of
>Moon.....No, I do not find *that* preposterous, on the contrary, perhaps
>there is some pride and hope left in you after all.
>>
>>
This may be too complex a concept for you, but in the last quarter of the 20th
century, if a yellow man put a black man in charge, many of the white people
will leave. And if the point is to build a large movement, this is counter
productive. I can understand that. I expect a lot from the Messiah, but
changing people's hearts is impossible if folks don't have the faith to make
the change, as I'm sure you're aware. I think it's mighty perceptive of you
to notice the little bit of pride and hope I have left. (Don't make me cuss at
you.)
>>
>> >>
snip
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a
>funny?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Martin Anderson
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> This is my 'informed' interpretation of SMM's motto for the year 2000.
>> >Each
>> >> year he releases a motto to set the tone for the year. The motto for
>this
>> >year
>> >> is 'The Cosmic Expansion of True Love is the Perfection of the New
>> >Millennial
>> >> Kingdom of God'. (Kind of esoteric, huh?)
>> >
>> >Esoteric is a very kind word. "A load of bollocks" is how we would
>describe
>> >such pompous nonsense here.
>> >
>>
>> Well I felt almost the same way. There was no way to get a handle on it
>so
>> that it could be applied to daily life throughout the year. And I know
>that
>> was not SMM's intention.
>
>Good on you James. If you can smell the "horseshit", you are coming back to
>your senses.
>>
>>
There you go again. You've absolutely ignored what I said and placed your own
template over the situation. Oh I can smell the horseshit alright; it's coming
from Merry Olde England.
>> >>
snip
>
>Yup.........You can do it, but it will always be hard work. To get paid for
>just turning up requires another route. You must aspire to some level of
>political power and then the influence purchasers like your boss will be
>round with their check books open. Ask George Bush, Ted Heath, et al.
>
>>
Duh....sure it will be hard work, but it won't be any harder than MFT, and I've
done that. Damn it all; why does everyone want me to go into politics??!!!
>> So, my product has basically no cost--research materials and time--and can
>be
>> 'sold' for whatever the market will bear. It provides a social benefit
>which
>> is out of proportion with what one would expect from the various elements
>> involved (synergy). And the more I do it, the better I get at it. (Yes;
>I
>> admit it; I'm shamelessly practicing on everyone who reads my posts. And
>I'm
>> preparing for the day when I can begin influencing the direction of the
>world.
>> You know the saying: 'if it ain't global, it ain't worth the effort'?)
>After
>> all; I'm Cain.
>
>I can see you are just sparring here, but you are not Cain. You are James
>which is infinitely more complex and rounded. Why try to limit yourself to
>such two dimensional role models?
>>
Cain and Abel aren't role models. Abel annoyed his brother so much that Cain
hit him upside the head. Who wants to replicate that? But by their stories I
know what NOT to do; the results are predictable, and since I want a different
outcome, one that doesn't involve severe head injuries, I don't follow their
example--they're not my role models, (although the Darwinists seem to think
their relationship typified life in the real world).
>> I'm a Capricorn, so 'loneliness' is my lot in life--but I'm at the age
>when
>> I've pretty much mastered myself and environment, and feel comfortable
>about
>> having a family, attending gatherings just to be seen, and, among other
>things,
>> just about ready to start leaving a big public footprint.
>
>Ahhh,...Bollocks again my friend, loneliness is not your lot. Astrology is
>yet another load of claptrap. Are you suggesting that the lonely people in
>the world are simply so because of when they were born?
>James, I really hope that you start revving up that grey matter of yours to
>some more productive ends in your personal life.
>You can influence no-one and nothing with DP and astrology as your
>touchstones. Look at what it has done to your boss. He has had a warchest of
>billions supplied by trusting and loyal supporters to promote an agenda of
>familial love.....and he disparages his parents, cheats on his wife and lets
>his spoilt brats run amok with drugs and sex while he goes fishing.
>Even when he has something good to say nobody listens because he is a
>blatant hypocrite and failure by his own standards.
>>
Yes; a rather accurate profile of a person can be pieced together if you know
when they were born. (The astrology stuff is pretty-much crap, but having been
born in the winter I tend to display characteristics which favor survival in
cold, harsh weather when everything is scarce.)
Again you misjudge SMM; what you describe is the typical British family.
snip
>> >Soon your file will arrive anyway, but in the meantime, keep posting. I
>> >enjoy the mental exercise of working it out for myself.
>> >
>> >Good hunting,
>> >Martin Anderson
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ooohhh! My 'file'.....
>> (Which file are you refering to?) Don't worry; I'll keep posting....
>
>Naturally we wicked deprogrammers have access to your personal details in
>order to torture you more effectively.
>Now let's see....Robinson- James. St Louis. Aspiring journalist/ author.
>Would like to complete teaching qualification, but lacks funds. Married in
>UC, wife left. Difficulty in relating to family & erstwhile friends from
>home. Dreamer, jumps from one scheme to another without seeing anything
>through. Problems in finding interesting, fulfilling and reasonably paid
>work since leaving UC centre life.
> Hmmmmm,..........hmmmm,.........Oh well nothing too bad here.
