Working in Hell
Damaeus
I want to find a job that allows me to have my own effeciency apartment in
a neighborhood that feels safe to me, which means no thuggy looking people
wandering up and down the sidewalk carrying paper bags shaped like
bottles. And to keep my car (2007 Camry), pay the utilities, and have
some left over. But nowadays the wages are so low due to competition that
getting a decent wage is next to impossible.
My deal is that I've gotten myself into a situation where I left work to
focus on my mind and bodily energies. I felt that getting out of the
cycle of going to work everyday would do me some good, and it's done
wonders. But now I'm sort of caged, in a way, living with someone who
likes having me here. He gives me things every now and then (a little
spending money I use on pot, and sometimes a gift card for a restaurant),
but the dissatisfaction with this arrangement is high, as you can probably
imagine.
I hate living WITH someone. I'm sick of it.
I've been to graphic design school, but don't care to be a graphic
designer. I /want/ to do some kind of work that'll let me use what I
understand about my mind and the universe, but what the hell kind of work
is there to do that?
Yes, whatever I understand will be translated into any work I perform, but
sheesh... Sometimes it seems like there'd be jobs more suited to a
self-proclaimed sage than just any old job, even though any old job would
put me around people, which makes me a conveyor of interaction with others
who pick up on and similar distribute what we learn from each other. Given
that, I could do this at McDonald's, but that job isn't going to support
apartment rent, a car note, groceries and utilities.
Job interviews, personality tests, drug tests, etc... I will not give up
pot smoking for some ignorant goon company that supports prohibition.
Damaeus
--
____
/ __ \ ____ _ ____ ___ ____ _ ___ __ __ _____
/ / / / / __ `/ / __ `__ \ / __ `/ / _ \ / / / / / ___/
/ /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / __/ / /_/ / (__ )
/_____/ \__,_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__,_/ \___/ \__,_/ /____/
dam...@damaeus.earthlink.net
Remove "damaeus" from the domain to reply by e-mail.
aine
Most jobs do drug testing now at the interview process and random ones
are becoming the norm.
The only thing I can think of is a self employed job. Not always
consist in money.
Luke
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:mkb4p4hlc91ot20pc...@4ax.com...
Is pot the most important thing in your life?
Evergreen
>
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
[delete]
>> Damaeus
>> --
>
> Is pot the most important thing in your life?
Excessive pot consumption would explain his inability to
think clearly.
It can be a beneficial plant consumed in moderation, but
too much of a good thing...
And his confusion is only going to be worsened by the
pseudo-magickal, theatrical drivel promoted on the typical
'neo-pagan' and 'magickal' newsgroups and web forums.
Sid
--
Wiccan 'Priest' and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
Self-employment is like the worst idea for me. I hate running a business.
I also have a preference for working in the back on projects while someone
else finds out what people want or need.
Damaeus
Evergreen <sidne...@nospam.invalid> posted:
> Excessive pot consumption would explain his inability to
> think clearly.
>
> It can be a beneficial plant consumed in moderation, but
> too much of a good thing...
>
> And his confusion
Confusion? I'm not confused. And my pot consumption IS moderate. I
don't always have it. I usually smoke daily until I run out of a quarter
ounce or so, then when I get more is in question. Sometimes I smoke every
two or three days. Sometimes I stay high all day. Just depends on the
supply and how I feel about it.
If I was confused, how could I even write coherent messages?
Damaeus
--
Damaeus
"Luke" <alcatra...@invalid.invalid> posted:
> Is pot the most important thing in your life?
I think I know what you're driving at. That pot should NOT stand in the
way of "gainful employment". Yet what kind of legalization supporter
would I be if I went to work for a company that is against what I believe
is right?
Damaeus
--
Theoneflasehaddock
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > Excessive pot consumption would explain his inability to
> > think clearly.
>
> > It can be a beneficial plant consumed in moderation, but
> > too much of a good thing...
>
> > And his confusion
>
> Confusion? I'm not confused. And my pot consumption IS moderate. I
> don't always have it. I usually smoke daily until I run out of a quarter
> ounce or so, then when I get more is in question. Sometimes I smoke every
> two or three days. Sometimes I stay high all day. Just depends on the
> supply and how I feel about it.
>
> If I was confused, how could I even write coherent messages?
You've written coherent messages?
Theoneflasehaddock
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > Is pot the most important thing in your life?
>
> I think I know what you're driving at. That pot should NOT stand in the
> way of "gainful employment". Yet what kind of legalization supporter
> would I be if I went to work for a company that is against what I believe
> is right?
Um, personally, I don't know of any companies that aren't against what
I believe is right. The corporate model is for corporations to take
advantage of people, brag about it to stockholders, and funnel money
to a few executives who are generally clueless and nasty, while
following the absolute minimum of environmental, safety, and quality
regulations to put out their products.
Their money's still good, and you gotta do something to get by. Land's
way too expensive for subsistence farming nowadays.
Hope
wrote:
That's pretty much what I was gonna say. Thanks for saving me the
effort. *S*
Noinden
I think of it this way. They have a "ban" on illicit and restricted
substances for what ever reason they have it. For my industry
(Chemical/Pharma) it makes sense. A Drunk/High/Stoned guy near
chemicals is asking for trouble. The only way they can detect these is
random tests.
Not all industries need to do this (indeed design might benefit from
it ;) ) but it's the way they are. I like money, it lets me eat.
Damaeus
Theoneflasehaddock <armadillo...@yahoo.com> posted:
Proper grammar, proper punctuation, correct spelling without the use of a
spell checker, ideas that fit together. Yeah, i'd say they're coherent.
Damaeus
Hope <hollera...@gmail.com> posted:
Thanks to you both, too. You've illustrated how things should NOT be, but
yes, that's the way things are, and how unfortunate. I didn't need to be
told any of that. I already knew it. And like I said before, if I
prostituted my values to work for a company that probably has board
members smoking pot, but supporting drug testing -- the whole company is
built on supporting some kind of phantom value system that was built on
ignorance, and even racism!
Supporting that by providing my services to such a company is the kind of
thing I won't do. The only bad part is that people like me seem to stand
alone. Others will change their personal lives to get a job because they
feel they must. But if nobody worked for companies that required drug
testing, what would they do?
It's gotta change. People shouldn't have to change their behavior in
their personal time when they are NOT being paid, just to satisfy some
company policy that they must adhere to when they're on the clock.
Cannabis can also help you focus on your tasks *IF* you're not also
flooded with the paranoia of having done something that someone else
disapproves. Criminalization of the herb creates a cloud of paranoia in
some people that does have an impact on their experience.
Hope
>
>
> Thanks to you both, too. You've illustrated how things should NOT be, but
> yes, that's the way things are, and how unfortunate. I didn't need to be
> told any of that. I already knew it. And like I said before, if I
> prostituted my values to work for a company that probably has board
> members smoking pot, but supporting drug testing -- the whole company is
> built on supporting some kind of phantom value system that was built on
> ignorance, and even racism!
How is a policy of drug testing racist? And realistically speaking, I
don't believe a policy prohibiting employees from working in an
"altered state" is actually based on ignorance. In many cases, as
noinden pointed out, it's a matter of public safety. I don't want
drivers on the road who are drunk and stoned. I don't want a doctor
prescribing for me or operating on me who is on a mind-altering trip.
I don't want to be on a plane if the pilot is not sober. I don't even
want someone bottling milk whose brain is in another dimension.
If what you do off the clock is still affecting your brain and body
when you're on the clock, then that's a problem. Otherwise, it
isn't. I don't think that's an oppressive/ignorant/racist viewpoint.
You are, of course, free to disagree.
>
> Supporting that by providing my services to such a company is the kind of
> thing I won't do. The only bad part is that people like me seem to stand
> alone. Others will change their personal lives to get a job because they
> feel they must. But if nobody worked for companies that required drug
> testing, what would they do?
>
You probably also know this, too, but you did say you are using
someone in order to allow you to maintain your current lifestyle, even
though you hate living that way. So isn't that simply another form of
"prostituting" your values in order to survive?
People do have to live according to the rules of this earth plane
while they remain in it. Some have children to support. They don't
all have the luxury of simply refusing to work for any company that
does *anything* they don't approve of. Their options would be to seek
government assistance--in which case they would almost certainly be
consorting with an entity that does things they disapprove of--or
living off someone else who probably got their money from one or more
of those same sources, or resorting to illegal and/or unethical
activities.
You asked what we do, in general. In my lifetime, I have worked for a
public library, taught blind and multihandicapped students (the bulk
of my working life,) and worked for a hospice as a director of
volunteer services. I felt those were all worthwhile jobs, even
though I did not agree with every rule and company policy and often
wanted to do things differently.
Even those who are self-employed rarely get to do whatever they want,
when they want, without regard to anyone else's rules. There are
still legalities to abide by and taxes to pay, for example. You may
be wishing for something that's not really feasible in our dualistic
world--like many of us. ;-) We all have to make compromises from time
to time and simply do the best we can to negotiate realities with
which we can live, in good conscience. Good luck.
ren
prisoners due to overcrowding.
We should all demand they release the pot smokers in there for non-
violent crimes.
aine
They abuse couches and twinkies. That, is a violent crime.
Damaeus
Hope <hollera...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 11, 4:20 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks to you both, too. You've illustrated how things should NOT be, but
> > yes, that's the way things are, and how unfortunate. I didn't need to be
> > told any of that. I already knew it. And like I said before, if I
> > prostituted my values to work for a company that probably has board
> > members smoking pot, but supporting drug testing -- the whole company is
> > built on supporting some kind of phantom value system that was built on
> > ignorance, and even racism!
>
> How is a policy of drug testing racist?
The history is there. One of the biggest pushers of the outlawing of
marijuana was William Randolph Hearst, who had a huge newspaper empire,
and who had forests of trees growing which were captured during the
Spanish-American war. They would not allow him to cut down his own trees
to make paper for the printing presses, so he started a campaign attacking
Mexicans and their marijuana, saying it's what made them lazy. He also
had something to say about blacks, if I recall correctly, and that
marijuana made black men crazy with lust for white women.
> And realistically speaking, I don't believe a policy prohibiting
> employees from working in an "altered state" is actually based on
> ignorance.
But that's part of the point. The "altered state" lasts for about three
hours. If I smoke a bowl of pot at anytime, I'm good for work. But after
three hours, the actual euphoric effects are gone. What's left is a calm
state of mind, which is opposite the effect of someone who sucks down
coffee all day long while on the clock. After three hours, the state is
no longer altered, though the effects of pot on the mind are positive and
cumulative.
> In many cases, as noinden pointed out, it's a matter of public safety.
> I don't want drivers on the road who are drunk and stoned.
Me neither. The "drunk" part of the stoned isn't good. But stoned alone
is not a problem. In fact, in one test that was NOT sponsored or
supported by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drivers were
found to score slightly better on driving tests than those who had not
taken marijuana. They put more distance between themselves and the car in
front of them, and they tended to drive slower than drivers were were not
high.
> I don't want a doctor prescribing for me or operating on me who is on a
> mind-altering trip.
You make it sound like pot smokers, when high, are going to act like
someone on an ecstasy trip at a rave. False. In fact, marijuana makes
you more task-oriented, even more focused on the task at hand than normal,
and more aware of all the peripheral aspects of your task, such as safety
and awareness of your surroundings.
> I don't want to be on a plane if the pilot is not sober. I don't even
> want someone bottling milk whose brain is in another dimension.
You've swallowed the D.A.R.E. and ONDCP propaganda, hook, line, and
sinker, as well as half the lake. I'd like to ask if you've ever tried
pot for yourself. I used to be just like you. I was totally against all
drug use in high school. I thought they were all brainless idiots going
nowhere in their lives, and ruining everyone else's life they came into
contact with. I stayed far away from people whom I knew used drugs.
When were you first offered pot? I wasn't offered any for the first time
until 1994. I smoked it for the first time at the end of 1996, at the age
of 26. What did I learn? That what I had been told about pot was in
error. I have a before and after comparison to know what I'm talking
about and say it with confidence. People who say pot is bad are ignorant.
Some even smoke one joint, say they didn't feel anything and never try it
again, then continue to say it's not a good thing to use.
My use of marijuana is part of what sparkled my brain into exploring areas
of thought OUTSIDE the mainstream, such as wicca, satanism, gnosticism,
etc... and I credit it with helping me get to where I am today. Even Carl
Sagan, the great scientist, credited marijuana smoking with some of his
cosmological discoveries. When your mind's awareness is heightened by
marijuana smoke, it allows you to make freer association of ideas and
connect them logically and creatively to what is already known and
accepted so you can explain things more clearly to the common people who
are not scientific. And this was Carl Sagan's most notorious strong
point: his ability to communicate great scientific ideas in ways that all
of us can understand.
Marijuana bad? I believe not.
> If what you do off the clock is still affecting your brain and body
> when you're on the clock, then that's a problem. Otherwise, it
> isn't.
Three hour high does not last all month. But marijuana shows positive on
drug tests for thirty days after you stop smoking. LSD is out of your
system in three days. I've never tried LSD, myself. In my ignorance, I
don't want someone driving a forklift who is on LSD because my friend, who
HAS has LSD many times, says that sometimes he sees a fence run out into
the street. I don't see that on marijuana. At the same time, since many
people drop acid every day and are not dead in the gutter, I'm not
prepared to say that nobody should use it. I just accept that there's
something I have not yet experienced which might be just the thing I need,
one of these days.
> I don't think that's an oppressive/ignorant/racist viewpoint. You are,
> of course, free to disagree.
Not the way you described it. But I was talking about the ideas that were
circulated that lead to marijuana being made illegal to begin with.
In addition to the racism, there was also corporate struggles for a
monopoly. Ropes used by the military used to be made of hemp, a very
strong fiber for ropes. But Dow Chemical wanted to sell their
chemically-derived nylon ropes, so they were also in Congress lobbying
against marijuana and hemp. Hemp was outlawed, Dow Chemical got their
ropes into the military. The guys in the military said the ropes were not
as strong as the hemp ropes. Then World War II came along and the nylon
ropes just were not fitting the bill. As a result, Congress made it a law
that farmers MUST grow hemp so the military could get their old, reliable
ropes back. It was illegal for a farmer not to grow hemp at that time.
After the war, hemp was made illegal again. So now, I guess we can only
have legal pot if we need it for war, I say sarcastically.
But really, I think people are wising up, finally. Each year, the support
for decriminalizing and even legalizing marijuana rises. In Washington
D.C. a few years back, they even legalized marijuana for the D.C. area by
popular vote from their own citizens. But with that being the capital,
the federal government stepped in and negated the law enacted by the
people. Is that the kind of government you want to support?
It's totalitarianism on this topic. The government is here to serve the
wants of the people, not influence the people's opinions with propaganda
to keep the laws they want. The government has the people's nuts in a
sling on this one. They create the law, create the literature (which is
NOT scientific, nor does it take into account the history of cannabis),
and enforce the laws they have tricked the people into believing is right.
It's mind control, even if done in ignorance.
> > Supporting that by providing my services to such a company is the kind of
> > thing I won't do. The only bad part is that people like me seem to stand
> > alone. Others will change their personal lives to get a job because they
> > feel they must. But if nobody worked for companies that required drug
> > testing, what would they do?
>
> You probably also know this, too, but you did say you are using
> someone in order to allow you to maintain your current lifestyle, even
> though you hate living that way. So isn't that simply another form of
> "prostituting" your values in order to survive?
A certain degree of humiliation is involved in my situation. I've been
friends with this family for 20 years, and since I was there for their son
when he was six hours away and having a schizophrenic breakdown, and
didn't run away even though we had only been friends about a year, they
adopted me as their own and have always taken care of me in some form or
another when I was down. I've been through several other schizophrenic
breaks of his, and he was there for one major "psychotic break" (aka
spiritual awakening) I had in 1997. I no longer call myself psychotic
because all the elements of my awakening are coming truer and truer every
day. I'm not psychotic. I'm waking up, as we all are.
It's not easy to make it financially with a high school diploma. Wages
aren't that great, but I worked two jobs from 1991 to 1994, and two jobs
in 1995-1997, and two jobs in part of 2003. From 2004-2009, I held a job
down that was an hour's drive (45-60 minutes depending on trains, gas
stops, and getting caught up in slow-moving Schlumberger convoys going to
Longview) both ways to get to and from work. And I sometimes worked 45-55
hours over six days, making my work week an average of 45 hours of labor,
plus 12 hours of commuting.
I was so disgusted with busting my ass at that repetitious job delivering
pizza and washing assloads of Pizza Hut dishes every night in a store that
really could have used a part-time dish washer that I was at my wit's end
with finding reasons to stay there. I tried my damndest to stay and root
out as much as I could, but the calling of mysticism was banging at my
door.
In my free time, I came home and got on all the mailing lists and
newsgroups I could find. Spiritual awakening is my PASSION, /not/
delivering pizza. I delivered pizza for fourteen years (1991-1997, and
2003-2008). I didn't work at all between leaving delivery in 1997 and
coming back to it in 2003, except for working at Target from 2002 to 2003
to save up enough to get a down payment on a car to deliver in.
So your idea that I'm a /total/ moocher is off a bit. (I tend to make
myself sound shittier than I really am sometimes, it seems.) I only FEEL
like a total moocher at times because I haven't worked since -- I think I
left my job in maybe July of 2008, maybe August. But my friend was aware
of my plight -- my dissatisfaction with working, and I had expressed my
passion for getting on the internet and engaging in these discussions I
was not able to have at work. I wasn't as comfortable talking about these
things face to face. I wanted to see people light up at my explanation of
something, but people seemed to meander through their own religious past
and recited religious rhetoric instead of discussing the actual mechanics
of spirituality. They lived by what I believed, it seemed, doing what
they wanted to do, or doing what seemed necessary to survive, so I wasn't
trying to convert anyone, but to upgrade their understanding to give them
more hope through a perspective that gave a modern explanation to ideas
derived from 2,000 year old events.
So I came home and did that. I've gone through spastic urges to go out
and find a job, but when I get out there and actually pick up
applications, my heart hits the floor. My intellect tells me to find a
job. My heart tells me to wait and see for right now, until I actually
find myself out finding a job. Because when I think "find a job", I
immediately want to get in the car, get the newspaper, call the number and
get the job right then, and start the next day. I mean I want the job
right when I feel the desire to have one, and when I don't have it, I get
spastic and want to get in the car right then to go scout for prospective
employment.
So I might think of going the next day, since it's not practical to go job
hunting at 1am. So I'll have a dream that night, or go through a lot of
thoughts going back to the mechanics of spirituality, and I make so much
progress that it feels like a kind of balance, like being pulled equally
by the desire to have the money to be self-sufficient, and by a
psychically-driven spiritual shoehorn into a reality driven by lucid
thought and malleable matter, including transformation into immortality.