>We shouldn't need the scrotum electrodes to sort you out :-)
>
Sniff; sniff; hey Martin, I smell horseshit. You wouldn't know anything about
where it's coming from would you? (You were wrong on only 8 out of the 8. But
hey; I don't mind flying below your radar.) Try harder, slacker.
Martin Anderson
the main argument. I have not complained about being insulted, indeed I
almost welcome it. It is so much easier than proper thinking as I'm sure
you are aware :-)
Martin Anderson
Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39960FAC...@home.com...
> You have no room at all concerning complaints about people trying to
insult
> you.
>
> Glad to see you like Monty Python. Are you a lumberjack?
>
> Martin Anderson wrote:
>
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > You have chosen to answer only one tiny portion of a very long message
so I
> > will assume that you have no problem with the rest.
> >
> > Of the bit you have chosen to answer, you have snipped some of the
argument.
> > Here is the exchange on this point in its entirity:
> >
> > > Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:39956E00...@home.com...
> > > > Martin Anderson wrote:
> > > > >Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > > >As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the
> > > > >anomolies; the things which by their very existence prove that
> > something more is
> > > > >going on than casual observation reveals. There are events in
history
> > and in
> > > > >science which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational)
> > explainations; but once
> > > > >understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so
> > preposterous to
> > > > >think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And
that
> > human
> > > > >history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of
God's
> > ideal for
> > > > >mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of
Heaven on
> > Earth?
> > > > >And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the
development
> > of Heaven
> > > > >on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were
> > created
> > > > 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> > > > settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> > > > different perspective.
> > >
> > > There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few hundred
miles
> > away
> > > from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in such
a
> > tiny
> > > nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as the
U.S.
> >
> > So you accept that there were civilized settlements at least as old as
> > 10,000 years, This is 4,000 years before James(Hammond) believes
humankind
> > was created. Are you not supporting my argument here?
> > I take the point that the USA is vastly bigger than the UK and feel a
> > suitable sense of our insignificance and your greatness ;-)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where
human
> > > > remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you
> > might
> > > > have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
> > >
> > > If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey have
real
> > > connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one, it
is no
> > > wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
> >
Martin Anderson
> In article <AP0l5.2211$iE4....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Hello James,
> >
> >Why do you now call yourself Hammond?
> >
>
> Martin,
> Do you know how many James Robinsons there are in the US? There are too
many.
> Back in the 80's my name kept appearing in the newspapers, and each time
it was
> for something different: an elite track and field star, a criminal, fired
from
> American Express, movie producer, etc, etc. but none of them were me. So
I
> began using my middle name. So now I'm plauged by people with my last
name
> getting in the papers, or who have a similar name and look like me; or who
are
> named Hammond, or Hamm, or some variation. But this, I can handle.
> 'Hamm(ond)' is still rare enough that I don't feel infringed-upon; and it
lends
> creedence to my favorite fantasy: the social environment is calling my
name,
> and wants me to step forward.....
OK, so you want to stand out from the crowd, that is evident in all that you
do. If Hammond is now appearing a bit common too, why not try something
really whacky?
I think there was a man called John Smith who managed to elevate himself
above the common herd despite an even worse start.
Shakespeare had something to say on this: "A rsose by any other name would
smell as sweet." Or in other words, it's what you are, not what you are
called, that is
important.
Many ex-members are quite open about what they do and on the whole they seem
to have chosen good and fulfilling jobs, if not the best paid. There is
nothing wrong with that and the rewards of such activities are more subtle
and gratifying than mere money and influence.
What do you actually *do* for a paid job yourself, as you mention the topic
to other's implied detriment.
In many cases whole families moved to America. Why all this "check it out".
Just like Eric B, you make an argument and expect me to prove it for you.
You are wrong, you check it out.
The usefulness of percieving shades of grey or colour in moral situations,
now let's see......Killing another human is wrong, but I would support a
woman who decided to abort an ancephalic foetus because I would take other
moral
considerations into account.
>
> snip
>
> >
> >I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were created
> >6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> >settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> >different perspective.
> >If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where human
> >remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you
might
> >have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
> >
>
> Oh contrare my friend;
(that's "au contraire")......from your mad French cousins mon ami ;-)
> sure there were hominids around for millions of years,
> but were they human (in the sense that they were similar to the beings who
> walked the earth, oh....6000 years ago)? Something unique happened about
6000
> years ago which resulted in Mesopotamia becoming the unexpected source of
> innovations which eased the lives of the folks living at that time, and
these
> innovations became the hallmarks which no civilization can exist without.
Most
> especially, it was a time when the first written phonetic language was
> invented. Please explain the sudden shift in human consciousness, if not
an
> 'act of God'.
This improved the level of development of the civilization, but Eric has
already conceded civilization in existence before this in even your own
country which is some way geographically removed from Mesopotamia.
Do we ascribe a similar act of God to the birth of the industrial revolution
here in Britain? Are we brits now Gods new chosen people? I suppose it must
be so. Has He not given our language dominion over all the peoples of the
earth. (Amazing the horseshit one can come up with if one is so inclined ;-)
>
> snip
> >>
> >>
> >
> >He saved you a lot of thought, but I think that in the long run you will
> >find that you have not saved any time. You are assuming that he has given
> >you the right answer.