In other words, anytime I think of finding a job (which is not what I
ultimately want), an equal and opposite reaction of my spirit pulls me
further into, well, "Heaven", quite frankly, and it feel it making me
younger, physically, emotionally, and in body movements, language and
speech patterns. Yet at the same time, I feel compelled to hold it
together in this world. Like, I don't want to see unicorns and fairies
tomorrow unless I can logically connect it all and know everyone else in
the world is okay at the same time.
I've often had a roommate, but lived on my own a few times since I left
home at 19. My friend told me that if I wanted to quit my job and stay
home for a while, I could. I frequently express interest in getting a
job. He suggests that he doesn't think I'm ready, and that when the time
is right, I'll know it and make the right moves.
Since I've learned to interpret real-life events somewhat like dream
events, if someone says something to me and it puts me at ease, I trust
that gut feeling that he's right, and since he loves having me here, and
wants me to stay here, and continues to tell me that I don't have to get a
job yet if I don't want to or feel like I'm ready, I just say that for
today, for that moment, he's okay with me being here without a job. He
says his family has the money to handle it.
> People do have to live according to the rules of this earth plane
> while they remain in it.
People do, but the problem is that a handful of people are preserving a
system of economics that the masses find unfair and which prevents many
people from enjoying the fruits of man's labor equally. You've got people
"at the top" hoarding billions, and now trillions of dollars, while the
masses scrape by on a pittance.
> Even those who are self-employed rarely get to do whatever they want,
> when they want, without regard to anyone else's rules. There are
> still legalities to abide by and taxes to pay, for example. You may
> be wishing for something that's not really feasible in our dualistic
> world--like many of us. ;-) We all have to make compromises from time
> to time and simply do the best we can to negotiate realities with
> which we can live, in good conscience. Good luck.
Yeah. At one point I saw part of my "service" to all as taking my
friend's allowance to heart: quit my job and take some time off. "You've
been working too hard," said Larry to Darrin on Bewitched. And I had. My
roommate knew it. My mind was yanked around a fantasy world on every
delivery. I came home to try to balance it all out, and make it real. So
I figured I'd come home and blow my passions all over the internet, and
I've done that. This was all I thought about in this time off. It wasn't
a 30-minute meditation, but a constant dwelling on reality, eternity,
today's world, and how they all connect and relate to us. I did my level
best to belt out everything I could explain about it everywhere I posted,
and learned volumes more about myself and reality.
At this moment, I sit here and recognize how much I have changed as a
person, but I just wonder how much benefit that would be in a work
environment in a cubicle, office or something. I thought about working at
a place like a tech support call center, thinking my interaction with
people might have some psychic effect that I cannot exude from within my
quarters. I even considered seeing if I could get into a place to work
with psychopaths to help them sort out their minds and relate it to the
real world. I just feel like I could do so many things in so many places,
deciding where to go to be of the most benefit to people is the hard part.
But I haven't felt the urge to do anything preachy unless I can present it
in a way that really makes sense and makes real and lasting changes
through its clear philosophy in practical non-abstracted language. For
example, I'd like to "explain" how to move a fork without touching it in a
way that teaches someone to do it now. Explaining reality with that level
of clarity would probably need more than just words, but demonstration and
communication skill.
aine
I do not know anyone that smokes pot that does not say all that you
are advocating here.
I do not know anyone that smokes pot that exhibits themselves the way
you are relating. Even if they say they do.
Seriously.
I believe it is a bit of a perception problem.
Slow drivers are actually as dangerous or more then speeders. ;)
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 11, 10:27 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> I do not know anyone that smokes pot that does not say all that you
> are advocating here.
>
> I do not know anyone that smokes pot that exhibits themselves the way
> you are relating. Even if they say they do.
I don't know about the average pot smoker. I only know myself, and two
friends I had who I smoked around with when I first started. I see how
pot smokers are portrayed in the movies, however, and I am *NOT* that kind
of pot smoker. I find, however, that since pot magnifies what you
imagine, if you /want/ to pal around with your friends and act goofy,
being high makes it that much more fun. Similarly, since I use pot and do
not want to just sit around and act goofy (all the time), I use it for
magnified meditation, magnified self-exploration, magnified taste in food,
magnified dynamics in music, magnified grandeur on the movie screen, just
like your apparently "typical" pot smoker enjoys magnified "whatever" with
his or her friends. Magnified chill, magnified strumming to Pink Floyd on
your own guitar. Magnified orgasms. Magnified sensations of a hot
shower. Pot smokers don't get the munchies for no reason. Munchies come
about because of the remembrance of how good food tastes when you /are/
high.
> Seriously.
>
> I believe it is a bit of a perception problem.
Yes. You perceive me as Harold or Kumar, as Wayne or Garth, as Cheech or
Chong, and I'm not. Some of the same things might float through our
minds, but I'm not one to express it like some kind of tripped out surfer
on an 8-ball. I express it more like Carl Sagan than Cheech Marin, and
speak of higher topics than how different melted cheese feels on your
tongue when you're high. I would speak of the perceptual mechanics that
makes that difference in sensation possible.
> Slow drivers are actually as dangerous or more then speeders. ;)
When I said slow, I don't mean 45 in a 70. I mean like 51 in a 55, or 53
in a 55. I agree that matched speeds are best, but some people have
reasons for driving the speeds they drive. You save gas driving 55 in a
5-speed automatic, and you save gas driving 45 with a 4-speed automatic.
They accelerated more slowly and braked further back and more gently when
approaching stop lights or signs.
aine
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
No, I mean the person who smokes pot perceives themselves different
then how they are actually behaving, reacting and able to function
clearly.
You may seem fine to you and possibly so do your friends but to those
who do not use the drug you are not fine. Hence the term pot head.
I have known all kinds. Heavy daily users, recreational users and not
one of them saw themselves as the rest of the world.
One finally admitted to me after she stopped.
I have tried it in High school. I am not good with any drugs thank the
Gods so I never went past those years using anything. Still, I had
friends who did and a couple who still do into their 40's and later.
There is a definite brain lag. You just are not seeing it because you
are the one in it. Like a drunk never thinks they are too drunk to
drive.
> > Slow drivers are actually as dangerous or more then speeders. ;)
>
> When I said slow, I don't mean 45 in a 70. I mean like 51 in a 55, or 53
> in a 55. I agree that matched speeds are best, but some people have
> reasons for driving the speeds they drive. You save gas driving 55 in a
> 5-speed automatic, and you save gas driving 45 with a 4-speed automatic.
> They accelerated more slowly and braked further back and more gently when
> approaching stop lights or signs.<
Because you are so mellow I would imagine but mellow is never good in
a high risk situation. Like driving, jobs, caring for your kids.
Taking on responsibilities in the real world. Paying bills on time,
preparing clean and healthy food for others in a food industry.
On and on..
I mean sure, smoke it, I am not judging you but I would not hire you.
>
> Damaeus
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 11, 11:24 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > Yes. You perceive me as Harold or Kumar, as Wayne or Garth, as
> > Cheech or Chong, and I'm not. Some of the same things might float
> > through our minds, but I'm not one to express it like some kind of
> > tripped out surfer on an 8-ball. I express it more like Carl Sagan
> > than Cheech Marin, and speak of higher topics than how different
> > melted cheese feels on your tongue when you're high. I would speak
> > of the perceptual mechanics that makes that difference in sensation
> > possible.
>
> No, I mean the person who smokes pot perceives themselves different
> then how they are actually behaving, reacting and able to function
> clearly.
>
> You may seem fine to you and possibly so do your friends but to those
> who do not use the drug you are not fine. Hence the term pot head.
But what precludes the opinion of the "pothead" if not the knowledge that
he or she is high or a pot smoker? That prejudgment causes non-smokers to
"know already" that his behavior is off simply /because/ he is a pot
smoker. However, you talk to people all the day who you never know are
potheads, or even high at the moment. The only advantage the non-smoker
has over pot smokers is the knowledge of the pot smoking.
> I have known all kinds. Heavy daily users, recreational users and not
> one of them saw themselves as the rest of the world.
You can say that you didn't see them as they saw themselves, but how can
you say that so representatively for the rest of the world? How do you
know what goes through HIS mind? What are his dreams that he has which he
keeps to himself and never expresses to anyone? He might secretly wish to
be a glittering fairy, but since he looks like Brutus Beefcake, he has to
act like what society expects to be taken seriously as a human being.
All I'm saying is that other people seem so empty-headed to you simply
/because/ you cannot be inside their minds and know their thoughts, their
perceptions, their dreams, hopes, aspiriations, nightmares and eternal
fantasies that shape who they are as an interacter with the world.
> One finally admitted to me after she stopped.
>
> I have tried it in High school. I am not good with any drugs thank the
> Gods so I never went past those years using anything. Still, I had
> friends who did and a couple who still do into their 40's and later.
>
> There is a definite brain lag. You just are not seeing it because you
> are the one in it. Like a drunk never thinks they are too drunk to
> drive.
It's not brain lag. It's a reprioritization of my mind. I see the world
from a different level of harmony in which the importance of building a
huge material life seems not right for me at the moment. Monastic
solitude called me and I reside in it now. I take it day by day. Some
days I feel like remaining here, other days I feel like going out. Since
I've made lots of waves in the swimming pool, I'm going to wait for them
to settle to decide if I want more solitude or am ready to either change
my body into something shorter and immortal, or go back into the world to
see if it "wants" to happen where a lot of people are wandering around. I
prefer solitude to do this. But I work to balance that desire for
solitude with a committment to do whatever I can to teach immortality to
others. But if my transformation depends on being able to focus on
immortality whenever I want to, and the topics that arise, then I don't
want my search for and participation in a menial job to interfere with
what I want to do freely with my own mind. For example, if I get a job in
an office where I have to focus on numbers and calculations all day, I
don't want to get into a position where my mind is not free enough to
explore these ideas as it pleases only because of the impact my job would
be having on my search for immortality.
Some might say my search is crazy, ludicrous, a weird fantasy. But if I
didn't feel so close to discovering the secrets of becoming immortal
through the power of your own mind, I wouldn't be so vocal and forthcoming
about what I go through when deciding whether or not to go back to work.
> > > Slow drivers are actually as dangerous or more then speeders. ;)
> >
> > When I said slow, I don't mean 45 in a 70. I mean like 51 in a 55,
> > or 53 in a 55. I agree that matched speeds are best, but some people
> > have reasons for driving the speeds they drive. You save gas driving
> > 55 in a 5-speed automatic, and you save gas driving 45 with a 4-speed
> > automatic. They accelerated more slowly and braked further back and
> > more gently when approaching stop lights or signs.<
>
> Because you are so mellow I would imagine but mellow is never good in
> a high risk situation.
Sure it is. If you're mellow, when something does happen, your jerk
reaction is going to be more precise because you'll have more perceptual
energy stored to release in an emergency. But if you keep yourself all
wired up, frozen in time watching for every little thing in a
pseudo-paranoid state, when something unexpected does happen, you will
have already been in a self-induced altered state for so long that your
reactions will be off. You might jerk the forklift too hard because you
are reacting to something you are EXPECTING to happen, but most likely
won't. In other words, you can be TOO careful, resulting in overbraking,
overcorrections on the highway.
> Like driving, jobs, caring for your kids.
Yes, I'm a professional driver. Millions of miles of driving in my
lifetime (at least 2 million miles by now, I'm sure), and much of it for
pay. With that much practice behind the wheel, you really can't get me in
a wreck. I've reacted to situations that most people would have wrecked
in. It's also about trusting yourself enough to know what to do when an
emergency does pop up unexpectedly that you can relax your mind and simply
perceive the drive, allowing you to see oddities more easily than trying
to judge the whole planetscape at once...even the odd movements of
airplanes to make sure they aren't actually crashing into the highway, to
be funny for a moment.
> Taking on responsibilities in the real world. Paying bills on time,
> preparing clean and healthy food for others in a food industry.
Yeah, paying bills on time is easy when the cost for maintaining a vehicle
for work doesn't cost more than what you make. And when you're not paying
for repairs on a car you no longer own, being jacked around by 32%
interest rates. The way it's set up, you can't get a car unless you build
credit. So when I COULD afford a car payment easily, I couldn't get a
loan. I then went and got a few more credit cards, ran the bills up and
started making timely payments. But then I could no longer afford the new
truck I needed. But then my existing truck broke down so badly that I
couldn't afford to have it fixed. A down payment on a new one was less
expensive, so I went that route, knowing I couldn't afford it, but needing
a vehicle to get me back and forth to work. I figured I'd just cut
corners where I could and try to make it work, but I ended up in
bankruptcy.
Making timely payments is easy when you've got an income of $60,000 a
year, and so easy when you've got millions or more that you don't even pay
your bills. You just have money sucked out of your account to wherever it
needs to go to make your banks happy with you while you live it up at the
country club.
Banks are so stupid when it comes to this concept of making money. After
I quit work after busting my ass only to fall behind on my bills, I had no
money at all, and my checking account was $300-$400 in the hole, and she
called to see if I could pay just $15 "today" to keep the account from
going to collections. Well, how can I pay $15 to keep an account active,
which I owed another $300 on? I literally had 26 cents in my pocket, I
think. So she asked if my friend could pay it for me, but what kind of
friend asks his friend to pay his credit card bills while he doesn't work?
Not I. I told him he didn't have to pay my car payment, that he could
just sell it, but he wants to pay it. It was mostly his idea to get this
new car, anyway. My old one was falling to pieces, and needed yet another
new radiator, so he pretty much insisted on it. So now I have a
2007-model car I got when it had 60 miles on it. I even get to drive it,
and put gas in it with his Chevron card. He even said I could buy snacks
and a few groceries on it. I don't abuse the privilege. I've been out
and about last week and this week, but until then I might only use a
couple of tanks a month at the most, sometimes driving him places when he
didn't want to drive himself.
All I'm saying, at the bottom line is, that he doesn't see me as some
greasy slug always taking naps on his couch. In fact, anytime I suggest
my getting my own place, he starts doing things to try to make me stay. He
does /want/ me here. He actually looks hurt when I suggest moving out and
away from him because he had planned to build a big house once his parents
are gone, and we'd live into our old age in Washington.
In my mind, I have three different things going on. I've got immortality.
While it's the most important thing to me eternally, I have to figure out
how quickly it's progressing, and what the exponent is to the curve, if
there is a quickening curve to it in the way I expect, or otherwise. If I
can figure that out, and judge how long it might take me to actually be so
"immortal" that I don't need food or shelter anymore, I would be able to
make a better judgment about whether I want to bother finding work or not.
I mean, if I can be immortal in six months (and it often feels so close
that I could do it now if I had the full courage influx it takes to do
something like this (this stuff scares the everloving shit out of me as
it's happening because it feels like I'm committing every sin in the Bible
at the same time and being judged and punished for it simultaneously on a
one-way trip to Hell)). So if immortality is something that'll take 20-30
more years as I begin growing younger and younger, then going back to work
is no big deal. I'd feel better about it. But if this house is just a
waiting room and immortality is in the kitchen, why bother going back to
work? I'll just figure out how to transform myself here in the bedroom,
do it, and show others how it's done. If I can do that, I should be able
to flip-flop between appearances to prove it can be done. The only thing
I /don't/ want to be is a charlatan. I won't claim to be able to teach
immortalty until I can prove it can be done. Until then, I'm just some
goose in the ether trying his damndest to make it true, and all I can
claim is that I'm trying, but prick me and I still bleed.
I've had flashes of changes, like dips into a pre-existing body that
supercedes what we call the physical body. This pre-existing body has
influences over the physical body and has been working to change my
physical form as it becomes comfortable. But apparently the physical
instrument is a stubborn piece of flesh resistant to change. Yet the
brain is connected to the rest of the body through the central nervous
system. With enough training of the brain to overcome fear of rapid
cellular change, the mind should be able to adjust biological functions to
fall in line with predominant wishes, as well as energetic flows that, if
I could describe the feeling, envelop an area of the body and apply
pressure to it to reshape it slightly. I've felt my eyeballs "squished"
in this way. Shiftings of intestinal contents is also synchronized to
thoughts, as if thinking something good results in a more pleasant
shifting of intestinal contents than the stabbing, constipational kind. I
don't get those types of pains anymore. I found those stabbing abdominal
pains to be caused by getting stuck in a moment of self-conflicted
thoughts. It's like getting stuck in an area you really need to work on,
and once you've experienced getting through that, that particular thought
combination will no longer cause intestinal pain, but instead a freer flow
that does not conflict, but moves smoothly as it should.
> On and on..
>
> I mean sure, smoke it, I am not judging you but I would not hire you.
I would be the type to not tell you that I smoke pot until you get to know
me so well that you love me. Then I'd tell you I'm a pot smoker, and the
reaction I would expect would be sudden judgment. Suddenly you disapprove
of me, despite our previously glorious relationship, because of my pot
smoking. Never mind that I had been smoking the whole time prior, and was
even high during some of our interactions with nothing you could have
picked out to brand me a pot smoker, UNTIL, I specifically tell you.
I've experienced this before with other non-smokers, and even with people
who have smoked, themselves, but disapprove of anyone else doing it, and
actually express it that way. Be great friends until the clean-freak
discovers the other is a pot smoker, then suddenly the whole relationship
is in jeopardy over it.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Evergreen
>
[delete]
> No, I mean the person who smokes pot perceives themselves different
> then how they are actually behaving, reacting and able to function
> clearly.
I know quite a few professionals who smoke an incredible amount of
very potent bud. They are very good at their jobs and no one but
their closest friends know they smoke the stuff.
I'm talking about people with very important and demanding jobs.
> You may seem fine to you and possibly so do your friends but to those
> who do not use the drug you are not fine. Hence the term pot head.
Oh brother. The Weed From The Devil's Garden.
Give us a break.
>
> I have known all kinds. Heavy daily users, recreational users and not
> one of them saw themselves as the rest of the world.
You have not known all kinds, obviously. Just people like yourself
who would be what they are if they smoked pot or didn't.
Birds of a feather....
> One finally admitted to me after she stopped.
>
> I have tried it in High school. I am not good with any drugs thank the
> Gods so I never went past those years using anything. Still, I had
> friends who did and a couple who still do into their 40's and later.
>
> There is a definite brain lag. You just are not seeing it because you
> are the one in it. Like a drunk never thinks they are too drunk to
> drive.
That depends on who you are. You are blaming pot for personality
characteristics that would be there, regardless.
Generally, pot is better for creative things like music and poetry
and painting than it is for intellectual/academic pursuits, but I
have seen many exceptions to this rule.