> >>
>
> Well I have tested it pretty thouroughly, and it's held up so far. But
how can
> you know what will happen in the long run? Are you psychic?
No, but I am reasonably intelligent and have experienced enough of life to
extrapolate the course of some trends.
>
> snip
> >>
> >
> >I thought that you were into science fiction....As I remember it HG Wells
> >foretold going to the moon, Aldous Huxley foretold genetic engineering,
> >Almost all the classic sci-fi writers of the 60's and 70's foresaw the
> >computer revolution coming. Most famously Arthur C Clarke in 2001 a Space
> >Odyssey. Should we go back as far as Leonardo DaVinci's helicopter
> >plans..... ?
> >Many people imagine such preposterous things,....you know this James.
Don't
> >try to "Pull the wool" on a fellow sci-fi nut :-)
> >>
> >>
>
> Is this a French farce, or what? Sure folks imagine preposterous things
all
> the time, but they hardly ever can produce a working model, or find
funding to
> mass produce the working model. Who has time for science fiction? (For
the
> most part I've only read Asimov, and he depicted computers as being
scarce,
> huge, slow, and really limited.)
What about the "positronic brains" of the robots in the Robot Series of
books? Read some more Asimov, it's good and perceptive stuff.
> 2001!! (I've seen the movie); what did he
> imagine in that--neurotic computers and humanity's curiosity being sparked
by
> something from outer space? You know, I hope, that I'm not talking about
wild
> imaginings; I'm refering to real inventions--airplanes, horseless
carriages,
> splitting of the atom, etc. (I've never seen a working model of DaVinci's
> 'helicopter'--how does it work; does the operator cause the
screw-propeller to
> grab the air and pull the entire thing off the ground?)
This is indeed how propellors work. As you know all inventions go through a
tortuous development phase to bring an initial concept to realisation of a
working model.
All the above inventions started with wild imaginings and if you follow this
argument back you will find that "wild imaginings" was exactly what you were
talking about.
You asked who could have imagined such "preposterous" things and named some
examples. I told you who had imagined them. What is your counter argument?
That they should have actualy made working prototypes as well? That HG Wells
should have actually sent a man to the moon?
>
>
> >> >>
> snip
> >
> >The DP is not written on my heart. I had a peek and all I could see was
> >"Made in England" stamped on the bottom. That just means that it is
slightly
> >out-of-date looking and prone to failure, but comes from a marque with a
> >history that has "seen it all".
> >A contest to see who loves the most........sorry, we could see the
inherent
> >contradiction in such a nauseous concept. Possibly on Fox network, but
not
> >in Blighty old chap!
> You have a strange concept of 'love'.
Strange to you perhaps.
>
> >>
> snip
> >> >>
> >>
> >> I freely acknowledge that I am Cain--it gives me more leaway to do what
I
> >need
> >> to do. But I know how to relate to Abel. And I know how to be Abel
(if I
> >have
> >> to) for the sake of others. Bearing the 'mark of Cain' is kind of a
> >blessing
> >> in disguise, but it's also kind of a curse if you're less-Cain-like
than
> >> everyone around you. SMM's solution is pretty simple--treat everyone
as
> >though
> >> they were Abel. (It saves a lot of time and energy.)
> >
> >Sorry James, but this is gibberish.
> >>
>
> Sorry Martin, let me translate for you. 'Be humble to everyone you meet.'
That is much clearer. You should try plain English more often. Eventually it
will force you into clear thought. I agree with the principle now that you
have explained it.
>
> >>
> snip
> >> >
> >>
> snip
> >> Then I suggest cooperating with Damian, or getting him to cooperate
with
> >> ya'll--the main thing is to work together.
> >
> >We will cooperate with him when he starts to behave in a respectful and
> >civil manner to us.
> >>
>
> And this is the crux of the matter. He should know how to behave in a
> respectful and civil manner; but you know how some people are--mis-place a
> dinner fork and they denounce you as a barbarian....
I will watch his table manners like a hawk......hadn't thought of that one
before ;-)
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> snip
> >
> >This is another generalisation to justify the first. Neither is proven.
> >Which are the "best poems"? History deals in generalisations but is
> >generally argued about back and forth before the final "truth" is
accepted,
> >or version thereof.
> >You present your own snapshot of UC membership implying that all was/is
> >"rosy in the garden". It does not even concur with your own experience.
What
> >happened after "Got married and went home"? How rosy is your life now? I
> >suppose your time in the MFT looks quite attractive in rosy nostalgic
> >reverie of innocence lost.
> >Your perception must be weighed against those of other people undergoing
the
> >same experiences before an objective view can be formed. The picture that
is
> >forming for me is considerably less attractive than the colourful
> >impressionist daub you present.
> >Ain't realism a bitch? Maybe you are better to keep your eyes shut and
> >dream.
> >
>
> Which two generalizations are you refering to?
The first generalisation was the experience you outlined for all UC members
and the second was that the best poems contain only 17 syllables.