One of the professionals I mentioned above is a lawyer, for example.
Another is a software engineer and you'd be shocked if you knew
what software he works on.
But only because your opinions about pot are based on propaganda
spawned misconception and experiences with a limited user group.
[delete]
I'd say that Dameus is simply smoking too much and has other issues
that have nothing to do with pot that you want to believe are
caused by the pot.
Drugs are like the Devil for some people: A convenient scapegoat.
And I've never seen anyone who blamed their problems or someone
else's on drugs who wasn't a loser.
Drugs can be a symptom. They are never a cause of the fundamental
problems involved.
Damaeus
Evergreen <sidne...@nospam.invalid> posted:
> aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You may seem fine to you and possibly so do your friends but to those
> > who do not use the drug you are not fine. Hence the term pot head.
>
> Oh brother. The Weed From The Devil's Garden.
>
> Give us a break.
I've often called it the Tree of Knowledge, but there's a big difference
between eating marijuana in the beginning and doing it now.
> > There is a definite brain lag. You just are not seeing it because you
> > are the one in it. Like a drunk never thinks they are too drunk to
> > drive.
>
> That depends on who you are. You are blaming pot for personality
> characteristics that would be there, regardless.
>
> Generally, pot is better for creative things like music and poetry
> and painting than it is for intellectual/academic pursuits, but I
> have seen many exceptions to this rule.
For me, it's good for everything I work on. However, as for academic
pursuits, it has to be a topic I'm truly interested in or I cannot focus
on it. And that's actually a good thing if you are searching for your own
truth. When I was in graphic design school, trying to complete the course
when I had totally lost interest (was far FAR more interested in gnostic
pursuits), I could not focus on my school work. But that was true whether
I was high or not. It turned out that my trip through an online college
had more benefit from the critical thinking class than anything else, but
that was mostly because I already thought critically without knowing it. I
got a 101 in that class. :)
> One of the professionals I mentioned above is a lawyer, for example.
> Another is a software engineer and you'd be shocked if you knew
> what software he works on.
>
> But only because your opinions about pot are based on propaganda
> spawned misconception and experiences with a limited user group.
Yeah, the ones where pot was mixed with alcohol or something. Only drug
I've used is pot, mainly. So I can't judge its effects when combined with
other things, but I do know what happens when you're both high and drunk.
> I'd say that Dameus is simply smoking too much
Huh? What makes you think I smoke too much? I think of myself as a light
smoker, usually only one "bowl" (bowl the size of a dime, about a
half-inch deep. Since I use marijuana to lubricate my thinking, a little
goes a long ways. One bowl makes for pleasant thinking, while three bowls
makes things more chaotic. Not unmanageable, but it's easier to scare
myself. It's because, frankly, I've developed my thinking to the point
that when I think something, I feel it becoming real instantly, and I get
the physiological reactions to the thoughts as if they really are
happening right then in the dream world I can detect while wide awake.
Noinden
> Huh? What makes you think I smoke too much? I think of myself as a light
> smoker, usually only one "bowl" (bowl the size of a dime, about a
> half-inch deep. Since I use marijuana to lubricate my thinking, a little
> goes a long ways. One bowl makes for pleasant thinking, while three bowls
> makes things more chaotic. Not unmanageable, but it's easier to scare
> myself. It's because, frankly, I've developed my thinking to the point
> that when I think something, I feel it becoming real instantly, and I get
> the physiological reactions to the thoughts as if they really are
> happening right then in the dream world I can detect while wide awake.
You are focused on the choice between "giving it up" and "work". Thus
you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
Here area few things you are ignoring.
Like any other drug. THC is addictive. It is why we go back to it. For
me it is Caffeine and Guarana. Others it is ethanol or nicotine. It
seems yours is THC.
Smoking the THC exposes you to carcinogens. Sure you will say less so
than tabacoo. However it is NOT safe.
Anything that takes that amount of focus away from real life,
indicates an addiction
It is however your life. I just do not have to agree with everything
you say.
Hope
>
> You make it sound like pot smokers, when high, are going to act like
> someone on an ecstasy trip at a rave. False.
You make it sound as though the drug testing and laws are all about
marijuana. They aren't. No company I know is saying, "Okay, let's
test to keep the pot smokers out. The other stuff is okay." That is
where *your* interest in the process lies, but there is a lot more to
the picture than that. *I* was not simply talking about marijuana.
>
[...] T>hen World War II came along and the nylon
> ropes just were not fitting the bill. As a result, Congress made it a law
> that farmers MUST grow hemp so the military could get their old, reliable
> ropes back. It was illegal for a farmer not to grow hemp at that time.
> After the war, hemp was made illegal again. So now, I guess we can only
> have legal pot if we need it for war, I say sarcastically.
I agree that the laws are messed up. Hemp is a great natural product
and earth-friendly. And IMO there is no rational reason for alcohol
to be legal and marijuana illegal. There are TONS of studies and all
kinds of evidence about the health dangers and safety issues involved
with alcohol. It costs businesses millions each year in employee
absences, lost productivity, and insurance claims. Drunk driving,
alcohol-fueled abuse...the list goes on. But you can buy it everywhere
and advertisers push it like sexy cologne. Go figure.
[...]
> So your idea that I'm a /total/ moocher is off a bit. (I tend to make
> myself sound shittier than I really am sometimes, it seems.)
1. I did not say you are a total moocher. I was repeating what you
said about your own situation.
2. I have no cause or need to judge your situation. It does not
directly affect me.
3. You asked for input. I gave it. If it was not what you wanted/
needed to hear, you are free to reject it.
> At this moment, I sit here and recognize how much I have changed as a
> person, but I just wonder how much benefit that would be in a work
> environment in a cubicle, office or something.
Any positive changes you have made will be of benefit no matter where
you are and where you go. Sometimes even a casual interface with a
checker at the grocery store can be the ripple that starts a profound
change in that person's life--or yours. Important things don't only
happen in limited high-profile or "spiritual" environments. The whole
universe is a spiritual environment. Even the cubicles.
> I even considered seeing if I could get into a place to work
> with psychopaths to help them sort out their minds and relate it to the
> real world.
You would need specialized training to work in direct care. Positions
for which you would not need training (housekeeping, reception, etc)
would preclude you from direct interaction with the patients.
> I just feel like I could do so many things in so many places,
> deciding where to go to be of the most benefit to people is the hard part.
That is a noble goal. It is also true that if something is of
greatest benefit to you, it will inevitably benefit others as well.
aine
Here is the bad news.
Working within and with peoples psyche and spiritual selves without
specific schooling or training is apt to make people far sicker then
better.
Herbal/naturalpathic remedies along with cleaning and clearing chakras
or Shaman work with soul retrievals.
There were few laws. More getting recognized yet of course they will
go the way of big brother and possibly leave many wonderful Shaman and
Healers displaced in the loop or subject to breaking laws.
Yet, my opinion is that they are needed. Why? Case in point Damaeus
because he brings this up. I would question that his own beliefs are
such in nature that would benefit others outside of them.
There are far too many people in the healing business, that have
demons of their own. Not just pagans but obviously Priests and
mainstream religion.
The minute you allow a "supposed" enlightened person into your psyche'
you open yourself and drop your shields. You allow them in only to
expose yourself to their "demons" so to speak. You could shield but
why would you shield that which you are there to have healed?
Vulnerability to trust is another issue. When you feel the need to
have your chakras cleaned or be in spiritual counceling havinh inner
spirit checked out by healers..you are very vulnerable to
suggestions. You are there because something is not right to begin
with. Not thinking with a clear enlightened mind as some demon illness
(mental, spiritual, physical) attacked you and got in.
A person is not going to be in the right state of mind to decide if
this is a charlatan as Sid says or possibly a person who can indeed
heal but has a complete belief system different then your own views.
Again, back to Damaeus.If he was in a position to talk and make me
better..Im sorry..nothing I believe in has to do with Gods being
little boys or the act of immortality being about freedom of sexual
expression with them. For me, that would be a down right violation of
my spirit. Yet every moment would be open to that which I see as
wrong.
Okay, so, please understand that I do not agree with the statement:
aine
> aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [delete]
> > No, I mean the person who smokes pot perceives themselves different
> > then how they are actually behaving, reacting and able to function
> > clearly.
>
> I know quite a few professionals who smoke an incredible amount of
> very potent bud. They are very good at their jobs and no one but
> their closest friends know they smoke the stuff.<
Ah so I am out of the killfile when you need to make a point.
I know alot of drunks that were able to drive home. No one knew but
their closest friends that were still at the bar drinking!
> I'm talking about people with very important and demanding jobs.<
Because you know so many important people. Famous too? Bush drank.
>
> > You may seem fine to you and possibly so do your friends but to those
> > who do not use the drug you are not fine. Hence the term pot head.
>
> Oh brother. The Weed From The Devil's Garden.
>
> Give us a break.<
Us? Okay so you are one of them. Point in case. Everyone can see what
a dick you are and you can't or won't.
Not especially a good arguement for it Sid.
> > I have known all kinds. Heavy daily users, recreational users and not
> > one of them saw themselves as the rest of the world.
>
> You have not known all kinds, obviously. Just people like yourself
> who would be what they are if they smoked pot or didn't.<
Again with the knowing peoples lives.
>
> Birds of a feather....<
>
> > One finally admitted to me after she stopped.
>
> > I have tried it in High school. I am not good with any drugs thank the
> > Gods so I never went past those years using anything. Still, I had
> > friends who did and a couple who still do into their 40's and later.
>
> > There is a definite brain lag. You just are not seeing it because you
> > are the one in it. Like a drunk never thinks they are too drunk to
> > drive.
>
> That depends on who you are. You are blaming pot for personality
> characteristics that would be there, regardless.<
No, they aren't. Try again.
>
> Generally, pot is better for creative things like music and poetry
> and painting than it is for intellectual/academic pursuits, but I
> have seen many exceptions to this rule.<
No you have not.
>
> One of the professionals I mentioned above is a lawyer, for example.
> Another is a software engineer and you'd be shocked if you knew
> what software he works on.<
Why would I be shocked? You and ren both have this notion everyone is
impressed by fame, fortune and high visibility important people. I am
not.
>
> But only because your opinions about pot are based on propaganda
> spawned misconception and experiences with a limited user group.<
I do not think pot belongs in the work force any more then I want a
drunk at one. I even think cold medication and mood altering drugs are
dangerous like anti depressants.
Yep, that includes me. The laws of them is not my point. Make pot
legal like alcohol. Fine. Make alcohol illegal fine, I will conform. I
still don't agree they are okay in the work force or out there
driving. If my job came down to you can not have a glass of wine
before bedtime or be fired. I would give up that glass of wine.
Simple. Life simply is not that difficult.
>
> [delete]
>
> I'd say that Dameus is simply smoking too much and has other issues
> that have nothing to do with pot that you want to believe are
> caused by the pot.<
No, sid silly, Damaeus brought up the pot. It is what this thread is
about.
>
> Drugs are like the Devil for some people: A convenient scapegoat.<
At this point it would be better for you to use drugs as a scapegoat
then the alternative that you are just this way.
> And I've never seen anyone who blamed their problems or someone
> else's on drugs who wasn't a loser.<
So far, you are the only one who has connected Damaeus problems to
pot. Not to anyones surprise. We all have you pegged as a loser.
>
> Drugs can be a symptom. They are never a cause of the fundamental
> problems involved.<
In your case?
Hope
>
> > That is a noble goal. It is also true that if something is of
> > greatest benefit to you, it will inevitably benefit others as well.<
>
> Here is the bad news.
>
> Working within and with peoples psyche and spiritual selves without
> specific schooling or training is apt to make people far sicker then
> better.
Yes. And it can make you sick as well.
>
> Herbal/naturalpathic remedies along with cleaning and clearing chakras
> or Shaman work with soul retrievals.
>
> There were few laws. More getting recognized yet of course they will
> go the way of big brother and possibly leave many wonderful Shaman and
> Healers displaced in the loop or subject to breaking laws.
>
> Yet, my opinion is that they are needed. Why? Case in point Damaeus
> because he brings this up. I would question that his own beliefs are
> such in nature that would benefit others outside of them.
>
> There are far too many people in the healing business, that have
> demons of their own. Not just pagans but obviously Priests and
> mainstream religion.
I agree. It has become something of a cliche that the most
conflicted, troubled college students major in psychology. Many
people choose professions based on what *they* subconsciously need.
>
> The minute you allow a "supposed" enlightened person into your psyche'
> you open yourself and drop your shields. You allow them in only to
> expose yourself to their "demons" so to speak. You could shield but
> why would you shield that which you are there to have healed?
>
> Vulnerability to trust is another issue. When you feel the need to
> have your chakras cleaned or be in spiritual counceling havinh inner
> spirit checked out by healers..you are very vulnerable to
> suggestions. You are there because something is not right to begin
> with. Not thinking with a clear enlightened mind as some demon illness
> (mental, spiritual, physical) attacked you and got in.
>
> A person is not going to be in the right state of mind to decide if
> this is a charlatan as Sid says or possibly a person who can indeed
> heal but has a complete belief system different then your own views.
Then how can one know who is the right person to go to for help? You
did say you believe healers are necessary, and we tend not to go to
them when we don't feel the need for help in healing ourselves. Are
you saying we should seek them out for the equivalent of "wellness
checkups," or maybe just schedule a visit to talk to them when we
don't really *need* to? Then when we do have a need, we don't have to
make the choice when we are at less than our best as far as spotting
who is *not* right for us?
>
> Again, back to Damaeus.If he was in a position to talk and make me
> better..Im sorry..nothing I believe in has to do with Gods being
> little boys or the act of immortality being about freedom of sexual
> expression with them. For me, that would be a down right violation of
> my spirit. Yet every moment would be open to that which I see as
> wrong.
Well that's some new info for me, and I gotta say, I wouldn't be
comfortable with that either. At all.
>
> Okay, so, please understand that I do not agree with the statement:
>
Your points are valid. I did not make the point I thought I was
making. When Damaeus said that his dilemma was in deciding was in
deciding what would benefit the most people, as opposed to what he
would be best suited for, or most content with, it reminded me of
people who think they need to suffer for the good of humanity. There
is a certain mindset that feels things have to be hard, or you have to
be making some kind of sacrifice, in order for what you're doing to be
worthwhile.
I used to be inclined that way myself. But I have realized that's not
the case. If you are doing what makes you feel happy, or lets you
feel in balance and on good terms with life--whether that is making
sculptures out of garbage or sticking kanibly pins in a hole on an
assembly line all day, or flipping burgers at a fast food joint--then
then you spread that happiness and balance to everybody else by adding
to the positive energy in your environment.
It's not an either/or deal, either I can feel good or make other
people feel good. "Follow your bliss" is a bit simplistic. But
that's sorta what I was trying to say. Life does not need for
*everyone* to be a doctor/healer/President. How long would it take
the system to break down without the truck drivers and plumbers?
Sorry that didn't come across.
Damaeus
Noinden <huath...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 12, 9:56 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Huh? What makes you think I smoke too much? I think of myself as a light
> > smoker, usually only one "bowl" (bowl the size of a dime, about a
> > half-inch deep. Since I use marijuana to lubricate my thinking, a little
> > goes a long ways. One bowl makes for pleasant thinking, while three bowls
> > makes things more chaotic. Not unmanageable, but it's easier to scare
> > myself. It's because, frankly, I've developed my thinking to the point
> > that when I think something, I feel it becoming real instantly, and I get
> > the physiological reactions to the thoughts as if they really are
> > happening right then in the dream world I can detect while wide awake.
>
> You are focused on the choice between "giving it up" and "work". Thus
> you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
> my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
I spout experience, not dogma. And I also spout what has been told of
history when I see a reason, but mostly I speak from experience.
> Here area few things you are ignoring.
>
> Like any other drug. THC is addictive.
So is caffeine. Why make THC illegal? Your point has been mooted.
> It is why we go back to it. For me it is Caffeine and Guarana.
> Others it is ethanol or nicotine. It seems yours is THC.
But your choices are legal. Mine are not. That's the problem. If the
only reason you're against THC is because it's addictive, you can't also
say that it should be illegal. As for it being addictive, why does it
matter? If the consumption of marijuana provides more pleasure in life
than going without, why would one want to keep it out of their lives? Cats
return to catnip, humans return to marijuana. There's no universal law
that forbids that kind of behavior. There are even Bible verses that
support the use of "herbs" for those who are sick. And if you're not
immortal, you're sick. You're living in a cycle of death and rebirth,
even as you go to sleep and reawaken.
> Smoking the THC exposes you to carcinogens. Sure you will say less so
> than tabacoo. However it is NOT safe.
Still a choice, however. And if, as I claim, marijuana is beneficial
toward immortality, then the consumption of carcinogens is a non-issue.
You simply refrain from cigarettes (which provide a 10-15 minute buzz) and
instead smoke pot (3-4 hour buzz). When I smoked cigarettes, I'd go
through a pack a day. With pot, I'd go through the equivalent of a pack
in two weeks. Your carcinogen point has been mooted since you need less
pot than tobacco to get an effect.
> Anything that takes that amount of focus away from real life,
> indicates an addiction
Cannabis is part of real life. It grows on the planet where everyone can
see it. What creates a fantasy is when law makers try to pretend that
marijuana should not exist, and they try to keep it out of the hands of
us. The prohibition of pot and other drugs creates the conditions that
allow gang wars and drive-by shootings related to drugs. It creates
domestic violence when one person invades another person's stash of dope.
When prohibition of alcohol was ended, it did a lot to stave of Mafia
violence. There's no reason to believe that ending the prohibition of
recreational drugs would not reduce violent crimes. People who want crack
don't steal because they're on crack. They steal because crack is
expensive, ten dollars per rock as far as I know. I've never actually
used it, but I only know of others who have bought it. I dunno what it's
like to be on crack. I've just heard it's probably the most addictive. It
must put them on the doorway of heaven, then, or it removes them from the
reconciliation of the two realms.
> It is however your life. I just do not have to agree with everything
> you say.
Of course not. I just like to present my views. It would be nice to see
opinions changed to be more flexible, more tolerant, more understanding.
But in a world where we have not had truly legal pot in most of our
lifetimes, I think it's foolish to continue to insist that pot remain
illegal when it would be much better to legalize it and see which problems
go away and which new problems surface. Obviously keeping pot illegal
isn't going to stop pot consumption, so it makes more sense to just make
it legal to put armed drug dealers out of business, thereby reducing
street violence, then the new problems (if any) that surface from legal
pot might have solutions that are less intrusive and truly more beneficial
to everyone.