Sorry to disturb your view on life. I was under the impression that you were
here to debate. You must accept that challenges to your perception of
reality is part of the debating process. There have been many times in life
when my own view of reality, which by definition is subjective, has not
matched with the actuality of a situation. In general I think that human
beings are inclined towards assuming that their own perception of events is
the only valid version. It does no harm to have this challenged on occasion
and I accept your right to challenge in return.
>
> snip
> >
> >Now what is really preposterous is a man accepting that he will be
> >discriminated against simply because of the color of his skin in an
> >organisation run by a living instrument of God. You don't really expect
much
> >of a Messiah do you?
> >Thinking that your rank of "Son of God" is at least equivalent to that of
> >Moon.....No, I do not find *that* preposterous, on the contrary, perhaps
> >there is some pride and hope left in you after all.
> >>
> >>
>
> This may be too complex a concept for you, but in the last quarter of the
20th
> century, if a yellow man put a black man in charge, many of the white
people
> will leave. And if the point is to build a large movement, this is
counter
> productive. I can understand that. I expect a lot from the Messiah, but
> changing people's hearts is impossible if folks don't have the faith to
make
> the change, as I'm sure you're aware. I think it's mighty perceptive of
you
> to notice the little bit of pride and hope I have left. (Don't make me
cuss at
> you.)
Please feel free to cuss James, you have every right. You are telling me
that you belonged to a Church headed by the second messiah and manned by
religious zealots formed in his image, but they were racists.
Why do you want to cuss at me? You seem a lot "smarter than the average
bear" to me. If it was my church you would be promoted according to your
ability and if your white colleugues left I would say "Good riddance". How
could you possibly hope to create a positive new world order from such
people?
I have read what you have said but have possibly interpreted it wrongly. I
thought that you were admitting that Moon's motto is meaningless, and that
by replacing it with an equally meaningless but more funny one you were
gently mocking his.
It would appear that you take your own motto seriously, in which case I am
lost for words.
>
>
> >> >>
> snip
> >
> >Yup.........You can do it, but it will always be hard work. To get paid
for
> >just turning up requires another route. You must aspire to some level of
> >political power and then the influence purchasers like your boss will be
> >round with their check books open. Ask George Bush, Ted Heath, et al.
> >
> >>
>
> Duh....sure it will be hard work, but it won't be any harder than MFT, and
I've
> done that. Damn it all; why does everyone want me to go into
politics??!!!
Methinks you protest too much.........
Don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox??!!! ;-)
This does not concur with my understanding of the bible or Darwinism.
You state that you "are" Cain, that you "know how to be Abel (if you have
to) for the sake of others."
Is this not pretty clear role play?
The typical British family cannot afford a coke habit, and the fishing tends
to be at the local river where men take their son's in due course if they
are interested.
Your knowledge of our culture is obviously very impressive, have you been
here or do you read a lot about our debauched ways ;-)
Aspiring politician too.................
Regards,
Martin
Eric B. Richardson
against evolution? You assume far too much. I am also aware that that is why
you love insults so.
Martin Anderson wrote:
> Again Eric you take a side issue and ignore the logical defeat suffered in
> the main argument. I have not complained about being insulted, indeed I
> almost welcome it. It is so much easier than proper thinking as I'm sure
> you are aware :-)
>
> Martin Anderson
>
> Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39960FAC...@home.com...
> > You have no room at all concerning complaints about people trying to
> insult
> > you.
> >
> > Glad to see you like Monty Python. Are you a lumberjack?
> >
> > Martin Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Eric,
> > >
> > > You have chosen to answer only one tiny portion of a very long message
> so I
> > > will assume that you have no problem with the rest.
> > >
> > > Of the bit you have chosen to answer, you have snipped some of the
> argument.
> > > Here is the exchange on this point in its entirity:
> > >
> > > > Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39956E00...@home.com...
> > > > > Martin Anderson wrote:
> > > > > >Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous'; the
> > > > > >anomolies; the things which by their very existence prove that
> > > something more is
> > > > > >going on than casual observation reveals. There are events in
> history
> > > and in
> > > > > >science which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational)
> > > explainations; but once
> > > > > >understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so
> > > preposterous to
> > > > > >think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago? And
> that
> > > human
> > > > > >history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of
> God's
> > > ideal for
> > > > > >mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of
> Heaven on
> > > Earth?
> > > > > >And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the
> development
> > > of Heaven
> > > > > >on Earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were
> > > created
> > > > > 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
> > > > > settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps have a
> > > > > different perspective.
> > > >
> > > > There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few hundred
> miles
> > > away
> > > > from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in such
> a
> > > tiny
> > > > nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as the
> U.S.
> > >
> > > So you accept that there were civilized settlements at least as old as
> > > 10,000 years, This is 4,000 years before James(Hammond) believes
> humankind
> > > was created. Are you not supporting my argument here?
> > > I take the point that the USA is vastly bigger than the UK and feel a
> > > suitable sense of our insignificance and your greatness ;-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa where
> human
> > > > > remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey, you
> > > might
> > > > > have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey have
> real
> > > > connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one, it
> is no
> > > > wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
> > >
Eric B. Richardson
Martin Anderson wrote:
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I have learned how to use my snipping
ability:
>
> No, but I am reasonably intelligent and have experienced enough of life to
> extrapolate the course of some trends.
Are you intelligent enough, experienced enough, and humble enough to concede
that you might be wrong? Dan and Hamm and myself are all willling to concede
that we might be wrong, are you willing to make the concession that you might
be wrong? Am I allowed to make that choice? Am I allowed to believe that you
might be wrong? Am I allowed to believe in something that you believe is wrong,
without having numerous aspersions and vile names assigned to me? Are we
allowed to work together on things we agree about and allow each other a
peaceful co-existence?
>
>
> Please feel free to cuss James, you have every right. You are telling me
> that you belonged to a Church headed by the second messiah and manned by
> religious zealots formed in his image, but they were racists.
> Why do you want to cuss at me? You seem a lot "smarter than the average
> bear" to me. If it was my church you would be promoted according to your
> ability and if your white colleugues left I would say "Good riddance". How
> could you possibly hope to create a positive new world order from such
> people?
This of course is a not too subtle attempt to promote further racial resentment
and division. That would be the action of a racist, imnsho.
>
> The typical British family cannot afford a coke habit, and the fishing tends
> to be at the local river where men take their son's in due course if they
> are interested.
> Your knowledge of our culture is obviously very impressive, have you been
> here or do you read a lot about our debauched ways ;-)
On the basis that art imitates life, and with your claim here, then I can see
how the families of druggies, on the average, are of course of a much higher
wealth, class and intelligence than the average, typical British family. That
is what you were implying weren't you? After all, I saw "Trainspotting."
And since the average, typical family is of a far lower class than those who do
drugs, I can see where the implied classist resentment in your story of fishing
comes from, I can see how yourself from a typical British family would resent
those that could actually take their children out on a boat to go fishing.
I didn't know that Britain was such a third world place. I am glad that you
clarified that for me.
Martin Anderson
Keep taking the tablets and try to think calm thoughts.
What are you doing in Honduras? Not education on "True Love" I hope if your
efforts here are an example of your abilities in the field.
Oh, I forgot, for a Moonie love=sex, so there is no potential for you on
this forum.
Just don't bring anything nasty home for the missus. I know you don't trust
condoms, so you had better bring some disinfectant in which to dunk your
willy after you have demonstrated some love to the locals.
Have fun, and don't do anything I wouldn't ;-)
Martin
Eric B. Richardson <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399830C6...@home.com...
> > > > > > >As you may have noticed; I like to follow the 'preposterous';
the
> > > > > > >anomolies; the things which by their very existence prove that
> > > > something more is
> > > > > > >going on than casual observation reveals. There are events in
> > history
> > > > and in
> > > > > > >science which defy commonly accepted (seemingly rational)
> > > > explainations; but once
> > > > > > >understood become so obvious. For example, is it really so
> > > > preposterous to
> > > > > > >think that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago?
And
> > that
> > > > human
> > > > > > >history is a record of the gradual acceptance and expansion of
> > God's
> > > > ideal for
> > > > > > >mankind--that humanity has been moving toward the creation of
> > Heaven on
> > > > Earth?
> > > > > > >And isn't it possible to detect glitches which slowed the
> > development
> > > > of Heaven
> > > > > > >on Earth?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings
were
> > > > created
> > > > > > 6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron
age
> > > > > > settlements carbon dated at over 10,000 years old we perhaps
have a
> > > > > > different perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are evidences of human inhabitance that old just a few
hundred
> > miles
> > > > away
> > > > > from Hamm. A few hundred miles may seem like a great distance in
such
> > a
> > > > tiny
> > > > > nation as Britain, but it is very small in such a great nation as
the
> > U.S.
> > > >
> > > > So you accept that there were civilized settlements at least as old
as
> > > > 10,000 years, This is 4,000 years before James(Hammond) believes
> > humankind
> > > > was created. Are you not supporting my argument here?
> > > > I take the point that the USA is vastly bigger than the UK and feel
a
> > > > suitable sense of our insignificance and your greatness ;-)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you were to live near the Olduvai Gorge in central Africa
where
> > human
> > > > > > remain as old as 3,000,000 years have been found by Prof Leakey,
you
> > > > might
> > > > > > have a yet more doubtful outlook on your statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you believe that the eighteen inch hominids found by Leakey
have
> > real
> > > > > connection to humanity, rather than a very thin hypothetical one,
it
> > is no
> > > > > wonder that you believe some of the other things you do.
> > > >
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000813003319...@nso-cc.aol.com...
>> In article <AP0l5.2211$iE4....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
>> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >Hello James,
>> >
>> >Why do you now call yourself Hammond?
>> named Hammond, or Hamm, or some variation. But this, I can handle.
>> 'Hamm(ond)' is still rare enough that I don't feel infringed-upon; and it
>lends
>> creedence to my favorite fantasy: the social environment is calling my
>name,
>> and wants me to step forward.....
>
>OK, so you want to stand out from the crowd, that is evident in all that you
>do. If Hammond is now appearing a bit common too, why not try something
>really whacky?
Martin,
I've been there and done that. (You don't want to know.)
snip
>> which revolutionized package delivery, was founded by some Vietnam
>> Vets.....yadda, yadda, yadda...)