Evergreen
> On Feb 12, 4:42=A0am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [delete]
>> > No, I mean the person who smokes pot perceives themselves different
>> > then how they are actually behaving, reacting and able to function
>> > clearly.
>>
>> I know quite a few professionals who smoke an incredible amount of
>> very potent bud. They are very good at their jobs and no one but
>> their closest friends know they smoke the stuff.<
>
> Ah so I am out of the killfile when you need to make a point.
It's my killfile. I move people in and out and to different stages
in it as I choose. I don't consult you or anyone when I make these
decisions.
Duh.
But I can see from this first sentence of yours that you are just
going to play the bitch again, so I've simply deleted the rest.
I made my point and you can't do anything about it except post
shit for someone else to smell.
Ren's supporters are all very creepy people. Like this loser.
She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
her anus mouth.
[delete]
Evergreen
The way to not-do anything is to do something else.
Evergreen
> On Feb 12, 9:09=A0am, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 12:27=A0am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> >=A0I even considered seeing if I could get into a place to work
>> > with psychopaths to help them sort out their minds and relate it to the
>>
>> You would need specialized training to work in direct care. =A0Positions
>> for which you would not need training (housekeeping, reception, etc)
>> would preclude you from direct interaction with the patients.
>>
>> > I just feel like I could do so many things in so many places,
> rt.
>>
>> That is a noble goal. =A0It is also true that if something is of
Listening to an ignorant fool like you is a good way for Damaeus to
become truly messed up.
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 12, 4:42 am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of the professionals I mentioned above is a lawyer, for example.
> > Another is a software engineer and you'd be shocked if you knew
> > what software he works on.<
>
> Why would I be shocked? You and ren both have this notion everyone is
> impressed by fame, fortune and high visibility important people. I am
> not.
I've had to admit a certain degree of jealousy in myself when I've found
it. Jealous of actors who seem to have such a fun and fantastic time on
the set making movies (and lots of money), then it's all displayed on
television for us at home to watch while our dreary lives play on, not as
exciting as those on television. My life is getting more exciting,
though, in what goes on in my head and how it affects my interactions with
others. I don't feel actors are any more important than anyone else, but
if I met some, I don't know how I'd react. Probably depends on them. I
might be amused if they're big-headed, or tickled if they're down-homey. I
met the co-host of the 700 Club when I worked for Pizza Hut in Virginia
Beach/Chesapeake. I was a little giddier than I thought I'd be, but I
don't think I overreacted like the reactions of sitcom actors when a
famous actor plays him/herself on the show.
I just recognized her in there paying for a pizza, Terry Meeuwsen:
http://www.cbn.com/700club/ShowInfo/Staff/terrymeeuwsen.aspx
I was working there at the time. I opened my mouth a little to say
something and sort of shook my finger up and down like I recognized her
and was about to ask if she was on the 700 Club. She started nodding her
head before I made a sound, like she's often recognized. I didn't want to
hang around and slobber over her, as happy as I was to have seen her in
person. I just saw that she knew what my question was going to be, so I
just said, "Aw, I bet you hear that all the time." That question would
have been, "Hey, aren't you on the 700 Club?" Well, I wandered to the
back since I had no other business being up there, and it would have been
rude, I thought, to hang around and make someone be a celebrity when she's
just trying to get dinner for the family. Anyway, I was apparently the
only one who recognized her in the whole place. I had to tell the manager
who she was, and his only words were, "Do I look like I watch the 700
Club?" He was a greasy man with long hair, a fun asshole to work with,
you know, and he was a white man with a "big black woman" as a girlfriend.
So it made his 700 Club comment that much more applicable. He once said
of me and another driver, "You're both gay. One is just more butch than
the other."
> > But only because your opinions about pot are based on propaganda
> > spawned misconception and experiences with a limited user group.<
>
> I do not think pot belongs in the work force any more then I want a
> drunk at one. I even think cold medication and mood altering drugs are
> dangerous like anti depressants.
>
> Yep, that includes me. The laws of them is not my point. Make pot
> legal like alcohol. Fine. Make alcohol illegal fine, I will conform.
Well, I have misigivings about making anything illegal. On one hand,
yeah, I guess it's good that not just anybody can go to Wal-Mart and buy
dynamite and nuclear warheads. But since I know I can drive high, but I
also know that I cannot drive while drunk on alcohol and high at the same
time, and since I know that there are drunk-driving accidents, I think
it'd be better to have pot legal rather than alcohol. But you rarely hear
of accidents where the driver was /just/ high without there also being
some other wild circumstance involved that would have affected any driver,
high, drunk or sober, perhaps even professional.
I don't know what the actual attitude was toward pot in the early 1900s. I
remember watching television and I always related pot smoking to black
people. They just seemed to be portrayed that way. And there was always
the black jazz musician who smoked pot. And think of how it goes. You've
got a beer-drinking honky tonker in bar room brawls, or you've got black,
pot-smoking jazz musicians in lively, but peaceful jazz bars. Pot bad for
you? I'd rather go to a jazz room than a honky tonk, though I'd visit
both.
Pot smokers at Woodstock? Or beer drinkers at Euro 2000?
http://www.web-recon.com/drugs/cannabis/euro2000.html
The video might be a little dark. I captured it, of course, back in 2000,
and was using a monitor on its last legs, so the gamma might be messed up.
You can adjust that, of course. But it's a good illustration of what
happens when people are allowed to get drunk, but not high. Contrast that
with the soccer tournament held in the Netherlands, I believe it was, that
same year, or the year after. They decided not to allow alcohol, but they
allowed pot instead. After the tournament, and during, there was no
violence, but a peaceful departure. There was one small scuffle, I
believe, involving three or four teenagers, but nothing that could have
been blamed on cannabis.
> I still don't agree they are okay in the work force or out there
> driving. If my job came down to you can not have a glass of wine
> before bedtime or be fired. I would give up that glass of wine.
> Simple. Life simply is not that difficult.
Obey, always? I can understand that. I obey the speed limit, especially
since I'm on someone else's insurance right now, and I don't want to be
blamed for any rate increases. I didn't speed on my own policy for the
same reasons. I wanted to keep my insurance premiums down. I don't walk
on the grass when the sign says not to. I'm quiet in the library. What
it all boils down to is that I'm respectful of other people. You really
don't even have to worry about what the law is if you're respectful of
other people. For example, if I'm driving along at 70 miles an hour, and
I see a bunch of driveways on both sides of the highway, with so many
mailboxes that I feel I'm going 90-100, even though my speedometer says
70, I slow down, for my own peace of mind as I want to avoid running into
anybody coming out of a driveway. There have been times when I've slowed
down to speeds slower than the posted limit. I'm not perfect at obeying
the speed limit. The converse also happens. I'll be in an area where 45
seems about right, then I'll find a SPEED LIMIT 35 sign.
I can understand the need for conformity within your lifescape. If your
employer demands short hair, you wear it short to have a job you want to
keep. My only gripe is that I know if I'm not high when I go to work,
I'll be at least as competent as anyone else there. So what I do while
I'm in my off time, even if it's getting high, should not interfere with
my getting a job, since I can have cannabinoids in my system for a month
without being high the whole time. In effect, what they're trying to tell
us with not hiring pot smokers is that if you smoked a joint on March 1,
you're still high on March 30, I can only say, keep dreaming. If I smoke
a joint after work, go to sleep, and wake up and go to work without
smoking again, I'm not high. I'm up and ready for work, probably with a
more relaxed mind than someone who hasn't been smoking. I dunno. I
always felt more mentally refreshed when I worked a 5pm-9pm/12am job. I'd
get off work, stay up all night getting high, then go to sleep around 6am
or 7am, wake up around 4pm for work feeling very refreshed, both mentally
and physically. I noticed this difference between what it felt like
getting up each day for work before I started smoking pot and afterward.
Even when I'm not high, the world seems to flow more smoothly, people seem
calmer, and so I'm calmer as a result. You see this in public with
others. One who is agitated and in a bad mood thinks that everyone else
is out to make her day worse than it already is. Given that pot smokers
are known to be more mellow than the average bear, it only makes sense
that they would see everyone else as mellow, too, hence their decreased
tendency to become violent when things don't go exactly as they wanted.
> > And I've never seen anyone who blamed their problems or someone
> > else's on drugs who wasn't a loser.<
>
> So far, you are the only one who has connected Damaeus problems to
> pot. Not to anyones surprise. We all have you pegged as a loser.
We have our problems, and we each have our unique situations that bring
about unique problems. Of course we make our own decisions. I read the
messages here, and I can recognize good advice when I see it. If the
advice provided by someone else is silly within the perception derived
from my mind's current state and personal goals, of course I won't follow
it. I might stop smoking pot long enough to get a job (pass the drug
test), but I wouldn't let that employment stop my smoking of pot. I'd
start smoking again right after passing the drug test. If I lose the job
to a future test, I'd then work to defend myself. I'd ask what specific
behavior of mine is resulting in my termination after telling them that I
stopped smoking to get the job, and started again because it's my right. A
company shouldn't be able to use just a positive-for-cannabis drug test as
a reason for firing someone if no specific behavior or on-the-job
accidents can be blamed on the person. Some of us have "religious
sacraments" that we engage in, despite what the law says. We just do it
hoping we won't get caught. That others do not believe that marijuana
opens the mind to "hear God" more clearly doesn't matter to those who do
believe. For us to stop smoking pot would be like giving in to someone
ordering us to burn our Bibles, or burn down our churches. Cannabis is
the door to my personal church of the poisoned mind. It's the antidote to
the poisonous ideas of the past impeding progressive thoughts of the
future and improved lifespans, up into immortality. If I believe pot will
help open mental doorways to immortality, I would be crazy not to smoke it
in this lifetime if what happens after death is in question.
That I can write about this with such a voice of certainty while meeting
such resistance to the curiosity about it is amazing. I wonder how many
pot smokers believe they might be "ascending" to a higher form of
existence, but never talk about it. Maybe I'm just more vocal than others
because I don't care if I sound like a lunatic while talking about what I
believe. Others seem to want to remain within a clique with a band of
friends, I suppose. They might have their own thoughts, but withhold
those that seem too revealing of their true nature. I can understand
that. I mitigate my own outbursts, myself. I've had dreams and fantasies
of what I'm becoming, but have, in the past, tried to reserve that for
more appropriate conversations, feeling that the mind is the key to
transformation, but allowing the mind to exist and act in more places than
just around the head. I feel I know what'll happen to my body during the
transformation, but until I actually see more happening, it feels hasty to
talk much about it. Priorities are still in question. What comes first?
Society's problems, then transformation, or transformation, itself, to
help society's problems? If I can become publicly immortal, it would
solve lots of problems when I talk about how I did it. But maybe there's
some "order" to this madness. Since being immortal is so much fun, I have
this feeling of "You muust clean your room and make your bed before you
can play" feeling. Like I'm expecting some wave of guilt about being
immortal before anyone else. I don't want that, but I think a physical
transformation would get some degree of media attention. A 38-year-old
man getting younger instead of older? People would notice that, I think.
Damaeus
Hope <hollera...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 12, 12:27 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You make it sound like pot smokers, when high, are going to act like
> > someone on an ecstasy trip at a rave. False.
>
> You make it sound as though the drug testing and laws are all about
> marijuana. They aren't. No company I know is saying, "Okay, let's
> test to keep the pot smokers out. The other stuff is okay." That is
> where *your* interest in the process lies, but there is a lot more to
> the picture than that. *I* was not simply talking about marijuana.
So was I. One place I applied I specifically asked if they would not hire
someone who tested positive for marijuana. They said yes unless I have a
prescription for it. But the federal government raids and takes the
license of any doctors who even recommend, under the table, the
consumption of marijuana, so getting a prescription is probably not going
to happen in Texas. Pizza Hut doesn't drug test, but I'm sick of working
at Pizza Hut. Sick of getting in and out of the car 40-50 times a night
in the rain and thunderstorms, even for tipless assholes.
> [...] T>hen World War II came along and the nylon
> > ropes just were not fitting the bill. As a result, Congress made it
> > a law that farmers MUST grow hemp so the military could get their old,
> > reliable ropes back. It was illegal for a farmer not to grow hemp at
> > that time. After the war, hemp was made illegal again. So now, I
> > guess we can only have legal pot if we need it for war, I say
> > sarcastically.
>
> I agree that the laws are messed up. Hemp is a great natural product
> and earth-friendly. And IMO there is no rational reason for alcohol
> to be legal and marijuana illegal. There are TONS of studies and all
> kinds of evidence about the health dangers and safety issues involved
> with alcohol. It costs businesses millions each year in employee
> absences, lost productivity, and insurance claims. Drunk driving,
> alcohol-fueled abuse...the list goes on. But you can buy it everywhere
> and advertisers push it like sexy cologne. Go figure.
Yeah. I'd like to see racks of marijuana which I know is clean, treated
properly, hasn't been sprayed with dangerous insectisides, etc... and
which is sold in varieties so I know exactly what I'm getting. Not all
highs are the same, it seems, and when buying from a street dealer, unless
you know someone who specializes in strains, you just get "pot" and
whatever your dealer has is what you get. Sometimes I get popcorn,
sometimes I get hydro, sometimes I get chronic, sometimes I get plain old
street weed, and one time I got some stuff that was $100 for four grams.
Dealer said he smoked one joint and was high all day. They came in little
dingleberries about the size of filberts, and when crushed, they become a
powder.
> > So your idea that I'm a /total/ moocher is off a bit. (I tend to make
> > myself sound shittier than I really am sometimes, it seems.)
>
> 1. I did not say you are a total moocher. I was repeating what you
> said about your own situation.
> 2. I have no cause or need to judge your situation. It does not
> directly affect me.
> 3. You asked for input. I gave it. If it was not what you wanted/
> needed to hear, you are free to reject it.
Of course. I was just clarifying a little.
> > At this moment, I sit here and recognize how much I have changed as a
> > person, but I just wonder how much benefit that would be in a work
> > environment in a cubicle, office or something.
>
> Any positive changes you have made will be of benefit no matter where
> you are and where you go. Sometimes even a casual interface with a
> checker at the grocery store can be the ripple that starts a profound
> change in that person's life--or yours.
Exactly my point. I know that happens. I know there are people who keep
ten dollars too much change when they get it, even if they've already got
a pocket stuffed with cash. Yet if I get ten dollars too much change, I
give it back, even if I've only got change left in my own pocket. My
presence on the other side of the counter is better than that of a thief.
Have I kept change, sometimes? Yeah. Honestly, it depends on my mood. At
times when I feel cheated by the way economics works in the country, and
I'm at Wal-Mart, I'll not tell the checker if I check the receipt and see
that I was only charged for four yogurts instead of five. There are times
when I would, but one shouldn't have to go into debt just to have a place
to live. In such a world, what one does depends on mood and whims of the
moment, and all should be taken into account during any judgments cast on
him.
As for work, if my interactions with others have benefit for me and
others, if I'm going to be of benefit to others, I'd rather get into a
line of work that makes that possible, such as increased interactions with
people, not stuck stocking a shelf all by myself for most of the night,
and supervised by a boss who only happens to walk by right when I have to
stop for a moment to either take a breath or consider a shelf and how
something should be stocked. He then stops to ask why I'm not moving. I
then look like a slacker in his eyes and must overcome his overbearing
bosshood. I don't like being told my manual labor is "unacceptable" when
no circumstances are taken into account when deciding I'm a shitty
stocker, especially when I had done fine on other nights, but had a bad
one in which new items came in, or such huge messes were made of existing
stock that they had to be straightened out before new stock could be put
out. Anyway, I don't know what kind of job is available that requires
increased communication besides some kind of job in which what you think
and what you say is actually considered important. If you can't get that
kind of job, then only thing you're wanted for is your muscles and your
ability to move items from one location to another.
> Important things don't only happen in limited high-profile or
> "spiritual" environments. The whole universe is a spiritual
> environment. Even the cubicles.
>
> > I even considered seeing if I could get into a place to work with
> > psychopaths to help them sort out their minds and relate it to the
> > real world.
>
> You would need specialized training to work in direct care.
Yes, and that's the problem. I believe that specialized training is
bullshit. It tries to categorize ranges of behaviors and label those
categories as manic-depressive, schizophrenia, schizoaffective, paranoia,
psychopathy, narcissism, etc... But it's all one and the same mind.
They're all combined, but professional psychiatry, staffed by people who
have often not experienced psychosis, are trying to make judgments about
other people's minds based on their external behavior. The psychiatrist's
job is to try to make the mentally ill behave like people who are not
mentally ill, which is where prescriptions come in. There's a different
drug to mitigate different behaviors. But all those conditions are
connected aspects of one mind. All combined and working harmoniously they
/are/ a spiritual awakening. But the mentally ill have been convinced
they are mentally ill, so they accept that they are not normal and have a
disease, and so they remain shameful of their own imaginations, unwilling
to explore it because they're convinced that it's sick. But I've found
that the shadows of our minds are caused by the light beyond the ideas
that cause the shadows to be possible in the first place. Explore the
ideas that create the shadows and more light is cast upon your mind to
clear up the behavior you don't like in yourself and replace it with
behaviors that bring you self-love and self-acceptance as you are right
now.
> Positions for which you would not need training (housekeeping,
> reception, etc) would preclude you from direct interaction with the
> patients.
Hmmm. Possibly. However, if I were there, the statements I make, or the
stories I tell about having gone through psychosis without medication
might give psychiatrists some insight on how to work with their patients
more effectively. I just want to do something that actually matters
somehow. I feel like I was a courteous pizza delivery driver, but there's
only so much love and understanding you can exude when saying, "Large
Supreme, that'll be $17.31. Do you need cheese and peppers? Thanks, have
a nice day." I'd rather say something to someone that helps them see
their own situation in a different way that improves their experience now
so that looking forward to tomorrow brings a sense of excitement, not
dread nor drudgery.
> > I just feel like I could do so many things in so many places, deciding
> > where to go to be of the most benefit to people is the hard part.
>
> That is a noble goal. It is also true that if something is of
> greatest benefit to you, it will inevitably benefit others as well.
Yeah. Going back to pizza delivery would not be good for me, I don't
think. I thought about graphic design, too, since I have had training for
that. I thought maybe there might be something I could convey through
graphic design, but that idea turns my stomach now. I must have people
interaction, in which people interaction is my main job, not operating
equipment nor distributing items near nor far.
I don't mind being made to take the time to prove myself wherever I go,
but I want to be exposed to problems that need solutions. "Think outside
the box" is an idea I like. But how far outside the box do you think when
delivering pizza or stocking shelves. Yet all that time doing menial work
frees the mind to think about a lot of things, since those jobs don't
require thought. I want to find a place where thinkers are wanted, even
if going in as a "free intern" just to see what I say. This isn't to say
that "I have what it takes" but just to find out if I do. If I try it and
find that I don't have it, so be it. I just can't help feeling that I do,
but having not the means to try it.
Posting messages on usenet is a different thing. I know when I'm
misunderstood. This is just text. There's no body language or voice to
judge here. Just text, which causes your own imagination to be flooded
with the best impressions you can get from the text you read. If you're
more likely to be skeptical that the person you're reading really
understands what he's talking about, you're more likely to be skeptical of
the validity of his own perception of himself, and more likely to either
disagree or suggest things that the other person has already thought of
and rejected based on personal circumstances. In other words, nobody
understands me like I understand myself, but only from their own
perspectives. All I can do is weigh feedback with feelings and make
choices from there.
aine
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:42+AKA-am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One of the professionals I mentioned above is a lawyer, for example.
> > > Another is a software engineer and you'd be shocked if you knew
> > > what software he works on.<
>
> > Why would I be shocked? You and ren both have this notion everyone is
> > impressed by fame, fortune and high visibility important people. I am
> > not.
>
> I've had to admit a certain degree of jealousy in myself when I've found
> it. Jealous of actors who seem to have such a fun and fantastic time on
> the set making movies<
I imagine it can be drudgery like any other job. If it were so great
why the amount of suicides and actors on drugs, anti depressants?
> (and lots of money),<
Depends if that is your happiness and where it lies. I am all for
having enough for basic needs and the things that make a person happy
and calm. For me that is garden things.
I don't need, big fancy, mass stuff and the ability to travel whenever
or where ever.
>then it's all displayed on
> television for us at home to watch while our dreary lives play on, not as
> exciting as those on television. <
I like my life.The lives on TV are Knock knock..pretend!!!
> My life is getting more exciting,
> though, in what goes on in my head and how it affects my interactions with
> others. <
I get excited seeing my raccoon. I always interact with people with
excitement even if I cannot stand the behavior of most people. I may
hermit but I do not impose a bad mood on people even if I would prefer
to be digging holes in the earth. Even then I am chatty with the
spirits. Laugh with them, at myself. Get excited and celebrate with
the trees that they have grown a new ring.
> I don't feel actors are any more important than anyone else, but
> if I met some, I don't know how I'd react. <
How you would react? If they hold no importance over anyone else to
you I imagine you would say hello and be on your way with yourself.
Possibly ignore them?
> Probably depends on them. <
Meaning? I find it amusing to think that they would even want to be
reacting to you. Why would they be anything other then just them to
you if they would react at all?
> might be amused if they're big-headed, or tickled if they're down-
homey.<
Yet they hold no importance? Would you be tickled if Joe Blow in front
of them ordering pizza was homey or big headed?
> met the co-host of the 700 Club when I worked for Pizza Hut in Virginia
> Beach/Chesapeake. I was a little giddier than I thought I'd be, but I
> don't think I overreacted like the reactions of sitcom actors when a
> famous actor plays him/herself on the show.
>
> I just recognized her in there paying for a pizza, Terry Meeuwsen:
>
> http://www.cbn.com/700club/ShowInfo/Staff/terrymeeuwsen.aspx<
Ah...um... okay..lol.
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 12, 6:26 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > I've had to admit a certain degree of jealousy in myself when I've
> > found it. Jealous of actors who seem to have such a fun and
> > fantastic time on the set making movies<
>
> I imagine it can be drudgery like any other job. If it were so great
> why the amount of suicides and actors on drugs, anti depressants?
LOL, well, there are stories. But most of the actors are still around.
Henry Fonda was an actor for decades and died of old age, not drug use.
Same for Katharine Hepburn. We only hear of the River Phoenixes, the
Jonathan Brandises (hung himself, don't know about drugs), the Brad
Renfros. But David Cassidy is still around, same for Shawn. Kiss is
still around, though I think they have claimed not to use drugs.
I think the drug use among actors is probably about the same as drug use
among the general population. Some are on them, some aren't. But I'm
talking about the ones who just look like they're having a good time--the
mature actors, I guess you could say. Christopher Lloyd. Meryl Streep.
Ron Howard. Rob Reiner. Penny Marshall. They have a lot more fun, it
seems, at their work than your Wal-Mart clerks and postal workers.
However, I imagine it's still hard work. I've not been on a real set to
see what actually happens. I've only learned a few things about it
through acting classes, and seeing how takes go, how direction goes,
etc... I dunno. I'm thinking about going to the local community theater
to see what's going on, to see if anything is happening that I might be
interested in doing. I've changed a lot since I was in acting school. I'm
not as shy as I used to be. My teacher was impressed with some of my
stuff back then. Maybe I'd do even better now.
I felt for one guy who came in during a class thinking he would be getting
private lessons in acting, all by himself. I once thought that would be
nice, too, but never checked into it. Then when I was in a class when
this guy came in, I thought, "Well, you certainly shouldn't be too shy to
act in front of a class if you're taking classes to act in front of crowds
and cameras. Getting private lessons in acting is like trying to be a
movie star with home movies on America's Funniest Videos.
So while I wasn't ready to even get into auditions last time (I felt that
food and shelter were more important), this time I've really got nothing
else going on. I've got all the free time I want, so I might explore that
for a while until I'm ready to go back to work. Gives me a chance to get
around people, too. I wanted contact with others, and this might be just
the thing I need. A season of acting in community theater. :D
> > (and lots of money),<
>
> Depends if that is your happiness and where it lies. I am all for
> having enough for basic needs and the things that make a person happy
> and calm. For me that is garden things.
If I could grow two pot plants, my problems would be over. Being high
takes the edge of the drudgery through things you don't otherwise like
doing. It's much more fun to vacuum the rug high than not high.
> I don't need, big fancy, mass stuff and the ability to travel whenever
> or where ever.
I always thought that, even though I wanted it. I'd walk through
Dillard's and see a nice bedroom suite. I've never had one. I've just
had bits and pieces of furniture I've kept, or just used wherever I've
lived. I always figured that if I'm ever going to acquire anything like
that, I'd wait until I finally find the place where I want to light with a
greater sense of permanence. I don't mind moving some, but I don't want
to move a house load of furniture every time. So even at 38, I've still
not settled in any one place, so I have no furniture of my own, yet I have
a full bedroom suite I'm using since it was my roommate's grandmother's
when she was alive. He inherited the house and everything in it.
> > My life is getting more exciting, though, in what goes on in my head
> > and how it affects my interactions with others. <
>
> I get excited seeing my raccoon. I always interact with people with
> excitement even if I cannot stand the behavior of most people. I may
> hermit but I do not impose a bad mood on people even if I would prefer
> to be digging holes in the earth. Even then I am chatty with the
> spirits. Laugh with them, at myself. Get excited and celebrate with
> the trees that they have grown a new ring.
Same here. I'm a hermit when I want to be, and I go out, too, sometimes
just to be around people and listen to the multitude of voices, outcrys,
and laughter of Wal-Mart, listening to that environment in the same way I
listen to the wind, or listen to the wafting soundwaves of silence, and
the whispering spirits that creep through the room, the soft voice from
the heavens, and the "boices", you could comically say, the boyish voices
of angels.
> > I don't feel actors are any more important than anyone else, but
> > if I met some, I don't know how I'd react. <
>
> How you would react? If they hold no importance over anyone else to
> you I imagine you would say hello and be on your way with yourself.
> Possibly ignore them?
Yes, I say that I would. It depends on the circumstance. If I find
myself in a spontaneous interaction with them, it's fine. I interact with
them like I would with anyone. I've done this with a couple of people who
are famous already, with spontaneous interactions. It's not a big deal to
me, but again, it would depend on the actor and how they act toward me, of
course. If Jim Carrey came across my path acting like he does in Ace
Ventura, I might say, "Damn, you just can't control yourself, can you?"
But if he was just wandering around not wanting to make a scene, and we
made eye contact, I would tip my head toward him with a knowing grin and
go about my way. If he wanted to talk to me, I'd stop. But since I don't
know him personally, I have no business even stopping to actually say
anything to him. I'd have that attitude toward anybody I know via
television and movies only. If I seem more approachable than the average
fan and they feel compelled, I'm open to it. But I wouldn't stop and ask
for autographs.
> > Probably depends on them. <
>
> Meaning? I find it amusing to think that they would even want to be
> reacting to you. Why would they be anything other then just them to
> you if they would react at all?
I'd repeat the same paragraph as above, but we've covered that topic.
> > might be amused if they're big-headed, or tickled if they're down-
> homey.<
>
> Yet they hold no importance? Would you be tickled if Joe Blow in front
> of them ordering pizza was homey or big headed?
We're comparing apples to oranges. Joe Blow isn't known by the country,
much less the world. Arnold Schwartzeneggar, on the other hand, is widely
known, and while I can't expect anything else but for the man to be
himself, since he knows /he/ is famous, and has to deal with fans and
crowds of people professionally, when he's at his home, he's on his own
turf, where he lives. Depending on the "celebrity status" of the person,
he might expect to be treated like a king by all visitors, or he might
expect to be treated like Joe Blow. I will not worship an actor who
demands to be thanked in a certain way for his glorious business, though I
might humor him with a performance to make a graceful exit.
For example, some guy who seemed to have the attitude of a school
administrator, coach or teacher got a pizza delivery from me once. I
can't remember the precise conversation, but it's a habit for me to say
thanks after doing a transaction, so I can't imagine not having said it to
this man. He followed up with a thanks, and I said, "No problem," as I
recall. He was offended by that. Now I'm 38, he's probably in his 40s,
not too much older than I was. He said, "You know, usually after someone
says thanks, you're supposed to say, 'You're welcome'."
Well, I was shocked at being talked to as if I'm a kindergartener by a man
who couldn't have been more than ten years older than I was, being told to
repeat my closure and specifically say, "You're welcome." I thought the
man was insane, but to avoid an argument, I gave him what he wanted and
left. Some might say it's weak, but I call it comfortable. Confrontation
is uncomfortable to me because I'm not one to try to force another to live
by my rules. I wonder if what I did is what's referred to as turning the
other cheek. I know some would call it weak, like the kinds of people who
like to start fist fights.
> > met the co-host of the 700 Club when I worked for Pizza Hut in Virginia
> > Beach/Chesapeake. I was a little giddier than I thought I'd be, but I
> > don't think I overreacted like the reactions of sitcom actors when a
> > famous actor plays him/herself on the show.
> >
> > I just recognized her in there paying for a pizza, Terry Meeuwsen:
> >
> > http://www.cbn.com/700club/ShowInfo/Staff/terrymeeuwsen.aspx<
>
> Ah...um... okay..lol.
LOL I always thought she was pretty when I saw her on TV in 1986. She's
aged well. But it wasn't until a few years ago that I found out she was
Miss America in like 1974 or something like that. :)
Hey, I move in Wiccan circles, satanic circles, gnostic circles, atheistic
circles, and Christian circles. They all fit together. Like the rings on
the Olympics logo. :D
Damaeus
Evergreen <sidne...@nospam.invalid> posted:
> Listening to an ignorant fool like you is a good way for Damaeus to
> become truly messed up.
Assuming I need and would follow direct advice. I /can/ decide without
posting here, of course. I just like to make conversation, and thought
that discussing it might dredge other ideas out of my head I had not
thought about yet.
I mean, if some 12-year-old can turn himself into a millionaire using the
internet, there's bound to be another idea out there nobody else has
thought of yet.
Noinden
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
> > my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
>
> I spout experience, not dogma. And I also spout what has been told of
> history when I see a reason, but mostly I speak from experience.
No you spout dogma.
> > Here area few things you are ignoring.
>
> > Like any other drug. THC is addictive.
>
> So is caffeine. Why make THC illegal? Your point has been mooted.
I am not debating the legality of it. I am stating a fact. Caffeine
however usually is not performance impairing, unlike ethanol, THC etc.
> > It is why we go back to it. For me it is Caffeine and Guarana.
> > Others it is ethanol or nicotine. It seems yours is THC.
>
> But your choices are legal. Mine are not. That's the problem. If the
> only reason you're against THC is because it's addictive, you can't also
> say that it should be illegal. As for it being addictive, why does it
> matter? If the consumption of marijuana provides more pleasure in life
> than going without, why would one want to keep it out of their lives? Cats
> return to catnip, humans return to marijuana. There's no universal law
> that forbids that kind of behavior. There are even Bible verses that
> support the use of "herbs" for those who are sick. And if you're not
> immortal, you're sick. You're living in a cycle of death and rebirth,
I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
> > Smoking the THC exposes you to carcinogens. Sure you will say less so
> > than tabacoo. However it is NOT safe.
>
> Still a choice, however. And if, as I claim, marijuana is beneficial
> toward immortality, then the consumption of carcinogens is a non-issue.
> You simply refrain from cigarettes (which provide a 10-15 minute buzz) and
> instead smoke pot (3-4 hour buzz). When I smoked cigarettes, I'd go
> through a pack a day. With pot, I'd go through the equivalent of a pack
> in two weeks. Your carcinogen point has been mooted since you need less
> pot than tobacco to get an effect.
Because you say it has been mooted, does not make it thus. Most THC
users inhale deeper and longer, thus increasing the contact time.
There have been studies done, fewer than with tobacco, as they can not
get the funding, but there are the same nasty little friends in the
Tar of Cannabis as in Tabacco. Mmmm Dioxanes...
> > Anything that takes that amount of focus away from real life,
> > indicates an addiction
>
> Cannabis is part of real life. It grows on the planet where everyone can
> see it. What creates a fantasy is when law makers try to pretend that
> marijuana should not exist, and they try to keep it out of the hands of
> us. The prohibition of pot and other drugs creates the conditions that
> allow gang wars and drive-by shootings related to drugs. It creates
> domestic violence when one person invades another person's stash of dope.
THC takes you OUT of real life. As does ethanol, as do most other
drugs.
Just because you like the stuff does not make you right.
Theoneflasehaddock
From now on, if you're going to press delete, highlight everything
you've written first.
ren
> She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
> to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
> her anus mouth.
> Sid
Sidney Lambe, based on your violent comments about women, I believe
you are a danger to women and to society in general. Too bad the legal
system in your area is absolutely powerless to do anything about you.
In a way, I am glad law-abiding ordinary citizens are able to carry
concealed weapon licenses in order to deal with people like you who
might be in the middle of beating some poor defenseless woman to
death.
This is also why I endorse self defense courses for everyone. If any
of you see someone like Sidney Lambe beating an innocent person to
death, it is your duty to step in to save that person's life. Do
whatever you have to do to stop people like Sidney.
Remember that in The State of California, they will release 10,000
prisoners due to overcrowding. Again, it is your duty to deal with
people like Sidney Lambe in order to protect the public. Do what you
have to do. Call the police first, but do not wait for them. Enforce
law and order for the sake of your friends, family and community.
ren
> I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
Nor do I.
Noinden
Given Damaeus is also posting this thread to a Christian Group and is
talking about "gnostics".... he does. Which is all well and good.
Noinden
> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In a way, I am glad law-abiding ordinary citizens are able to carry
> concealed weapon licenses in order to deal with people like you who
> might be in the middle of beating some poor defenseless woman to
> death.
Depends on the state. Wisconsin, despite being crazy about firearms
(for hunting, and let me tell you I just "love" wearing Orange when I
go to nature walks during hunting season....) does not allow Concealed
Carry. Someone also needs the will to use said weapon (getting the
licence means you have to KNOW how to use it).
aine
Hmm, I wonder if my mate had to show he did when he got his? No wonder
the pond leaks, target practice at garden gnomes? I should never have
said they were not my favorite yard decoration.
Hope
Here in Oklahoma, it is a good idea to always assume people are armed
and have known how to use a variety of weapons since they were old
enough to carry one. That's just the way it is.
And yes, my dad taught me to shoot when I was 5 and I was out shooting
him and my male relatives regularly by the age of 8 or so. He thought
that was a hoot. I don't hunt, and I don't have a thing for guns.
But I do have a variety of guns and ammo (mostly given to me by Dad
and military/law enforcement family members,) and if properly
motivated, I could certainly hit the target. Looks can be deceiving,
and it's never a good idea around here to assume a helpless looking
woman really is. This wouldn't be a good area for sid. ;-p
Hope
>
> > She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
> > to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
> > her anus mouth.
> > Sid
>
> Sidney Lambe, based on your violent comments about women, I believe
> you are a danger to women and to society in general. Too bad the legal
> system in your area is absolutely powerless to do anything about you.
>
Yes, he does seem to save his most extreme vitriol for women. He
loses his cool and reacts out of all proportion to the stimulus. No
self discipline. I'd say he is either a man with angry "mommy
issues," or he's a woman or a gay who sees all women as rivals/
threats. It's sad in any case.
aine
I have a fishing rod and I am not afraid to use it!
Eh, my dad wanted a son. We had a boat. I was the one out in the dark
with frozen hands. The only way out was to call in the whales to
circle us. You leave when that happens. Soon my dad got it..yinnie in
boat fishing equals whales circling and bugging us. Keep yinnie
home...Yay Me..!!
Noinden
New Zealand does not allow you to own hand guns, and getting a "long
arm" is well regulated. As a consequence I've a like for sharp pointy
things over fire sticks. I do know how to shoot. I just do not own a
gun. I don't hunt here (the deer have the wasting disease, and well I
like to EAT venison not mount bits on walls) so why would I need a
gun?
aine
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > I imagine it can be drudgery like any other job. If it were so great
> > why the amount of suicides and actors on drugs, anti depressants?
>
> LOL, well, there are stories. But most of the actors are still around.
> Henry Fonda was an actor for decades and died of old age, not drug use.
> Same for Katharine Hepburn. <
They did not make the millions like they do now. There vice was more
alcohol I think. Possibly coming from War and Depression Era's they
had a different regard for life and money! Just a thought.
> We only hear of the River Phoenixes, the
> Jonathan Brandises (hung himself, don't know about drugs), the Brad
> Renfros. <
Because they are the ones of such fame. Another downfall. No privacy.
> But David Cassidy is still around, same for Shawn. Kiss is
> still around, though I think they have claimed not to use drugs.<
Hehehe okay..barely and they all have their tragic stories about the
fame.
>
> I think the drug use among actors is probably about the same as drug use
> among the general population. Some are on them, some aren't. But I'm
> talking about the ones who just look like they're having a good time--the
> mature actors, I guess you could say. Christopher Lloyd. Meryl Streep.
> Ron Howard. Rob Reiner. Penny Marshall. They have a lot more fun, it
> seems<
Key term: "Look like"
My neighbors look like they are having a better time mowing their yard
then I am.
< at their work than your Wal-Mart clerks and postal workers.