>
>Many ex-members are quite open about what they do and on the whole they seem
>to have chosen good and fulfilling jobs, if not the best paid. There is
>nothing wrong with that and the rewards of such activities are more subtle
>and gratifying than mere money and influence.
>What do you actually *do* for a paid job yourself, as you mention the topic
>to other's implied detriment.
>>
I don't recall making fun of their mind-numbing, spirit-killing wage-salvery.
And I don't recall SMM ever saying that the intensive training members go
through will prepare them to get a 'good job'. (And that might be part of
their complaint.) But since you asked; I come up with good ideas and get folks
to pay me to carry them out. I'm still a newbie so my enterprises aren't fully
mature, nor fully funded, yet.
>>
>> >> >>
>> snip
>> >> >
>> >>
>
>In many cases whole families moved to America. Why all this "check it out".
>Just like Eric B, you make an argument and expect me to prove it for you.
>You are wrong, you check it out.
>
I have checked it out. But would you believe me if I said that I saw this
information on TV? (Some documentary examining the effect of birth order on
the psyches of children.) Watch for it. As for whole families moving to the
colonies; you neglect to mention that it was the entire familes of the second
borns. The first borns' familes stayed behind and enjoyed their inheritance
and wealth. You know, like Maggie and Andy; the second borns got left in the
cold and dark, crying 'Is there nothing for me....?'
>The usefulness of percieving shades of grey or colour in moral situations,
>now let's see......Killing another human is wrong, but I would support a
>woman who decided to abort an ancephalic foetus because I would take other
>moral
>considerations into account.
>
Why would she, or why should she, care if you supported her decision or not?
Could you support her no matter what she decided to do? Would her decision
affect your view on the matter? Why?
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >
>> >I think that it is preposterous to believe that human beings were created
>> >6000 years ago. Here in a country where you can walk around iron age
snip
>Most
>> especially, it was a time when the first written phonetic language was
>> invented. Please explain the sudden shift in human consciousness, if not
>an
>> 'act of God'.
>
>This improved the level of development of the civilization, but Eric has
>already conceded civilization in existence before this in even your own
>country which is some way geographically removed from Mesopotamia.
>Do we ascribe a similar act of God to the birth of the industrial revolution
>here in Britain? Are we brits now Gods new chosen people? I suppose it must
>be so. Has He not given our language dominion over all the peoples of the
>earth. (Amazing the horseshit one can come up with if one is so inclined ;-)
>
Oh come on Martin; they didn't have a written phonetic language, and no written
records--don't underestimate the power of written records on the development of
a culture. The folks you're talking about had a culture, but not a
civilization. In fact many cultures died out because no body could accurately
remember what the 'ancient ones' did, or how they did it.
The various ages of mankind could be attributed to acts of God, especially the
Information age--it's amazing what a few inspired individuals could get a grain
of sand to do--but I'm speaking of an act of God comperable to the elimination
of the dinosaurs so that humans wouldn't have overwhelming competition for
ecological niches. Somethings are totally outside the influence of human
desires.
Oh, I see you've discovered the horseshit generator too. Now you know why I
don't accept the claims of folks who have only their personal pain as evidence
of wrong-doing centered on SMM.
BTW; God has given the American language dominion over the planet. (The
British language was contending with the French language for the position of
'lingua frankie' until America came on the scene. Now everyone wants to be
American.
>>
>> snip
>> >>
>> >>
>> you know what will happen in the long run? Are you psychic?
>
>No, but I am reasonably intelligent and have experienced enough of life to
>extrapolate the course of some trends.
>>
Although I'm not familiar with your background, I suggest that you're out of
your league.
>> snip
>> >>
>> >
>> >I thought that you were into science fiction....As I remember it HG Wells
>> >foretold going to the moon, Aldous Huxley foretold genetic engineering,
>> most part I've only read Asimov, and he depicted computers as being
>scarce,
>> huge, slow, and really limited.)
>
>What about the "positronic brains" of the robots in the Robot Series of
>books? Read some more Asimov, it's good and perceptive stuff.
>
Positronic Brains??!! Don't speak to me of positronic brains. Asimov
discussed positronic brains in relation to the laws of robotics--the brains
allowed for the use of the 3 laws, which allowed him to milk the robot genre
for all it's worth. I hate to break it to you Martin; PBs don't exist, the 3
laws don't exist. The only thing which exists (in this case) are a whole bunch
of robot stories. All of which I've greedily consumed, plus the first 3
foundation books; and a very few, well selected Sci-Fi authors.
PBs are comperable to the engineer's 'black box'. (Ordinary things go in, and
through some unknown process, taking place unseen and deep inside, stuff which
seems to be magical, is performed and comes out the other end. But actually,
it's just a stand-in for a very advanced technology.)
Speaking of Clark; I just found out that his conceptualizing of communication
satellites in geosychronous orbit called for the satellites to be huge; so they
could hold the crews who would be responsible for changing the vacuum tubes
everytime one burned out.
>> 2001!! (I've seen the movie); what did he
>> imagine in that--neurotic computers and humanity's curiosity being sparked
snip
>screw-propeller to
>> grab the air and pull the entire thing off the ground?)