> However, I imagine it's still hard work. <
Different work. Many jobs are harder.
> I've not been on a real set to
> see what actually happens. <
I was involved with a Production Manager of Broadway shows. Life
backstage and off stage is hard work but as you say, not like working
at Wal-Mart. It is not so much about the fame and fortune or the
mundane type work you do as much as how you feel personally.
I am just saying these people have real problems. Real crisis and such
if you talk to them. Just as unhappy about daily things. They have
money and pull that is helpful to get better care and such but so do
others that have saved dilegently or work in higher pay jobs. It can
be wiped out as fast as they made it like anyone else.
> I've only learned a few things about it
> through acting classes, and seeing how takes go, how direction goes,
> etc... I dunno. I'm thinking about going to the local community theater
> to see what's going on, to see if anything is happening that I might be
> interested in doing. I've changed a lot since I was in acting school. I'm
> not as shy as I used to be. My teacher was impressed with some of my
> stuff back then. Maybe I'd do even better now.<
That sounds like a great idea. Maybe the difference is being in it for
the art and not in it for the fame and glory which goes shallow...very
fast. Some handle it and some don't.
>
> I felt for one guy who came in during a class thinking he would be getting
> private lessons in acting, all by himself. I once thought that would be
> nice, too, but never checked into it. Then when I was in a class when
> this guy came in, I thought, "Well, you certainly shouldn't be too shy to
> act in front of a class if you're taking classes to act in front of crowds
> and cameras. Getting private lessons in acting is like trying to be a
> movie star with home movies on America's Funniest Videos.
>
> So while I wasn't ready to even get into auditions last time (I felt that
> food and shelter were more important), this time I've really got nothing
> else going on. I've got all the free time I want, so I might explore that
> for a while until I'm ready to go back to work. Gives me a chance to get
> around people, too. I wanted contact with others, and this might be just
> the thing I need. A season of acting in community theater. :D<
Now that sounds like a plan and maybe then you will not mind a room
mate so much.
>
> > > (and lots of money),<
>
> > Depends if that is your happiness and where it lies. I am all for
> > having enough for basic needs and the things that make a person happy
> > and calm. For me that is garden things.
>
> If I could grow two pot plants, my problems would be over. Being high
> takes the edge of the drudgery through things you don't otherwise like
> doing. It's much more fun to vacuum the rug high than not high.<
We differ there, so..movin on..
>
> > I don't need, big fancy, mass stuff and the ability to travel whenever
> > or where ever.
>
> I always thought that, even though I wanted it. I'd walk through
> Dillard's and see a nice bedroom suite. I've never had one. I've just
> had bits and pieces of furniture I've kept, or just used wherever I've
> lived. I always figured that if I'm ever going to acquire anything like
> that, I'd wait until I finally find the place where I want to light with a
> greater sense of permanence. I don't mind moving some, but I don't want
> to move a house load of furniture every time. So even at 38, I've still
> not settled in any one place, so I have no furniture of my own, yet I have
> a full bedroom suite I'm using since it was my roommate's grandmother's
> when she was alive. He inherited the house and everything in it.<
We all like having our things. That is not exactly what I meant. I
mean, I do not need the best. I do not need the shine of looking as if
I have it all.
I like treasure hunts. Pieces that call to me personally even if worn
or torn. I am Taurus, I like unique comfort.
I hate messy and dirty. I am sorely tested in cold months when yards
look like trash and even in the summer being on property that has so
many repairs and cleanups from previous owner or the renters we had.
Too much to do and too little time.
More money would make it easier. That is not my goal however. I like
the work.
aine
> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
> > to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
> > her anus mouth.
> > Sid
>
> Sidney Lambe, based on your violent comments about women, I believe
> you are a danger to women and to society in general. Too bad the legal
> system in your area is absolutely powerless to do anything about you.
>
> In a way, I am glad law-abiding ordinary citizens are able to carry
> concealed weapon licenses in order to deal with people like you who
> might be in the middle of beating some poor defenseless woman to
> death.
There are just as many men beaten in attacks on the streets. I don't
think it is so much about poor defenseless woman as much as people who
don't give a rats ass about attacking out of the blue. Be they a
spouse or stranger. Rage takes over or they have an intent to steal.
Money, material things or the act of stealing ones control or dignity.
As in rape.
Hope
I have never understood that whole thing. I used to work with a woman
whose husband hunted, and had dead animals all over the house. Even
had a complete wild turkey mounted on the living room wall. That is
not my idea of good interior decorating. :-p
> so why would I need a
> gun?
Only reason I can think of is that if you should ever have to square
off against someone with a gun (such as a B&E) they tend to have the
advantage over sharp pointy things. But the odds are against that
happening. And anyway, the winner can't mount the trophy head if it
does. ;-)
aine
I have to ask then why you see any books as reliable sources of
information?
Curious.
Most based on an authors perspective, belief or learned from sources
that like the Bible are specu;ation..such as the Celts or Druids.
aine
>
> - Show quoted text -
When gas hit the $5.00 mark, I saw good reason to have guns in the
home.
When we were snowed in and especially flooded all around. When you are
basically on your own and people panic. They want what you have.
All too often these things are becoming very real. They happen fast.
Hope
I have a feeling that is going to become a real problem in the next 4
or 5 years. If we have another depression, or if there is a big
climate change or some other global shift, things will not be like
they were during the Great Depression. Back then, lots of people
lived where they could grow gardens and hunt and help feed people.
Not so any more. Things would be a hundred times worse.
Not only do folks not know how to be self sufficient, they don't have
the space for it. The people living in big cities would be screwed,
and so would most in the suburbs. The midsets about personal property
and individual/group rights are different now too. Imagine millions
of people trying to get to the areas where people do have cattle and
fish and room to grow crops, if they thought that was going to mean
the difference in life and death. Things would break down, as you
say, very fast.
Noinden
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I can not carry a gun on me (concealed or not)... if they are in my
home, chances are they are close enough to stab them...
Hope
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If I can not carry a gun on me (concealed or not)... if they are in my
> home, chances are they are close enough to stab them...
I would prefer to take them out of commission before they get that
close. If they are close enough for me to stab them, they are also
close enough to do a variety of hurty things to me as well.
Hope
*LOL* Cheater. We ain't got no whales 'round these here parts.
Noinden
I live in an Urban setting, if they are in my home, they are THAT
close. I'm good with stabby things, there is also less chance of a
blade going through the wall into my neighbours appartment. It's just
a practical thing. When/if CCW comes to WI or I move to a state with
it, then I will reconsider.
Hope
>
> > Depends on the state. Wisconsin, despite being crazy about firearms
> > (for hunting, and let me tell you I just "love" wearing Orange when I
> > go to nature walks during hunting season....) does not allow Concealed
> > Carry. Someone also needs the will to use said weapon (getting the
> > licence means you have to KNOW how to use it).
>
> Hmm, I wonder if my mate had to show he did when he got his?
Probably not. You can buy guns without having a concealed carry
license. You just can't carry them around with you loaded. They are
fine for home protection. And hunting is a whole different thing.
You get a hunting license for that. And it's hard to conceal a rifle
or shotgun. ;-p
> No wonder
> the pond leaks, target practice at garden gnomes? I should never have
> said they were not my favorite yard decoration.
*LOL* How sweet that he would be willing to remove them for you. ;-)
There's no place like gnome...
sarchasm
>
>Here in Oklahoma, it is a good idea to always assume people are armed
>and have known how to use a variety of weapons since they were old
>enough to carry one. That's just the way it is.
>
>And yes, my dad taught me to shoot when I was 5 and I was out shooting
>him and my male relatives regularly by the age of 8 or so. He thought
>that was a hoot.
>
You were out shooting your dad and your male relatives regularly? This must
have decimated a good portion of your family. ;-p
>
>Looks can be deceiving,
>and it's never a good idea around here to assume a helpless looking
>woman really is. This wouldn't be a good area for sid. ;-p
>
Good thing he isn't a relative either; he'd be toast. ;-)
Theoneflasehaddock
Ah yes, chronic wasting disease. We've had a few cases here, it's just
starting to spread into Illinois.
I always wished the U.S. had similar laws to civilized countries
regarding guns. I don't like guns. And the hunting lobby is even
worse... it's no accident that deer are so common that disease spreads
easily and they overgraze in so many areas. Just like it's no accident
we've got pheasants everywhere pushing out native birds such as
prairie chickens and bobwhite, and canada geese everywhere. Even with
the overpopulation, they're managing things to increase numbers of
those three... using our tax dollars, of course.
It's quite possible that declines in a number of birds, especially
warblers, have been directly caused by the support of large deer
populations literally eating all their nesting sites.
aine
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few times a week, people would run out of gas and find their way
here to the house.
A couple times asking for a ride to the gas station. Persistant. As
if.. Then they would eye around for gas cans. I got so they all got
put away immediatly. Out of sight.
I would always bring the phone to the door. Got so I had a weapon near
by and never opened it unless I had to then only with my knee behind
it..braced for a forced entry. Two guys got down right rude.
Then there was the family that insisted on using the phone. Not just
for a call, but to make several calls and wanted to stay on the
property until someone came. It felt like they wanted me to feed and
entertain them.
Then the broken down car. Can I keep my car here til we can fix it? Oh
yes please and if it is stolen or anything happens does your insurance
cover it or mine?
Opened my eyes to the dangers of helping hands and humanity. People
are no longer grateful. They expect it or decide to take it.
Hope
>
> Opened my eyes to the dangers of helping hands and humanity. People
> are no longer grateful. They expect it or decide to take it.
Yes. The sense of *entitlement* is very pervasive and strong. And
dangerous. It took me a long time to get it through my head that
there are actually people who live by preying on good-hearted folks. I
believe that was about the time my mother rented the mobile home on
our property to a poor down-on-his-luck guy who ended up stealing
everything there down to the light fixtures and then apparently backed
a moving truck up to the cabin, broke a window, and stole everything
in it, including all the antiques (some of which had been in the
family for several generations and had great sentimental value).
Gratitude does not compute with some people. And sadly, the rest of
us have to adjust our "helping hands" accordingly. It sucks. :-(
aine
Ah yes..keeping rent low or without deposits for those who are in need
of a bit of help. Yep. Twice. Screwed twice. Massive damage. Non pay.
Refusal to leave. Go to court and pays fees to get them out. Like
Gypsy caravans and move them in and out in the night. Leave mess so
bad I still have not recouped after 2 or more years.
Sadly, one family of pagans and one family NA. I still see the Chief
on that commercial crying at the litter and chuckle. What happened to
that I ask?
That is when I had to contact the Tribal Elders in the area as they
left so many what I considered 'sacred' items. I wanted to dispose of
them correctly.
All we asked is for them to keep us informed if there were problems.
We would work it out with them financially but oh no...that just
wasn't easy enough.
Damaeus
Noinden <huath...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 12, 6:32 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
> >
> > > You are focused on the choice between "giving it up" and "work". Thus
> > > you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
> > > my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
> >
> > I spout experience, not dogma. And I also spout what has been told of
> > history when I see a reason, but mostly I speak from experience.
>
> No you spout dogma.
You see it as dogma. I do not. Dogma is like "You must be baptized in
water to be saved." It's "You cannot wear short hair if you're a woman."
That is dogma. What I say about marijuana isn't dogma with the
connotation you suggested.
> > > Here area few things you are ignoring.
> >
> > > Like any other drug. THC is addictive.
> >
> > So is caffeine. Why make THC illegal? Your point has been mooted.
>
> I am not debating the legality of it. I am stating a fact. Caffeine
> however usually is not performance impairing, unlike ethanol, THC etc.
If caffeine isn't performance-impairing, why do people make jokes about
caffeine making people feel agitated and antsy, jittery? Those jokes
don't exist for no reason. One on caffeine could overcorrect in an
accident and make it worse than it would have been if he had not been on
caffeine.
> > > It is why we go back to it. For me it is Caffeine and Guarana.
> > > Others it is ethanol or nicotine. It seems yours is THC.
> >
> > But your choices are legal. Mine are not. That's the problem. If the
> > only reason you're against THC is because it's addictive, you can't also
> > say that it should be illegal. As for it being addictive, why does it
> > matter? If the consumption of marijuana provides more pleasure in life
> > than going without, why would one want to keep it out of their lives? Cats
> > return to catnip, humans return to marijuana. There's no universal law
> > that forbids that kind of behavior. There are even Bible verses that
> > support the use of "herbs" for those who are sick. And if you're not
> > immortal, you're sick. You're living in a cycle of death and rebirth,
>
> I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
So. I didn't use it as the main source of reasoning. It was just a
sidebar.
> > > Smoking the THC exposes you to carcinogens. Sure you will say less so
> > > than tabacoo. However it is NOT safe.
> >
> > Still a choice, however. And if, as I claim, marijuana is beneficial
> > toward immortality, then the consumption of carcinogens is a non-issue.
> > You simply refrain from cigarettes (which provide a 10-15 minute buzz) and
> > instead smoke pot (3-4 hour buzz). When I smoked cigarettes, I'd go
> > through a pack a day. With pot, I'd go through the equivalent of a pack
> > in two weeks. Your carcinogen point has been mooted since you need less
> > pot than tobacco to get an effect.
>
> Because you say it has been mooted, does not make it thus. Most THC
> users inhale deeper and longer, thus increasing the contact time.
Which is the point: to get high. I try to inhale just enough smoke that I
can absorb it all in 30-35 seconds.
> There have been studies done, fewer than with tobacco, as they can not
> get the funding, but there are the same nasty little friends in the
> Tar of Cannabis as in Tabacco. Mmmm Dioxanes...
But cannabis does not have nicotine in it, nor does it have all the other
chemicals. When I smoke a cigarette, I feel nausea. I do not feel nausea
when I smoke pot. When I smoked my first cigarette, I had already been a
pot smoker for a while. I believed all the bullshit rhetoric like you are
spouting: that pot is worse than cigarettes. Since I could handle pot
easily by that time, I figured a cigarette would be no big deal. So I
pulled myself a big puff and about gagged myself inside out. Cigarette
smoke burned like fire in my lungs, while pot does not. From my
experience, pot is not as bad as cigarette smoke, especially since
cigarette tobacco has been laced with all kinds of other chemicals. Some
even say those chemicals are added to make cigarettes addictive.
> > > Anything that takes that amount of focus away from real life,
> > > indicates an addiction
> >
> > Cannabis is part of real life. It grows on the planet where everyone can
> > see it. What creates a fantasy is when law makers try to pretend that
> > marijuana should not exist, and they try to keep it out of the hands of
> > us. The prohibition of pot and other drugs creates the conditions that
> > allow gang wars and drive-by shootings related to drugs. It creates
> > domestic violence when one person invades another person's stash of dope.
>
> THC takes you OUT of real life.
No, it puts you in a mode where discovering real life is more enjoyable.
It doesn't make the real world disappear. It adjusts the brain so that
the real world looks more interesting than it did before.
> Just because you like the stuff does not make you right.
And just because you don't like it doesn't make you right about anything,
either. I'm asking if you've ever tried pot for a decent length of time
that would allow proper judgments of its effects. If you haven't got
enough personal experience with it to tell the difference in what it's
like not to be high, and what you're like after three months of smoking,
for example, you haven't got any business expecting your opinions to count
for anything. As Mr. Spock said in Star Trek IV, "It would be impossible
to discuss the topic without a common frame of reference." If you've not
been high enough in your life to perceive a difference, you're just
reciting the claims of anti-pot smoking literature across the country.
Damaeus
--
____
/ __ \ ____ _ ____ ___ ____ _ ___ __ __ _____
/ / / / / __ `/ / __ `__ \ / __ `/ / _ \ / / / / / ___/
/ /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / __/ / /_/ / (__ )
/_____/ \__,_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__,_/ \___/ \__,_/ /____/
dam...@damaeus.earthlink.net
Remove "damaeus" from the domain to reply by e-mail.
Damaeus
Noinden <huath...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 13, 8:28 am, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 10:40 pm, Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
> >
> > Nor do I.
>
> Given Damaeus is also posting this thread to a Christian Group
Ummm.. BULLSHIT? I started this thread and ONLY posted it to this group.
If someone added a Christian group to another part of this thread, that is
on them, but don't blame me.
> and is talking about "gnostics".... he does. Which is all well and
> good.
Gnostics are wiccans. Wiccans are gnostics. They just don't realize that
about each other. Two different approaches to the same concept. Live and
let live, and know yourself through your own experience.
People who have not smoked pot talking about how bad it is are people who
are talking out their asses, basically, because they are not knowing
themselves from their own experience, but through the propaganda put out
by the government. That goes for this topic, but how that kind of
ignorance affects other areas of their lives remains to be seen. What
other things do they take as fact which they might find to be otherwise
based on experience?
Damaeus
ren <ren...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 13, 10:40 pm, Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
>
> Nor do I.
LOL I don't see the big deal. I'm not here to demand people read it, but
I see no reason to reject it based on what others have said about it.
That's the big deal. People don't like the Bible because of its
association with Christianity and people who hate Christianity usually
hate the Bible, too. But the point I'm making is that the Bible, itself,
stands alone. What Christians have done with it is a separate topic. If
all Christians liked the book War and Peace, would you hate that book,
too?
The Bible is just one of many parabolic texts that is flexible to the
individual. You don't have to read it expecting to become a Christian, or
being offended by its ideas. You just read it as if it was written
especially for you, not First Baptist Church.
Still a choice, of course.
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 13, 6:28 am, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 10:40 pm, Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
> >
> > Nor do I.
>
> I have to ask then why you see any books as reliable sources of
> information?
If I've found something in a book to be true, myself, I relate to it. If
the book claims something is true that I have not experienced, I figure
maybe they're right, maybe I'm being misled, maybe they're flat wrong. I
have a wait-and-see attitude, but I take what they say and consider it
with everything else I know to decide how likely it is to be true. It's
the best one can do until they experience it for themselves.
To take it to extremes, I could even say that there is no war in the
middle east because I have not seen it for myself. Yes, I think reality
is so malleable that what we see on the news is a reflection of our
beliefs that the Middle East is at war, but it might be fairly peaceful
over there, or it might not even exist at all.
> Curious.
>
> Most based on an authors perspective, belief or learned from sources
> that like the Bible are specu;ation..such as the Celts or Druids.
But that's not the point. The point is whether you trust that the people
who wrote these texts were really writing what they believe, or were they
trying to intentionally deceive. I don't know of anybody stupid enough to
write something to deceive, because those texts are quickly exposed as
fakes, bunk, or intentional deception. That these Biblical and gnostic
texts have survived so long and are considered important by many are, to
me, indicators of their genuineness. These books were written by people
who really believed what they were saying, and for that, I think the texts
deserve attention from anyone who is interested in them.
Some of the texts are about suggestions for finding yourself, sometimes
setting us on a path to pretend we are something else for a while to see
how it feels, then decide it might be best to behave that way all the
time, and over time, our behaviors do change. Some texts tell stories
that are believed to be historical, such as creation stories. Those
creation stories might be accurate or might not, but the point is that
some people get locked into ONE creation story they stick with forever,
never even allowing a competing story into their minds to be meshed
symbolically with what they already think they know about the creation. I
find greater accuracy with researching /all/ the creation stories to come
up with a more complete picture. We all share the same imagination, the
same universe. It only makes sense that we would all pull from a
different part of the universe depending on who we are, so combining our
stories seems like the best way to discover or remember the truth.
I believe these people who wrote those old texts were really telling the
truth as they saw it. I don't want or need their truth word for word if
I'm finding myself, but hearing their story helps me find it for myself,
through my own mind and thinking. The truth isn't found through rote
memorization, but from within and without, as it combines with your
experience in life to change everything about how you behave and interact
with others. You don't read gnostic or Christian texts hoping to find the
truth in them. You read them to experience them and hope that the truth
surfaces from within while the texts sit in front of you, or as you go
about your day with certain things you've read popping into your mind at
just the right time.
Hope
It seems to me that most people, after they decide what they believe
about something, have a natural inclination to believe sources that
support their belief and questions the sources that don't. I think
that's understandable, even though it's not really "fair." It takes a
real act of will to *try* to judge everything using the same scale.
And most--if not all--of us use a scale that's not completely balanced
to begin with. ;-p
Damaeus
aine <aine_n...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 13, 1:34 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > We only hear of the River Phoenixes, the
> > Jonathan Brandises (hung himself, don't know about drugs), the Brad
> > Renfros. <
>
> Because they are the ones of such fame. Another downfall. No privacy.
>
> > But David Cassidy is still around, same for Shawn. Kiss is
> > still around, though I think they have claimed not to use drugs.<
>
> Hehehe okay..barely and they all have their tragic stories about the
> fame.
We have our tragedies, I suppose. But people have the balls they need to
get through it. Having your whole life on television, and already having
gotten used to having no privacy equalizes the tough times, knowing this
is just another of your life events on television. And for some famous
people, this is a good thing. It's what keeps them going. If they had a
problem with alcohol and drugs for example, they feel compelled to make a
comeback and show they've still got it. Tanya Tucker disappeared then
came back a more mature, wise singer. Yanni took some time off and went
through depression, and came back sounding somewhat different and more
mature as a musician.
> > I think the drug use among actors is probably about the same as drug use
> > among the general population. Some are on them, some aren't. But I'm
> > talking about the ones who just look like they're having a good time--the
> > mature actors, I guess you could say. Christopher Lloyd. Meryl Streep.
> > Ron Howard. Rob Reiner. Penny Marshall. They have a lot more fun, it
> > seems<
>
> Key term: "Look like"
>
> My neighbors look like they are having a better time mowing their yard
> then I am.
Yeah, I hate mowing yards, too. Thankfully, our yard is mowed by
professional mowers. I guess this is another reason I'm hesitant and
skeptical of going back to work. On one hand, I have the intelligence,
but not the desire. And how intelligent would I be if I went out into the
world again to intentionally create a struggle for myself to survive in a
world that doesn't pay honest work an honest wage? Here, I live in a
house with loads of groceries, a guy who likes to run the A/C on 68
degrees in the summer, along with a bunch of window units (I like it cold
in the house, too). I see no way that I can get a job with a wage I'd
need to live the way I want to live, which is pretty much how I live here,
except I can't buy anything I want, anytime I want. Of course, I couldn't
do that when I was working, either. My job is to live my life, not live
it the way everyone else expects me to. I had been urging myself to get
out and find work, but now why should I? How would it affect my little
experiment? I might just keep it going a while longer to see what
happens. I took five years off from society in the past. Doing it again
would be no big deal.
> < at their work than your Wal-Mart clerks and postal workers.
> > However, I imagine it's still hard work. <
>
> Different work. Many jobs are harder.
So many of these supposedly "harder jobs" are people sitting behind a desk
punching on a computer handling accounts and shuffling papers. There are
different kinds of "hard". I would rather make $6.85 an hour sitting
behind a desk shuffling papers than delivering pizza or stocking shelves.
I consider stocking shelves to be more difficult than any desk job (except
for things like computer animators, graphic designers, etc...) I can do
graphic design when I want to, but I want results faster than the program
can deliver it with all the required steps. I'll forget to switch layers,
for example, and end up with a mess. It's a mess I can fix, but it slows
things down a bit.
> I am just saying these people have real problems. Real crisis and such
> if you talk to them. Just as unhappy about daily things. They have
> money and pull that is helpful to get better care and such but so do
> others that have saved dilegently or work in higher pay jobs. It can
> be wiped out as fast as they made it like anyone else.
I think my deal is that I wouldn't mind continuing to live here if I
worked somewhere, because if I got the job and didn't like it, quitting it
wouldn't be a big deal. It'd just be money I'd have working that I don't
have now. So failing at some job because of conflicts with my true nature
(I don't enjoy living a lie for money) is no big deal...so why try it at
all? lol
> > I've only learned a few things about it
> > through acting classes, and seeing how takes go, how direction goes,
> > etc... I dunno. I'm thinking about going to the local community theater
> > to see what's going on, to see if anything is happening that I might be
> > interested in doing. I've changed a lot since I was in acting school. I'm
> > not as shy as I used to be. My teacher was impressed with some of my
> > stuff back then. Maybe I'd do even better now.<
>
> That sounds like a great idea. Maybe the difference is being in it for
> the art and not in it for the fame and glory which goes shallow...very
> fast. Some handle it and some don't.
Yeah. I admit having an interest in Hollywood acting, but I don't want to
be so presumptive as to assume I have what it takes and try auditioning
for big-movie parts right off the bat. I want to act for the fun of it,
so I figured I'd start in Community Theater and remain there until
approached by someone impressed enough to bother with me. I don't think I
should be the judge of my own acting, but others should. I wonder how
many successful actors today started out that way -- just acting from the
bottom up until fate, itself, put them in Hollywood.
> > I felt for one guy who came in during a class thinking he would be getting
> > private lessons in acting, all by himself. I once thought that would be
> > nice, too, but never checked into it. Then when I was in a class when
> > this guy came in, I thought, "Well, you certainly shouldn't be too shy to
> > act in front of a class if you're taking classes to act in front of crowds
> > and cameras. Getting private lessons in acting is like trying to be a
> > movie star with home movies on America's Funniest Videos.
> >
> > So while I wasn't ready to even get into auditions last time (I felt that
> > food and shelter were more important), this time I've really got nothing
> > else going on. I've got all the free time I want, so I might explore that
> > for a while until I'm ready to go back to work. Gives me a chance to get
> > around people, too. I wanted contact with others, and this might be just
> > the thing I need. A season of acting in community theater. :D<
>
> Now that sounds like a plan and maybe then you will not mind a room
> mate so much.
Oh, I don't mind having one, I suppose. We've been roommates together off
and on for 20 years. He's the only roommate I have ever had. We trust
each other completely. He can leave $500 and a checkbook out and know
that it'll be there when he gets back. He keeps a messy house (receipt
packrat, old prescription bag packrat, and just won't throw anything away
except food packaging, old food, etc, and everyday trash. I just
sometimes get the urge to be on my own, but it is much harder to live
alone than with someone.
> > > I don't need, big fancy, mass stuff and the ability to travel whenever
> > > or where ever.
> >
> > I always thought that, even though I wanted it. I'd walk through
> > Dillard's and see a nice bedroom suite. I've never had one. I've just
> > had bits and pieces of furniture I've kept, or just used wherever I've
> > lived. I always figured that if I'm ever going to acquire anything like
> > that, I'd wait until I finally find the place where I want to light with a
> > greater sense of permanence. I don't mind moving some, but I don't want
> > to move a house load of furniture every time. So even at 38, I've still
> > not settled in any one place, so I have no furniture of my own, yet I have
> > a full bedroom suite I'm using since it was my roommate's grandmother's
> > when she was alive. He inherited the house and everything in it.<
>
> We all like having our things. That is not exactly what I meant. I
> mean, I do not need the best. I do not need the shine of looking as if
> I have it all.
My reasoning is that I'd rather live with shit furniture (Wal-Mart
pasteboard stuff) now. If at some later point I end up settling down in
one place for 20-30 years, I would then buy true quality furniture made
out of real wood, something that will last a lifetime and be worth willing
to someone. I want furniture that lasts and will not have to be replaced.
Same for the house. I would rather have a small house that is solid and
soundproofed than a big house that's spacious, but crumbly. Of course, a
big house that's also stable would be even nicer, but since the money
supply is controlled (crazy, ain't it?) the quality of houses people can
build is also controlled.
Since production converts resources into buyable stuff, making money free
would increase production and employment. Why do people still need jobs
to get paychecks? Makes no sense to me since the more money people have
in their hands, the more they will spend.
> I like treasure hunts. Pieces that call to me personally even if worn
> or torn. I am Taurus, I like unique comfort.
Taurus here, too. I admit to finding some connections of myself to the
Taurus, but then I could be applied to all the signs of the zodiac, so I
don't adhere to "Taurus" as any kind of guidance of my life or signifier
of my traits. I'm all the zodiacs. Even in numerology, all the numbers
apply. I would think they'd all apply to everyone. What is your
experience of the zodiac and numerology? Are you a spread or a focal
point?
> I hate messy and dirty. I am sorely tested in cold months when yards
> look like trash and even in the summer being on property that has so
> many repairs and cleanups from previous owner or the renters we had.
> Too much to do and too little time.
Trashy yards don't bother me. Ours isn't trashy, but I don't mind seeing
it on others' property. Kind of reveals something about them. But I like
nice, neat yards, too.
> More money would make it easier. That is not my goal however. I like
> the work.
That's the problem, too. I can't think of any work out there that I would
actually enjoy that also pays well enough that I could live alone, if I
want. For example, if I'm going to have to drive 40 miles to get to work
living where I live now, I'd rather move to the town in question and get
to work more quickly, saving me nine hours per week of commute time,
approximately. But the money I save living with my friend rent-free,
utility-free, is a heavy consideration when considering moving out on my
own and having to pay for things I'm not having to pay for now.
Damaeus
Evergreen
> On Feb 13, 10:00=A0am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
>> to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
>> her anus mouth.
>
>> Sid
>
> Sidney Lambe, based on your violent comments about women, I believe
> you are a danger to women and to society in general.
I don't care what you believe, you pathetic twerp.
> Too bad the legal
> system in your area is absolutely powerless to do anything about you.
You mean: 'Too bad they ignore your ravings and insist upon real
evidence.'
>
> In a way, I am glad law-abiding ordinary citizens are able to carry
> concealed weapon licenses in order to deal with people like you who
> might be in the middle of beating some poor defenseless woman to
> death.
How very melodramatic.
You actually think you are clever, don't you?
>
> This is also why I endorse self defense courses for everyone. If any
> of you see someone like Sidney Lambe beating an innocent person to
> death, it is your duty to step in to save that person's life. Do
> whatever you have to do to stop people like Sidney.
It's so easy to talk big when you are sitting on your pudgy butt
in a room somewhere.
>
> Remember that in The State of California, they will release 10,000
> prisoners due to overcrowding. Again, it is your duty to deal with
> people like Sidney Lambe in order to protect the public. Do what you
> have to do. Call the police first, but do not wait for them. Enforce
> law and order for the sake of your friends, family and community.
>
Once again ren tries to do with juvenile word games what he can't
do with the magickal skills he doesn't have.
Drive me away.
Poor ren. He just can't stand it when someone asks him to
substantiate his claims.
We are all supposed to just believe everything he posts, even though
he hides his identity like a criminal and is a proven pathological
liar. As well as a delusional sociopath:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/5c1d7c1bb5afea7d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/82b7a3e277dcaa04
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/7645f9930048bea2
Sid
--
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
sarchasm
> "aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Noinden" <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not see the Bible as a reliable source of information
>
> > Nor do I.
>
> I have to ask then why you see any books as reliable sources of
> information?
>
> Curious.
>
> Most based on an authors perspective, belief or learned from sources
> that like the Bible are specu;ation..such as the Celts or Druids.
>
>It seems to me that most people, after they decide what they believe
>about something, have a natural inclination to believe sources that
>support their belief and questions the sources that don't.
>
Also, many beliefs are not the result of conscious decisions. Nonetheless,
any source which rests upon 'faith' or authority alone is more questionable
than a source which does not.
>
>I think
>that's understandable, even though it's not really "fair." It takes a
>real act of will to *try* to judge everything using the same scale.
>And most--if not all--of us use a scale that's not completely balanced
>to begin with. ;-p
>
Virtually all judgement criteria are 'weighted' in some aspect or another.
'Objectivity' is pursued, not yet caught by the subjectivity of a human
judge.
aine
>
> - Show quoted text -
That made my eyes cross!
ren
> How very melodramatic.
>
> You actually think you are clever, don't you?
Sometimes I look at the newsgroups I'm posting to. That requires a bit
of cleverness.
sarchasm
>That made my eyes cross!
>
Darn, it was supposed to make them pentagram. ;)
Hope
sarchasm
It was probably supposed to be an inverted pun. ;>
Noinden
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:40 pm,Noinden<huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not see theBibleas a reliable source of information
>
> > Nor do I.
>
> I have to ask then why you see any books as reliable sources of
> information?
>
> Curious.
>
> Most based on an authors perspective, belief or learned from sources
Ok after taking my usual weekend away.
The difference here is he books about “Druids” and “Celts” are not
seen as the absolute truth. They are the author(s) opinion. Based off
of evidence (usually secondary and tertiary) and thus “possible”
rather than “absolute”. Further I am a Neopagan “Druid” and CR, so I
am not saying I am doing what my ancestors did exactly.
Now the Bible? It’s a mishmash of books from the Jewish tradition plus
very select (and confliction) books from the early Christian times.
The fact they had a nice (not so) little meeting to decide what was in
and what was out, tells you. It is Heavily edited, futher it is
translation upon translation upon translation through time to today.
You get verses like “do not suffer a witch” which has caused som much
pain. When in reality it is “do not suffer a poisoner”.
Yet it is held up as the absolute truth by many (most?) who follow it.
There is even divination from it (open to a random page to get help)…
So that is my answer.
Noinden
> On Feb 13, 1:04 pm,Noinden<huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > so why would I need a
> > gun?
>
> Only reason I can think of is that if you should ever have to square
> off against someone with a gun (such as a B&E) they tend to have the
> advantage over sharp pointy things. But the odds are against that
> happening. And anyway, the winner can't mount the trophy head if it
> does. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
Again it comes to where I live. I can have a gun in my house. But if
they are IN my house (due to the fact it's a duplex and ... "cramped"
yeah that is the word) they will be within striking distance. Must
hand guns are ahrd to "deploy" safely in these ranges. Thus I have no
gun. I know how to use one, but as (a) A greencard holder and (b) in a
non CCW state, it would be a less than useful toy in most situations.
Also the entrance to my appartment is very secure (several heavy
doors, and second and third floor).
If I was out in the country, then I'd have one.
Noinden
for historical reference (and I use ones for that). But for actual
relating to my Gods? I prefer a good drum beat in a darkened room
myself or Alcehmical work around a fire.
On Feb 13, 6:16 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
> ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:40+AKA-pm,Noinden<huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not see theBibleas a reliable source of information
>
> > Nor do I.
>
> LOL I don't see the big deal. I'm not here to demand people read it, but
> I see no reason to reject it based on what others have said about it.
> That's the big deal. People don't like theBiblebecause of its
> association with Christianity and people who hate Christianity usually
> hate theBible, too. But the point I'm making is that theBible, itself,
> stands alone. What Christians have done with it is a separate topic. If
> all Christians liked the book War and Peace, would you hate that book,
> too?
>
> TheBibleis just one of many parabolic texts that is flexible to the
Noinden
> Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,Noinden<huathac...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> > On Feb 12, 6:32 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > > Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
>
> > > > You are focused on the choice between "giving it up" and "work". Thus
> > > > you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
> > > > my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
>
> > > I spout experience, not dogma. And I also spout what has been told of
> > > history when I see a reason, but mostly I speak from experience.
>
> > No you spout dogma.
>
> You see it as dogma. I do not. Dogma is like "You must be baptized in
> water to be saved." It's "You cannot wear short hair if you're a woman."
> That is dogma. What I say about marijuana isn't dogma with the
> connotation you suggested.
No it’s Dogma, it’s the “party line” I am not the only one to point
this out to you!
> > > > Here area few things you are ignoring.
>
> > > > Like any other drug. THC is addictive.
>
> > > So is caffeine. Why make THC illegal? Your point has been mooted.
>
> > I am not debating the legality of it. I am stating a fact. Caffeine
> > however usually is not performance impairing, unlike ethanol, THC etc.
>
> If caffeine isn't performance-impairing, why do people make jokes about
> caffeine making people feel agitated and antsy, jittery? Those jokes
> don't exist for no reason. One on caffeine could overcorrect in an
> accident and make it worse than it would have been if he had not been on
> caffeine.
Many reasons. Body mass, enzymatic balance etc. Unlike THC a “caffeine
high” does not alter perception. I am talking a normal dose. I had an
ex who managed to give herself heart palpitations using too much to
get an assignment done on time when she was in college. It happened to
be several energy drinks, nodoze tablets, and no sleep (or water) that
did that. But it took a lot. It is scientifically proven that an
appropriate dose of Caffeine will enhance concentration and
performance for roughly two hours.
I am not saying it’s any better or worse for you. I am saying it will
not stop you doing your job. If one of my plant operators tested
positive for THC or alcohol. I’d have them suspended. Quite simply I
work in one of the more dangerous professions and I don’t need to be
killed by a stoned or drunken fool. I’d also send them home if they
were too hyped up on caffeine.
> > I do not see theBibleas a reliable source of information
>
> So. I didn't use it as the main source of reasoning. It was just a
> sidebar.
No you stated it as a reliable source.
> > > > Smoking the THC exposes you to carcinogens. Sure you will say less so
> > > > than tabacoo. However it is NOT safe.
>
> > > Still a choice, however. And if, as I claim, marijuana is beneficial
> > > toward immortality, then the consumption of carcinogens is a non-issue.
> > > You simply refrain from cigarettes (which provide a 10-15 minute buzz) and
> > > instead smoke pot (3-4 hour buzz). When I smoked cigarettes, I'd go
> > > through a pack a day. With pot, I'd go through the equivalent of a pack
> > > in two weeks. Your carcinogen point has been mooted since you need less
> > > pot than tobacco to get an effect.