>
>This is indeed how propellors work. As you know all inventions go through a
>tortuous development phase to bring an initial concept to realisation of a
>working model.
>All the above inventions started with wild imaginings and if you follow this
>argument back you will find that "wild imaginings" was exactly what you were
>talking about.
>You asked who could have imagined such "preposterous" things and named some
>examples. I told you who had imagined them. What is your counter argument?
>That they should have actualy made working prototypes as well? That HG Wells
>should have actually sent a man to the moon?
>>
Geez; (I gotta watch the metaphors). How's this for clearer language: 'who
would have thought that someone could take some sand and create a calculating
device with the flexibility to do (almost) anything one could imagine?' The
major inventions of the age caught everyone, (except the inventor, and
sometimes the inventor), by surprise because they seemed to contradict the laws
of nature. When in reality the inventions only contradicted what was popularly
accepted as the immutable laws of nature. (Paradigm shifts ensued. More are
on the way, and most everyone will be caught by surprise, again.)
This is what I'm talking about. Not 'wild imaginings'; but the way stuff
blind-sides those who should know better. People like Thomas Watson (founder
of IBM) who stepped away from the prediction business after two wild swings.
('I don't think it will take more than about a dozen computers to satisfy the
world market.' and 'Why would anyone in their right mind want a computer in
their house?')
Who could have imagined that he was mistaken; twice; big time?
>> >> >>
>> snip
>> >
>> >The DP is not written on my heart. I had a peek and all I could see was
>> >"Made in England" stamped on the bottom. That just means that it is
>slightly
snip
>> >Sorry James, but this is gibberish.
>> >>
>>
>> Sorry Martin, let me translate for you. 'Be humble to everyone you meet.'
>
>That is much clearer. You should try plain English more often. Eventually it
>will force you into clear thought. I agree with the principle now that you
>have explained it.
>
Are you suggesting that I've brainwashed you?
>> >>
>> snip
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >impressionist daub you present.
>> >Ain't realism a bitch? Maybe you are better to keep your eyes shut and
>> >dream.
>> >
>>
>> Which two generalizations are you refering to?
>The first generalisation was the experience you outlined for all UC members
>and the second was that the best poems contain only 17 syllables.
>
Hey, all members went through the same experiences, but it appears that we've
interpreted the same experiences differently. I was speaking for myself, (and
hopefully for at least a few others), which didn't include those who've said
stuff that I don't believe happened, because it didn't happen to me.
Ironically you seem so willing to support the moral outrage of those who say
their spirits were crushed; but can't seem to muster even a 'thumbs-up' for
those who say they were invigorated by the experience. Why is this?
> History is all neat and
>> sanitized, unless you're living in the middle of it. If I gave the
>impression
snip
>> No time to dream, (in your use of the term). I love realism/reality; it
>gives
>> me something to measure my thoughts and my progress.
>
>Sorry to disturb your view on life. I was under the impression that you were
>here to debate. You must accept that challenges to your perception of
>reality is part of the debating process. There have been many times in life
>when my own view of reality, which by definition is subjective, has not
>matched with the actuality of a situation. In general I think that human
>beings are inclined towards assuming that their own perception of events is
>the only valid version. It does no harm to have this challenged on occasion
>and I accept your right to challenge in return.
>>
Now what makes you think you've disturbed my view of life? I face challenges
to my perceptions of reality everyday, and seem to handle them quite nicely, if
I do say so myself. In fact, I like challenges to my world view; they keep me
on my toes. And because of the constant challenges, I've come to trust my
perceptions as being valid. So; I don't want to say anything to hurt your
feelings, but, you really need to work on your attention span, so it will be
easier for you to remember that on ARU, my/our views are challenged, not just
on occasion, but all the flippin' time. And, with an increased attention span,
you'd realize that I'm not really too interested in your view of reality. (If
you weren't Damian's brother, the only reason you'd be of interest to me is
because you're British and on ARU. And the only reason your nationality is of
interest, is because I can double check some of the notions I've developed
concerning ya'll; if I can keep you talking.)
>> snip
>> >
>> >Now what is really preposterous is a man accepting that he will be
>> >discriminated against simply because of the color of his skin in an
>> >organisation run by a living instrument of God. You don't really expect
snip
>> changing people's hearts is impossible if folks don't have the faith to
>make
>> the change, as I'm sure you're aware. I think it's mighty perceptive of
>you
>> to notice the little bit of pride and hope I have left. (Don't make me
>cuss at
>> you.)
>
>Please feel free to cuss James, you have every right. You are telling me
>that you belonged to a Church headed by the second messiah and manned by
>religious zealots formed in his image, but they were racists.
>Why do you want to cuss at me? You seem a lot "smarter than the average
>bear" to me. If it was my church you would be promoted according to your
>ability and if your white colleugues left I would say "Good riddance". How
>could you possibly hope to create a positive new world order from such
>people?
>>
Thank you, kind sir, for granting me the right to cuss. I'm just saying that
there are unrepentant racists everywhere, even in a movement run by the
Messiah. Some of the most ferverant racists are religious zealots; like those
guys who think Jesus has blue eyes and blond hair, (which they use as the basis
of their racism). Just as we have different concepts of what a 'contest of
love' is all about, we have different concepts concerning what the Messiah is
capable of doing. If no one wanted to cooperate with SMM he'd be in the same
situation as Jesus as he found out that no one wanted to cooperate with him. A
positive new world order can not be created from such people; they have to
change their hearts; eventually everyone has to change their heart or there
won't be any positive new world order.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> snip
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What on earth(or off it) do you mean by this bye-line? Is it a
>> >funny?
>> >> >> >>
snip
>> >
>> >Good on you James. If you can smell the "horseshit", you are coming back
>to
>> >your senses.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> There you go again. You've absolutely ignored what I said and placed your
>own
>> template over the situation. Oh I can smell the horseshit alright; it's
>coming
>> from Merry Olde England.
>
>I have read what you have said but have possibly interpreted it wrongly. I
>thought that you were admitting that Moon's motto is meaningless, and that
>by replacing it with an equally meaningless but more funny one you were
>gently mocking his.
>It would appear that you take your own motto seriously, in which case I am
>lost for words.
>>
>>
Nope; his motto is not meaningless--it's actually very deep, but also very
esoteric. Having paid attention to what he's been doing, I think I have a
clear idea of what he meant. So I tightened it up and gave it the snap is
needed to be truly relevant and useful to those who still do hands-on ground
work. (It's about time you realized the scope of what we're all about.)
>> >> >>
>> snip
>> >
>> >Yup.........You can do it, but it will always be hard work. To get paid
snip
>> Duh....sure it will be hard work, but it won't be any harder than MFT, and
>I've
>> done that. Damn it all; why does everyone want me to go into
>politics??!!!
>
>Methinks you protest too much.........
>Don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox??!!! ;-)
(At least not until I've finished preparing.)
>>
>>
snip
> outcome, one that doesn't involve severe head injuries, I don't follow
>their
>> example--they're not my role models, (although the Darwinists seem to
>think
>> their relationship typified life in the real world).
>
>This does not concur with my understanding of the bible or Darwinism.
>You state that you "are" Cain, that you "know how to be Abel (if you have
>to) for the sake of others."
>Is this not pretty clear role play?
>>
This vicarious experience; placing myself in their shoes I can understand
their motives, and can see where they made their errors, and can, in real time,
avoid those same errors. In the Darwinist's world view, Cain is viewed as a
survivor because he's 'strong'. Unfortunately God had other hopes and desires
for Cain and Abel.
>>
>> >> I'm a Capricorn, so 'loneliness' is my lot in life--but I'm at the age
snip
>> cold, harsh weather when everything is scarce.)
>>
>> Again you misjudge SMM; what you describe is the typical British family.
>
>The typical British family cannot afford a coke habit, and the fishing tends
>to be at the local river where men take their son's in due course if they
>are interested.
>Your knowledge of our culture is obviously very impressive, have you been
>here or do you read a lot about our debauched ways ;-)
>>
I read about your 'debauched ways', and pay attention to the way ya'll work;
and am as jumpy as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs because of what I see
taking shape before my eyes.
>> snip
>> >> >Soon your file will arrive anyway, but in the meantime, keep posting.
snip
>
>Aspiring politician too.................
>
>Regards,
>Martin
>
Maybe we can work together.......after all.
Martin Anderson
Hi Hammond,
We have batted this one back and forward as much as I am inclined and I make
it a draw unless you suggest otherwise.
In conclusion I think that you are probably one of the good guys. Although I
think that you had to take a few good deep breath the last couple of times,
your sense of humour and common decency came out ahead of your desire to
defend "Holy Cows" at any cost.
The only statement which I find disturbing is the one which I left unsnipped
above. Does this refer to Brits in general or me in particular? (The y'all,
as I understand it, is sometimes singular)
> Maybe we can work together.......after all.
I hope so. The only people I really can't stand are hypocrites, and you
don't look like one to me.
All the best,
Martin A.
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000815010816...@nso-ff.aol.com...
>> In article <uwGl5.4063$pR4....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
>> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> I read about your 'debauched ways', and pay attention to the way ya'll
>work;
>> and am as jumpy as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs because of what
>I see
>> taking shape before my eyes.
>>
>
>Hi Hammond,
>We have batted this one back and forward as much as I am inclined and I make
>it a draw unless you suggest otherwise.
>In conclusion I think that you are probably one of the good guys. Although I
>think that you had to take a few good deep breath the last couple of times,
>your sense of humour and common decency came out ahead of your desire to
>defend "Holy Cows" at any cost.
>
Martin,
Had to get in one last punch, huh?
>The only statement which I find disturbing is the one which I left unsnipped
>above. Does this refer to Brits in general or me in particular? (The y'all,
>as I understand it, is sometimes singular)
>
Brits in general; monarchs in particular; British crown most specifically.
(But don't get me started, or I'll reveal how the British crown is attempting
to manipulate the UFO mythology as part of a plan to dominate the Earth's
culture....)
>
>> Maybe we can work together.......after all.
>
>I hope so. The only people I really can't stand are hypocrites, and you
>don't look like one to me.
>