>
> > Because you say it has been mooted, does not make it thus. Most THC
> > users inhale deeper and longer, thus increasing the contact time.
>
> Which is the point: to get high. I try to inhale just enough smoke that I
Long enough for Dioxanes to do their job.
> > There have been studies done, fewer than with tobacco, as they can not
> > get the funding, but there are the same nasty little friends in the
> > Tar of Cannabis as in Tabacco. Mmmm Dioxanes...
>
> But cannabis does not have nicotine in it, nor does it have all the other
> chemicals. When I smoke a cigarette, I feel nausea. I do not feel nausea
> when I smoke pot. When I smoked my first cigarette, I had already been a
> pot smoker for a while. I believed all the bullshit rhetoric like you are
> spouting: that pot is worse than cigarettes. Since I could handle pot
> easily by that time, I figured a cigarette would be no big deal. So I
> pulled myself a big puff and about gagged myself inside out. Cigarette
> smoke burned like fire in my lungs, while pot does not. From my
> experience, pot is not as bad as cigarette smoke, especially since
> cigarette tobacco has been laced with all kinds of other chemicals. Some
> even say those chemicals are added to make cigarettes addictive.
I did not say it had nicotine in it. Burning plant matter inhaled will
give you the dioxane containing Tars that cause the cancer. Pure
nicotine will kill you fast. The diluted amount in tobacco weed will
kill you slow. Burning THC containing plants still causes the tars
that contain the various cancer causing thngs.
The fact thus remains it’s no better for you than tabacco. It’s a bit
of Dogma from the lovers of THC to say it is.
> > > Cannabis is part of real life. It grows on the planet where everyone can
> > > see it. What creates a fantasy is when law makers try to pretend that
> > > marijuana should not exist, and they try to keep it out of the hands of
> > > us. The prohibition of pot and other drugs creates the conditions that
> > > allow gang wars and drive-by shootings related to drugs. It creates
> > > domestic violence when one person invades another person's stash of dope.
>
> > THC takes you OUT of real life.
>
> No, it puts you in a mode where discovering real life is more enjoyable.
> It doesn't make the real world disappear. It adjusts the brain so that
> the real world looks more interesting than it did before.
Every pot head I have ever seen high, has no indication of what
reality is. They are too hyped up on the altered state.
> > Just because you like the stuff does not make you right.
>
> And just because you don't like it doesn't make you right about anything,
> either. I'm asking if you've ever tried pot for a decent length of time
> that would allow proper judgments of its effects. If you haven't got
> enough personal experience with it to tell the difference in what it's
> like not to be high, and what you're like after three months of smoking,
> for example, you haven't got any business expecting your opinions to count
> for anything. As Mr. Spock said in Star Trek IV, "It would be impossible
> to discuss the topic without a common frame of reference." If you've not
> been high enough in your life to perceive a difference, you're just
> reciting the claims of anti-pot smoking literature across the country.
I prefer reality thanks. You do whatever you like to yourself but
don’t try to convince the rest of us it’s the absolutely only way to
be either.
Here troll boy are the facts.
You moaned you don’t have a real job. You moaned you can’t afford
anything. You said you would not give your weed up.
Reality. A decent job WILL test you for drugs.
Reality. A decent job WILL pay you money.
Reality: You can’t have it both ways. It’s reality. Life is not fair.
Get over it.
aine
Thanks.
Evergreen
> I am not living a recealed religion but a mystery one. Books are great
> for historical reference (and I use ones for that). But for actual
> relating to my Gods? I prefer a good drum beat in a darkened room
> myself or Alcehmical work around a fire.
>
>
ROTFLMAO !! Another charlatan claiming that he communes with fictional
gods.
The Old Religion
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/cb69de450887face
Message-ID: <e5p656x...@amma.net>
Wiccan "Magick"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/e7c74310e84e40f7
Message-ID: <rgq456x...@amma.net>
Neo-Pagan 'Magick':
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/63aa9c2f2cd71da9
Message-ID: <nsg166x...@magick.net>
Earth Air Fire Water
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/897ad7c16b5d365e
Message-ID: <orps46x...@amma.net>
Real and Psuedo-Magick
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/e8b30795d19de303
Message-ID: <75jl26x...@amma.net>
[delete]
Damaeus
Noinden <huath...@gmail.com> posted:
> I am not living a recealed religion but a mystery one. Books are great
> for historical reference (and I use ones for that). But for actual
> relating to my Gods? I prefer a good drum beat in a darkened room
> myself or Alcehmical work around a fire.
One experience over another. I've done the drum beat thing, too.
Similarly, playing three or four CDs at once in the same room is another
environment that's fun to explore. You can use different artists, but
there's a cool ambience that comes from having all your CDs playing from
the same artist. Rob Zombie is a good choice.
Damaeus
Noinden <huath...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Feb 13, 6:08 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,Noinden<huathac...@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> > > On Feb 12, 6:32 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Reading from news:alt.religion.wicca,
> >
> > > > > You are focused on the choice between "giving it up" and "work". Thus
> > > > > you are focused on the substance not reality. This is of course just
> > > > > my opinion. You also spout dogma from the pro Cannabis league.
> >
> > > > I spout experience, not dogma. And I also spout what has been told of
> > > > history when I see a reason, but mostly I speak from experience.
> >
> > > No you spout dogma.
> >
> > You see it as dogma. I do not. Dogma is like "You must be baptized in
> > water to be saved." It's "You cannot wear short hair if you're a woman."
> > That is dogma. What I say about marijuana isn't dogma with the
> > connotation you suggested.
>
> No it’s Dogma, it’s the “party line” I am not the only one to point
> this out to you!
That something I came up with on my own happens to be a party line for
pro-marijuana people should say something of its truthfulness or
helpfulness to some, dogmatic or not.
> Many reasons. Body mass, enzymatic balance etc. Unlike THC a “caffeine
> high” does not alter perception. I am talking a normal dose. I had an
> ex who managed to give herself heart palpitations using too much to
> get an assignment done on time when she was in college. It happened to
> be several energy drinks, nodoze tablets, and no sleep (or water) that
> did that. But it took a lot. It is scientifically proven that an
> appropriate dose of Caffeine will enhance concentration and
> performance for roughly two hours.
> I am not saying it’s any better or worse for you. I am saying it will
> not stop you doing your job. If one of my plant operators tested
> positive for THC or alcohol. I’d have them suspended. Quite simply I
> work in one of the more dangerous professions and I don’t need to be
> killed by a stoned or drunken fool. I’d also send them home if they
> were too hyped up on caffeine.
As if being stoned makes them fools. That's the point. Pot smoke doesn't
make one a fool. It just gives those judging them as a fool something to
scapegoat.
> > > I do not see theBibleas a reliable source of information
> >
> > So. I didn't use it as the main source of reasoning. It was just a
> > sidebar.
>
> No you stated it as a reliable source.
I don't recall doing that. I just said I didn't think that the Bible's
association with Christianity was a very good reason to throw it out. As
for reliable, what is reliable if not your own experience? There is no
reliability factor with the Bible. You're fishing for what fits your
life, not looking for historical facts. If you want historical facts, you
want reliability. If you just want to experience the Bible, you simply
experience what it feels like to read and understand the text without
prejudgment if what you're supposedly expected to find in it. Just read
it for what it says and how it makes you feel. I don't say one MUST do
this, but I'm saying it was helpful to me to just read the Bible as if it
was any gnostic text, because the Bible itself is just a collection of
individual books. If one of the books had been left out the the Bible, it
would probably be considered more interesting, somehow more inspired since
it's /not/ part of the Bible. I'm beyond needing to defend the Bible,
anyway, for my own comfort. I just wearily explain myself yet again,
since I know if I don't, people will think I'm a church-going Christian
every Sunday, carrying with, and quoting from my trusty Bible. Why the
fuck can't someone actually read and appreciate the Bible without being
branded a Christian? I don't read it anymore as a matter of course. I
don't feel the need. I'm just saying that earlier in my development, I
found it useful, just like any other book I'd pick up and read. I did
keep it in perspective of how it's perceived by others, which only worked
to make it more my own, which is where those extra special secrets are
found. It's all inside you, too. Just living brings it out.
> I did not say it had nicotine in it. Burning plant matter inhaled will
> give you the dioxane containing Tars that cause the cancer. Pure
> nicotine will kill you fast. The diluted amount in tobacco weed will
> kill you slow. Burning THC containing plants still causes the tars
> that contain the various cancer causing thngs.
>
> The fact thus remains it’s no better for you than tabacco. It’s a bit
> of Dogma from the lovers of THC to say it is.
But the final point is that it's still a choice. Just like choosing
butter or margarine, white bread or wheat bread. Wheat is better for you.
Why is white even legal? Health risk is no excuse for keeping pot illegal
when you can actually BUY hydrogenated oil right off the shelf. It's
known as CRISCO shortening! Margarine! Why use fluorescent lights that
are known to cause eye damage and headaches when regular halogen lighting
makes a warmer environment and doesn't cause eye damage? (People want to
save money, and fuck everyone's eyes.) Then they want to keep illegal the
one herb that can ease the insanity of being expected to make deadly
choices in food and chemicals just to save money. BLAH! I'm on the
sidelines of life until the insanity simmers down and smooths out some.
> > > THC takes you OUT of real life.
> >
> > No, it puts you in a mode where discovering real life is more enjoyable.
> > It doesn't make the real world disappear. It adjusts the brain so that
> > the real world looks more interesting than it did before.
>
> Every pot head I have ever seen high, has no indication of what
> reality is. They are too hyped up on the altered state.
Until there's something they really want to focus on, and then they're all
into it with more neurons firing than without. If there's nothing a
stoner wants to do, the only thing they might feel like doing is acting
goofy at home, which is better than showing everyone what a good drinker
you are by trying to drive home after six beers.
> I prefer reality thanks. You do whatever you like to yourself but
> don’t try to convince the rest of us it’s the absolutely only way to
> be either.
>
> Here troll boy are the facts.
>
> You moaned you don’t have a real job. You moaned you can’t afford
> anything. You said you would not give your weed up.
>
> Reality. A decent job WILL test you for drugs.
> Reality. A decent job WILL pay you money.
> Reality: You can’t have it both ways. It’s reality. Life is not fair.
> Get over it.
LOL! Keep chanting your own dogma. Everything you posted, especially the
last four lines, are parroted malarky I've heard from adults all my life
-- angry adults who are upset that they feel they didn't get a fair shake
in life, and now they just bark those lines at the younger generations to
toughen them up and instill in their minds, and even unecessarily set up
challenges to impede their progress. Artificial challenges don't reflect
reality. The reality is, calculators exist. Let them use calculators to
add numbers if you think that's what's important.
Noinden
Oh and FYI I do not call what I do the old religion! I am a CR you twit
Evergreen
> Prove I am wrong or shut up! Oh wait you can not
Don't have to. You have to prove you are talking to
fictional gods.
Duh.
Good luck.
Noinden
Evergreen
Who do you think you are fooling with these juvenile word games?
Who do you think actually believes that you commune with fictional gods?
Is there anyone that stupid who can operate a computer? I doubt it.
Like he rest of the charlatans in your pseudo-religion, you have no
magickal skills at all.
You are a fraud just like ren.
Noinden
just that, it does not require proof.
Thus prove me wrong. Prove that I don’t know that deities are real. Go
on I double dog dare yah!
The thing about usenet is the moment you killfile me, I win. I don’t
give a fat rats thoin about what you think. I do however enjoy that
you can not actually compete on theological levels with the least of
us here, let alone people like Ren, Aine and myself who have been in
this battlefield for a decade. We’ve had a go at each other on and
off, and been allies, yet here we still are. We are linked by
amusement at how stupid you are. You are using outdated techniques for
Usenet. We all did that in the mid 1990’s.
Back to theology. You are out of your depth. As shown by your
inability to talk about the subject matter, and just attack it. You
know nothing of Gardner, Sanders, Nichols in the first wave, or
Bonewitts, Carr-Gomm, Starhawk etc in the subsequent waves.
Hint ONE of the second wave people I mentioned has a degree from
Berkley in this very subject :)
Hope
>
> Like he rest of the charlatans in your pseudo-religion, you have no
> magickal skills at all.
>
> You are a fraud just like ren.
>
> Sid
>
OOPS! You screwed up and spelled "pseudo" correctly. Are you sure
you're sidneystone?
sarchasm
Not only that but, he keeps ignoring his shake 'n bake dedication induction
into the 'priesthood' of wicca, which either makes him a member of a
pseudo-religion or, a charlatan only pretending to be a member,
Evergreen
> On Feb 17, 7:19 am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> > Prove I am wrong or shut up! Oh wait you can not
>>
>> >> Don't have to. You have to prove you are talking to
>> >> fictional gods.
>>
>> >> Duh.
>>
>> >> Good luck.
>>
>> >> [delete]
>>
>> >> Sid
>>
>> > Nice try but no! You made a claim of falsehood QED you prove it k?
>>
>> Who do you think you are fooling with these juvenile word games?
>>
>> Who do you think actually believes that you commune with fictional gods?
>>
>> Is there anyone that stupid who can operate a computer? I doubt it.
>>
>> Like he rest of the charlatans in your pseudo-religion, you have no
>> magickal skills at all.
>>
>> You are a fraud just like ren.
>>
>> Sid
In Message-ID: <c653fc1c-9ec7-43a8...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> Noinden wrote:
"I am not living a recealed religion but a mystery one. Books are great
for historical reference (and I use ones for that). But for actual
relating to my Gods? I prefer a good drum beat in a darkened room
myself or Alcehmical work around a fire."
That's the statement by Noinden that started this discussion.
> Sid, calm down. It not my fault you can not disprove me. Faith is
> just that, it does not require proof.
>
> Thus prove me wrong. Prove that I don=92t know that deities are real. Go
> on I double dog dare yah!
I really hope that you are not dependent on your con artist skills for
a living. Because you will be homeless soon if you are.
You say that you commune with alleged gods.
That assertions and a dollar will get you a cheap donut.
Charlatans through the ages have been saying the same thing.
Unless you can back it up. Unless these supposed gods can give
you information that you couldn't possibly posess through any
normal means.
And it still wouldn't prove that you were communing with gods.
But what it would do is prove that you are something other than
the cheap charlatan you currently seem to be.
I'll tell you the same thing I tell ren:
Bullshit is not magick.
[delete]
Noinden
An Coibhi Drui
Ren and Sydney are both most entertaining, so please leave them get on
with the fun !
Cheers,
Michael.
ren
wrote:
> Ren and Sydney are both most entertaining, so please leave them get on
> with the fun !
>
> Cheers,
> Michael.
Newsgroups trimmed.
Noinden
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Message-ID: <c653fc1c-9ec7-43a8-a67b-85db0b7ad...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> Noinden wrote:
>
> "I am not living a revealed religion but a mystery one. Books are great
> for historical reference (and I use ones for that). But for actual
> relating to my Gods? I prefer a good drum beat in a darkened room
> myself or Alchemical work around a fire."
>
You are dredging old arguments you LOST to make it seem something
else.
> > Sid, calm down. It not my fault you can not disprove me. Faith is
> > just that, it does not require proof.
>
> > Thus prove me wrong. Prove that I don’t know that deities are real. Go
> > on I double dog dare yah!
>
> I really hope that you are not dependent on your con artist skills for
> a living. Because you will be homeless soon if you are.
The regulars know what I do for a living, and you are the conartist!
You are dodging the point. PROVE the deities I worship are not real.
They have been shown honor for 1000’s of years. Yet you claim they are
false. Your Abrahamic undergarments are showing Sid.
> You say that you commune with alleged gods.
I do.
> That assertions and a dollar will get you a cheap donut.
> Charlatans through the ages have been saying the same thing.
Sorry I don’t eat much processed Sugar thanks. Oh and the Messiah of
your religion also said he heard his God. Yet he’s allowed to be right
in your books. One eye.
> Unless you can back it up. Unless these supposed gods can give
> you information that you couldn't possibly posess through any
> normal means.
Who the hell says the Morrigan gives me any information? I’m not some
fool who spends all his time on his knees seeking salvation. The
Morrigan and the Tuatha de Dannan (and by extension the Tuatha De
Domman) are not going to give me something because I whine and bitch
about it. They are part of my Tuath, and as an extension are shown
honor.
> And it still wouldn't prove that you were communing with gods.
> But what it would do is prove that you are something other than
> the cheap charlatan you currently seem to be.
How is my belief being a Charlatin? I am not selling salvation. I am
not claiming great powers (go on post where I have). It is my firm
belief all deties are real (ALL).
> I'll tell you the same thing I tell ren:
>
> Bullshit is not magick.
Magic. Ha the tool of the weak. I mean whatever you call magic.
Noinden
Yeah don't play with the old Drunk ren!
ren
> > Newsgroups trimmed.
>
> Yeah don't play with the old Drunk ren!
That old damn bastard. He, he.
Evergreen
> On Feb 13, 10:00=A0am, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Note the date there. He posted this about a month ago.
>
>> She's alone. She wouldn't last a day with a man. He'd have
>> to leave or beat the shit out of her to get her to shut
>> her anus mouth.
>
>> Sid
>
> Sidney Lambe, based on your violent comments about women, I believe
> you are a danger to women and to society in general. Too bad the legal
> system in your area is absolutely powerless to do anything about you.
>
> In a way, I am glad law-abiding ordinary citizens are able to carry
> concealed weapon licenses in order to deal with people like you who
> might be in the middle of beating some poor defenseless woman to
> death.
>
> This is also why I endorse self defense courses for everyone. If any
> of you see someone like Sidney Lambe beating an innocent person to
> death, it is your duty to step in to save that person's life. Do
> whatever you have to do to stop people like Sidney.
>
> Remember that in The State of California, they will release 10,000
> prisoners due to overcrowding. Again, it is your duty to deal with
> people like Sidney Lambe in order to protect the public. Do what you
> have to do. Call the police first, but do not wait for them. Enforce
> law and order for the sake of your friends, family and community.
>
So ren, since you say that you believe I am a danger to society,
why haven't you used your magickal skills to do something about
me?
After all, you claim to be capable of scrambling people's brains
and turning them into your puppets, just for starters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/7645f9930048bea2
It is obviously your duty, your moral obligation, to stop me.
Oh yeh. You haven't done that because you are a charlatan with
no magickal skills at all.
I forgot.
You lie about your magickal skills like you lie about me. While
you hide behind the internet and fake names.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/2b550a31997edf62
Sid
--
Wiccan Priest :-) and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb