OK, here's my question: Is telepathy real, and if it is, why can't any of us do it?

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Sol all of us CAN do it but you, we just don't tell you about it;)

Honestly, I believe it does exist it's just that we have yet to tap into the other 90% of our brain power (That's why).

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Hang on, just a sec...

*sending transmission*

There! Did ya guys all get that? ;)

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Oh wait a minute... I was trying to receive on the same channel as Playstation... receiving... receiving...

Sol

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

NAT!!! Naughty, Naughty. That was not a pleasant image you piped into my brain. I shall spank you when next we meet. ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Naughty! *giggle*

Did you at least enjoy the part with the waffle iron?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

It left a searing, grid-pattern on that one guy's butt... It was kinda kewl, except when it got pulled away and some, gooey, stringy flesh stuck to it like a big ol' wad of bubble gum stuck to your sneaker on a hot summer day... (how's THAT for imagery) ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

"You will feel an itching... The itching becomes burning. Heat upon heat upon HEAT. You feel skin crisping? Flesh dropping off-"

"THE PAIN!"

"Silence! SILENCE!"

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

But on a more serious note about telepathy...

It's kind of hard to study when you think about it. I remember seeing a documentary somewhere about the psychics, telepaths and PKs in Russia. Many of them turned out to be phoney. Recently I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have telepathic ideas these days.

I guess what you'd have to do is find two people claiming to be telepaths who absolutely-without-a-doubt have never met each other, stick them in two separate sound-proof and sealed rooms and then test them. Maybe a do a MRI and CAT scan while they do it to see if there's any unusual brain activity while they're "communicating".

But like I said, I haven't seen anything in the media about this recently.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

WAFFLEMAN!

chugga chugga chugga chugga (OK, I'm running)

Waffleman, Gold and Crispy,
Bad Guys are History!

Sol

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I think the trick is that Telepathy isn't at all like a spy satellite. The telepath/clairvoyant has to genuinely CARE about whatever he's trying to pick up. That's why the gov't gave up on such research. You can't say, "OK, here's a picture of the Kremlin, and what's going on in there?" Now on the other hand, your chances go up, say, if you try to see the answers to next week's test - again, only works if you CARE about the subject on an emotional level!

Another problem I've read about is the psychic bubble. It is hard for a person to distinguish between a genuine psychic impression vs. your brain making an association with that impression. Like you get an impression of a dog, then your brain says, "dog-cat-pets-rotweiler" etc. Or you get an impression of a card labeled spades and your brain says, "aceofspades-gambling-money."

For this reason, it is almost impossible to use ESP to gain, say, the results of tomorrow night's lotto jackpot.

Sol

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Then there's also filtering the imagination away from what you're trying to pick up. That can influence things too, and even then you never really know what's what.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Empathy is the key. Translate the impulses to something familiar, and let your instinct direct you to what you should do. It is the closest to telepathy I have ever experienced firsthand. It's not so much clair-voyance, -audience, -sentience... It's more a passive sensation of emanations around you. You need to be calm, receptive, and open-minded. You can't go into it searching for an answer, but rather searching for an imprint of what's there. Somebody can ask you a question once you're 'tuned in' but you could give a totally different response than what was sought--but it would probably be true somewhere else, on another level, or even for a different person present. Is this telepathy? I don't think it is, but I have gotten several things correct about total strangers when using the beforementioned technique to discern little tidbits of important info from them. Trick is, they gotta be thinking about it, too--so ya gotta phrase your questions right if you wanna get anywhere. Just my two cents worth on the matter. Now, you all owe me two cents! ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I think it's perception of bodylanuage. It can be very subtle and subconscious, some people are better at it than others. It helps if you know the person.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I always guess my presents whenever I get them. Does that count? ;>

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Not if YOU bought them.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Remind me to buy you some socks for Xmas, Fred.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Once I put my hand behind my back and tried to guess how many fingers I was holding up. I guessed "three" and it came true! Next I guessed "four" and I was dead-on again. In fact, I was right like nine times out of ten. The tenth time I guessed "five" but since I had up four fingers and one thumb, I couldn't really count that.

Sol

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Hey Nat, buy me some socks for Christmas... ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Okay, you'll be so surprised!

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I bet ya I can guess what you're gonna get me, Nat... ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Oh really? What makes you so sure =)

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm psychic. ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Oh yeah, silly me =)

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Fred wants socks for his birthday!

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Not his Birthday but for Christmas silly boy.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I still have a wad of socks at my place from New Year's. I wonder whose they are?

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Why Mr. Psychic, are you telling us that you don't KNOW =)

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

I think its probably because his place is a wayside for socks escaping to the sock dimension once they disappear from the dryer...

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Well, they were CLEAN socks, so all my psychometry told me was "hot, tumbling" and "wet, soapy" So I didn't actually get an impression of the owner... ;>

And that would explain the mysterious lint-balls that appear in the middle of an otherwise clean floor, huh? ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I think those come from your belly-button, Fred.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Is this really philosophical? Oh well! Debate topic: Are men and women different, and how? If they are, is it inborn or cultural? Are there any differences that ARE encouraged by genetics? What do YOU think?

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

A little of both. There are some maternal behaviors that are genetic- nesting, mothering instincts with small children, etc. As far as staying at home barefoot, pacified and pregnant with no career, education or human rights, that is a male invention what society has unfortunately adopted in many cases.

Finding isolated cultures with social mores uncorrupted by the outside world are very rare. I think that some of the South Pacific islands exhibit gender equality in their culture, but I don't know the all the facts. Then there were the Picts, Celts and the Amazons =) Some excavations of Asian/Eastern European sites point to women having vital, important, authoritative roles in the ancient nomadic societies- including warfare.

Anyway, to continue the whole god thing: every argument I've seen that attempts to prove the existence of god relies on faith and presumptions. I haven't seen any argument that presents anything tangible. As time goes on science decrypts what was once attributed to the divine. "God" is a human myth.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I forgot to mention the Iroquois. Shame on me! If I remember correctly women make all the political decisions in their culture. I think I remember reading that somewhere, but I'm no expert on American Indian culture. I also vaguely rememer the Hopi Indians being a matriarchal bunch.

Faye, do you have any knowledge on this? I am in major need of a world history, antropology and sociology refresher course.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Ok Nat so God is a myth but that would make him a belief. But think about this, Columbus set sail to find new trade routes and prove the world was round on a belief. Yuri Gagarin volentired to go into space on a belief. The crusaders went to war on a belief. All of history is made up of people following their beliefs just as you do everyday you go to work. Yet their is one other thing that helped all of these people, Faith. Yes faith, faith in whatever God they believed in. Faith that they would acomplish what they set out to do and come back alive.

So I still can't prove his "exsistence" but if you believe in something and so do many others doesn't that belief constitute an existence. Would any of the people I mentioned earlier have done what they did if they didn't believe Or have Faith?

(I never really was any good at this debate/philosophy thing.)

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

I wholeheartedly belive in the existance of God.

He created the universe and all life that exists everywhere.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Damien-

Are you saying 100 million Elvis fans can't be wrong? Think about it. That's not any kind of logical ammo for attepmting to justify the existance of "God".

Bry-

You believe what you choose to. Is there a God in your computer? The wonders of science and technology make so much possible, or do you attribute that to "God" as well?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Nat, I admit that I cannot tangibly prove the existence of God.

I present to you, however, a certain series on the Learning Channel called "Mysteries of the Bible". In this series, scientists set out to investigate certain stories/miracles in the bible, and use full scientific methods to figure out what happened, and if it could have actually happened, and if it did happen, to what scale. They have proved such things as the "Great Flood" (remember Noah?) Sodom & Gammorah (where the sinners were turned to pillars of salt) and a few others I can't remember right now because I am very tired.

Do I believe in God? I believe SOMETHING created the earth, and everything we know to be real. I believe there is a spiritual force at work in the universe, not so much interfering with everyday affairs, but acting more like an air traffic controller, keeping all the little blips on the right track. I believe that miracles can happen, have happened, and are happening now. I allow for the existence of things science cannot explain as yet. In other words, I do not disbelieve in something, just because science tells me to. I know exactly how conception works, what happens to the cells, how they multiply and grow, and each get a little program on what they need to do to be the right tissue, blah blah blah. This is the creation of life, it happens all the time. No different than if it were done outside a human body, in a cloning vat somewhere... But life is created at that moment. A spontaneous chemical reaction between certain cell types which causes growth and multiplication just doesn't cut it for me. Something divine happens. A person has just been created. I know I'm opening up a whole new can of worms "when does life start?" but, think about it: if we were to clone another human, a genetic duplicate, would it be the same person? Here come some more of my beliefs:

There is a soul. It is eternal. It makes each of us who we are. what the hell wqas I trying to prove again? I'm going to bed now. If I remember this when the sun comes up, I might expand on it, otherwise, you all just witnessed a random wandering of my thoughts. I hoped you enjoyed the ride. Good night.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Nat-

No the King is dead, has been dead and will always be dead. You tried to disprove my statement with a totally different subject completely. Think about this Elvis WAS alive, he was SEEN, everyone KNEW and BELIEVED he existed. The catch is that they knew he existed whereas with God people, as we are trying to discus here, aren't sure. There is the flaw in that argument because even in the bible God never walked the Earth and had people know it.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

It is perfectly relevant. You were basing part of your argument on the number of people who have faith in the divine. "100 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" is a term I used to describe just how illogical it is to assume the majority's faith is correct simply because it's the majority. You took it literally; I used it to illustrate the pattern in part of your argument.

I've heard so many people resort to the following in religious debates: "well, 90% of the world's population believes in some sort of God, therefore god must exist." This is the same flawed logic in assuming Elvis is alive simply because millions of his fans believe. Do you see what I was getting at now? This has nothing to do with Elvis, I was using it as an example. Whether Elvis is dead or not isn't the point- I was criticizing the statement that whatever the majority believes to be true, must be true.

But I always thought the world was flat anyway... (that was a joke by the way)

By The Chosen One (Buffy) on Unrecorded Date:

I believe that there is something that collects the souls when people have died and put them into newborn babies ( like a soul Recycling Center). I do not beieve however that Jesus was the son of god.... I think that he was a prophet. That was sent by god to spread the word. I also have a big problem with the fact that Mary ( Jesus 's mom) was a vigrin when she gave birth.... How is that Posible?!? What do you guys think??

Buffy

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I think the virgin birth is just as rediculious as the idea of Elvis faking his death.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I can offer a God-proof. I tried typing it in TWICE and lost it both times b4 posting. Be patient. I shall post it. Augustine and Anselm, among others, ventured proofs for God which are actually quite good.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Dang. I'm living with a non-Christian... ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

And living in sin... Technically...

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

My statement should never have been taken as "the majority is correct." I personally hate that assumption and don't believe it. What I meant is that Even one persons belief can constitute existence. I mean when Chrisianity first appeared it was the minority but they still believed that God existed and had Faith in that. And that not only goes for Christanity, all religions have a god which they believe in and have Faith that he/she exists. There is only one sure way of proveing beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and thats to die.

Personally I plan to live forever so will someone let me know at some point;)

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

I hope you have one kick-ass retirement plan.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Well see I plan to open a antique shop and then live in a loft above it. I'll fake my death every once and a while and then come back as another person. It should work great.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Are you gonna live in NYC, Paris or London?

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

I haven't thought that far ahead yet. I do still have to live out this 'life' before I decide.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Ummm, yeah. Well I plan on dying eventually. I just hope I get to travel around the world, become incredibly wealthy and screw lots of HOT lookin' men (more than one at a time if I can swing it), maybe if I'm lucky fall in move marry one of them, have a few kids, and live in a Central Park East penthouse BEFORE I kick the bucket.

Oh, and when I die I hope that I can do it in style or kill myself (it will be ART) when I become too old to function as a woman.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

You can all die if you want, but I will live forever.

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Yes, I believe I already said that.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Sol, it looks like you'll be keeping Damien company =)

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Sol- about Augustine and Anselm- what important points did they site? I'm too lazy to go to the library, so fill me in as best ya can ;) Are they arguments that would hold up in modern times? I can see how certain proofs might have been good for the time they were written in, but things change and us humans figure stuff out eventually =)

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

So Nat what pray tell do you want to fall in so you can move marry where?

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

wonderful typos of mine, ain't they great? "Fall in love" is what I meant to type back there.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Nat, is it even possible for you to love only one person? I would think that you'd want reverse polygamy... Multiple husbands, and all that. You're thoughts? Hell, you could even move to a remote place and start your own religion--like the mormons did. You can believe in science, discredit the existance of God, and have as many husbands as you want. You could even institute an age limit, and force all people in your clan to euthanise around, what--65? 70? ;>

There are religions in existance right now that would kill anybody who did the above as heretic. what wonderful times we live in, with freedom of expression and all that, huh?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

As far as living forever: highly over-rated. One thing I DO want to be able to do is retain my life-memories between lives, so I can more effectively live each one, without having to figure everything out again "for the first time" every time I do it. That would be fun, huh? A 2-year-old kid with the memories of 7 past lives to draw knowledge from. I wish I had realized mine at an earlier age now--I've already said too much. ;> L8R.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Yes, actually the proofs are quite good. Let me post the jist of them. There are actually multiple god-proofs, but this is the most famous.

OK, something like this:

You did not create yourself. You came from somewhere. Your parents, actually.

Your parents came from someplace. (Their parents).

You can work your way back to the very first human in this way. This human came from someplace also.

If you cite evolution, the human evolved from other forms of life, but life did not come from nothing, either.

Life arose from the Earth. The Earth from a gas cloud. The matter in the universe came from somewhere, too.

OK. If you reason and reason, eventually you come to the first thing. We modernists would say the Big Bang. But...

Something cannot create itself. SO something created the Big Bang.

What?

Eventually, you come to the realization that something HAS to exist which itself was not created by anything else. SOMETHING which has always existed created everything else. The Universe could not come from nothing. It had to come from something. Something had to set everything into motion, and that THING, called the Unmoved Mover, was itself not created.

If something DID create the THING, then it is not the Unmoved Mover. Something created it, and something created that, this cannot go on infinitely, eventially again you are brought to the inevitable conclusion that SOMETHING came first. This chain of creation can't be infinite, and so again you have this THING, one way or another, the UNMOVED MOVER.

This Unmoved Mover, or Prime Mover, we call God. By the definition, God is the creator of all, and itself had no beginning.

That's the general jist of it - a number of philosophers have proved it in this or similar ways.

Sol

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Brenna,
I think we are all sons of God, even the Daughters. I mean, water is water, right?

And yes, there are some groups that say multiple mates is the way to go, including such fringe benefits as lowered cost of living and less need for the hectic 50-hour work week. Only rare people can accomplish this feat successfully, however, plus it is probably illegal. Anyway, recently saw a movie called "Splendor" which addresses the topic! :)

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Sol,
Did you mean Brenna or Nat?

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Brenna! As per her May 1 post.

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Brenna made a post? Me confused.

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

Go back to May first and check the user names of those posting, if it ain't Sol, Greyfox, Nat, Ranger, or Knight hawk, who do you suppose is left? We'll wait, just view it as an excercise in logic ;)

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I never respond to chain letters, but this is one I recieved from the wife of my high-school best friend (who's in the marines now). Let's see what you all think about it, especially since it seems to fit nicely on the theme we've been pursuing recently:

Here's a question posed by a student to God:

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.
Sincerely,
God


Now read below for how this has unfolded in an incredibly short period of time:

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools
And we said, OK...

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and love your neighbor as yourself."
And we said, OK...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.
And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore...

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity and we surely don't want to be sued.
And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.
And we said, that's a grand idea...

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.
And we said, that's another great idea...

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.
And we said, it doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good...

And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.
And we said, we have no problem with that...

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet.
And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech...

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence and illicit sex... And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...
And we said, it's just entertainment and it has no adverse effect and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead...

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not then just discard it...but if you discard this thought process, then don't you dare sit back and complain

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Personally, I think this is making a generalization; a blanket statement, because I know that there are people who opposed each and every one of the statements contained in the letter. Obviously, however, a majority of people just allowed it to happen, or else none of the things therein would have come to pass.

The only way this letter works is if the parents actually have no active role in the moral upbringing of their children. Because, believe it or not, children look up to their parents more than anybody in the universe. Don't disillusion them or cause them to hate you. The only problem-children I've ever seen have had some sort of problem-parentage... So care for them, and seek the best for them. Be a friend for them, as well as a parent, and you can't go wrong. Even though society's highway is filled with moral pot-holes, if you teach your children how to drive they can recognize them, and not ruin the alignment of your car, the little bastards... ;>

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Also, the beginning part where God says "I'm not allowed in schools" I think is bull-dookie. There is absolutely no way, NO WAY any of us can uninvite God from anywhere. God is everywhere, in all things. To remove God from school would be to remove EVERYTHING, and put a void in its place. And even then, God would be there. Just because some law says "you can't pray in school" doesn't mean that people don't do it. God is in every person--to remove God from school would be to suck the soul out of every person in it.

I actually disagree with the whole separation of church and state. If you don't educate your children about the different religions and faiths out there, you breed prejudice. wow, this just popped into my head: In high school, it was a REQUIRED COURSE for one quarter in one of my english classes, I think, that we learned all about judaism. How it works, its different rules, etc. We never learned about christianity or Hinduism, or Buddhism, Shintoism, or Islam. Just Judaism. But, in a public school, shouldn't that have fallen under separation of church and state? something to think about...

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Separation of Church and State is necessary, Fred. Unless you have classes available for every single religion out there, it's flat out government discrimination. So either you include every religion (which isn't feasible) in school or you exclude them. One or the other.

Do you know how uncomfortable when you're stuck in a classroom having one particular religion that you don't believe in shoved down your throat? Being stuck in a room full of praying people (who are not of your religion) is equally uncomfortable. I've been in that kind of situation many, many times.

In my opinion if parents want their children to have a religion included in their curriculum, they're perfectly free to send them to a private school. There's also Churches, Synagogues, mosques, etc. that they can go to during their free time. Religion is a touchy issue anyway, and it's best kept out of public education.

My boss told me a story once I don't remember the details, but here it is:

There was a Rabbi visiting a Christian group because his friend, a priest, was there. The Priest begins to initiate a group prayer and says to his friend "We're going to pray for a while. You don't mind, do you?"

The Rabbi responds "Of course I'm offended! I'm being excluded!"

As for that chain letter, I was entirely disgusted. To me it said: everyone should believe in conservative Christian morals and guidelines or else they're responsible for the failure of society. To me that is complete bull, and it enraged me.

I do agree that parents aren't taking enough responsibility when it comes to raising their children these days. I also think that's partially because more and more both parents have to hold down full-time jobs to make ends meet, which means less time for the kids. That might be part of it.

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

The following was all that was ever intended by seperating the Church and the State:

Constitution of the United Staes of America
Amendment I
"Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peacebly to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences."

That's it, the whole text. All they ever wanted was to keep the government from dictating a state religion and to allow folks to excersize any or no religion as was their wont. It's a whole lot simpler than the morass we've made of it.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Fred, you know that letter made me squirm. I really hate that kind of right-wing thinking- it makes me sick. What that letter REALLY said was "Bitter, disgruntled, Christian-extremist-failed-parents of the world unite and blame the HEATHENS for why WE can't have control over the world!!"

Maybe they should pick up their marbles and go home =)

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

I take offence to your comments Nat. I AM CHRISTIAN, and damned proud of it. To say that the comments in that letter are only christian rigmoral is BS. I agree with you about the fact that people aren't putting the blame where it belongs but to then turn around and say that only the christian faith is responcable is... I'm gonna stop here before I say something I'm gonna regret.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

You have a talent for taking things out of context.

My comments were about the Christian extremists who were responsible for writing the letter. I've never been a friend to the right-wing, and that letter was nothing more than the right-wing pissing and moaning about why they can't have things their way. If you chose to take offense to my reaction to their method of thinking, then I can't stop you.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

And you misunderstood what I said Nat. It's not just Christians, other religions say the same thing it's just that the christians seem to be the only ones who voice their opinions out loud.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I think the letter makes some good points. I mean, there is something true about the idea that we become what we see. Many people tend to gravitate toward society's idea of the "average" person. If the average person is into violence, then many will consider violence the norm.

I also agree that the Christians are a good people. For every Christian Loudmouth there are thousands of good decent Christian folks who are out to live good lives and do the right thing and live by the Ten Commandmenths (good ideas in there).

There are also some points in the letter that don't necessarilly follow, but the idea is that a society that puts out mixed messages is more likely to get mixed up kids. If mom-and-dad say one thing and media says another (media = ideas of many average people who just happen to be TV and movie producers) then the thinking person might consider both, or likely be in doubt as to which is right. If media and parents agreed, there is no reason to doubt! Now the thinkers would always consider alternatives, but most people don't do this, and just live their lives.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Damien-

The common belief foundation religions have in common is not the damn point. From the way I see it it’s obvious that the person whom that chain letter originated from is a conservative right-wing Christian, which is why my opinions were directed to that group regarding the letter. Those are the KEY words I’m using for YOU Damien, “REGARDING THE LETTER”. Was there any question about who I was referring to? No. So don't twist my meaning around so that you blow your top. It seems like you’re offended by everything I type. I can't please everybody you know.

Sol-

Yes, it did make some interesting points but I felt that it was quite irrational. But that’s what the letter seemed to be pushing, that the deterioration of society is due to the lack of religious practice and enforcement of religious values. I disagree.

Religion does not necessarily make someone a better person. Everyone is born knowing that violence and meanness to fellow man is wrong. It’s innate, and naturally so; if we went around killing each other compulsively with no reservation the human race would not be able to carry on. That’s also called common sense and species survival instinct; just about everybody’s got it. Furthermore, good parenting goes a long way, and I agree with Fred about problem children having ineffective parents.

I think it’s also a given that traditions do not always help society. Many of them are so archaic they need to be revised to keep current with modern times but people and religious organizations resist change despite what's best for the people.

1) Do you need religion to know right from wrong? No, it is innate or learned from the parents.
2) Do you need religion to be nice and kind to others? No. A person’s candor and generosity has nothing to do with whether or not they follow an established religion.
3) Does satanic and explicit lyrics impair someone’s innate sense of right and wrong? No.
4) If a teenage woman is old enough to make sexual choices for herself, should she be required by law to inform her parents despite her own good judgement and right to privacy? No.
5) Is banning the distribution of contraceptives going to stop people from having sex? Hello! Tried and true people are gonna get down whether or not the parents approve.
6) Is internet child porn protected under the First Amendment? Absolutely not! In fact I know of someone who had a roommate busted by the Feds for purchasing internet child-porn.
7) “Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. And we said, it doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good... “ Alrighty, does the fact that I’m a lewd shameless whore in the bedroom (though not frequently these days) effect my ability to do my job? What does my private life have to do with my professional life? Absolutely none and the Prez is no exception, only he’s more in the public eye. Yeah, Clinton got nailed for Monica but do you think he was the only President to get head in the oval office from someone other than the first lady? Hell no, Clinton had tbe bad luck of getting caught. Hoover was a cross-dresser and if JFK wasn’t a lecher I don’t know who is. When it comes to political scandals it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Abortion, pornography, sex, violence and disobedient children… Panic, panic, panic. Running back to religious traditions to “rescue” society isn’t going to solve anything. If people were taught to be more responsible and held accountable for their actions perhaps things would be different. And it doesn’t take religion to do that- it takes common sense, understanding, compassion and good guidance for the young ones. Religion doesn’t have the right to take all the credit for humanity. It can be a good tool for encouraging certain beneficial morals (if used responsibly), yet trying to force religion as the only solution is merely a different flavor of repression.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

RE: -1

1)Yes it is but todays parent supposedly has no time to teach their kid so they say watch TV, that will teach them. The next thing you know the kid is on Jerry Springer having had five kids by the time they were 18 and married telling Jerry they learned from him.
2)True
3)Thank You!
4)I don't agree completely, it all depends on the mind set really. My sister was 19 when she got pregnant hid it from my Mom until the last 2-3 months of the pregnancy and then panicked. Plus theres the whole thing of what are they going to do with it, I seem to remember more than one pregnant teen throwing away their baby imediately after giving birth.
5)So True
6)This acctually falls under the decency act(I think).
7)True, but really am I the only one who seems to think that she set him up from the begining by keeping the dress as is and not washing it. I mean come-on haw many women would have left the dress like that on purpose if they didn't mind doing the act in the first place.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Actually, or TV programs and other entertainment in the USA are very tame compared to places like France, Germany, and Japan. France and Germany have softcore and hardcore porn on public TV.

I'd like to bring up Japan as an example. Several of their anime and comics are so violent, sexually explicit, perverse and bizarre that your typical conservative American would be totally disgusted if not shocked and horrified. Yet the Japanese have the lowest crime rates in the world and they enjoy a good quality of life where the average citizen is responsible, honest and law abiding. The Japanese government has also banned guns. I'm not saying that the Japanese don't experience crime, they do, but it's so low compared to the rest of the world.

In Japan their entertainment is used as a type of outlet, and it works for them.

Similarly someone told me a story about a town in the south, where strangely the police noticed the crime rate on Saturdays was non-existent. It turns out that Saturday afternoon was when everyone went down to the arena to watch wrestling and vent their violent energy by rooting for their favorite wrestler as he kicked his opponent's ass.

This puts a spin on things, doesn't it? Sometimes violent and sexual entertainment can be beneficial. Knowing this, I really think it's bad parenting that's the problem.

Also, most of the kids who go out and commit acts of violence have severe mental problems or live in an abusive household. I think these things factor in a lot more than what they watch on TV.

By Margravine (Ranger) on Unrecorded Date:

You must not have heard what really goes on in those Japanese clubs then - sure they may have low reported numbers on crime statistic but their society is still very okay with the sexual exploitation and molestation of women. Women are still objects in Japanese culture, even pinching female asses hard enough to hurt is a game they play on commuter trains over there, and most women won't report it 'cause they know it'll do no good.
A western woman I know who was a mover and shaker in the three piece suit set learned Japanese to enhance her standing. The Japanese clients treated her like a talking dog. And she was fighting off propositions from Japanese business men who assumed she'd been provided for their 'use'. She was only a woman after all.
Women are still reguarded as things in much of Japanese culture. Some of the Japanese comics are enough to make an American vomit, abuse, repression and even rape of women are considered ok story lines and occupations for the 'hero'. I'd love to see a write up on domestic abuse for over there.

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm not diagreeing with you Nat but in my opinion using TV as a babysitter is bad parenting. I mean they let their kids stay up till 10 o'clock and watch South Park and/or Jackass and then complain that these shows should be taken off the air when their kids imitate the things they've seen. These shows begin with a warning that the show is for adults only and that nothing seen should be attempted at home. Yet they can't seem to place the blame appropriately. Anyone else see the problem or my point?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

The age of consent in Japan is 13.

Wow, that chain letter really stirred up a hornet's nest. I got a kick out of it, because I also saw it as right-wing extremism, however I did not shudder at it's every verse as Nat apparently did. Oh, and thank you Nat, you responded just as I expected you would. ;> My personal sociology observation/experiment is coming along nicely...

Oh, Nat--yes, it is very uncomfortable when you are being FORCED to attend something you don't believe in. The class I mentioned where we all learned about Judaism was escapable if you brought in a letter from mom & dad saying "We don't want our child to learn this, we find it personally offensive and an affront to our privacy". Now, why learning about another religion would be either of those things is beyond me; I mean, it wasn't like they were forcing us to become jewish...

I think the separation of church and state has gotten out of hand, personally. To avoid any mention of God or spirituality or anything related to these in a public school has become a point of near insanity in recent years. I heard a story that a teacher got in trouble for telling her students to pray for the families of Columbine victims. Is it really that horrible to offer other people condolences in times of need? Perhaps we should ignore our fellow man, and damn them all to hell, instead? That will make everything all better. Extremes are bad. People don't recognize this, as a society, and more often than not over-react to something, causing a problem in the opposite direction. Even society and attitude seem to obey the laws of physics, in that respect...

I enjoyed reading the last string of posts. I am tired now, and will sleep. Rest well, my friends, and say your prayers... (yes, Nat--you too.) ;>

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I think that religion could be discarded altogether in favour of a well-tought out ethical system. Of course, that wouldn't really happen, because the choice to follow a religion is not based on logic, but on faith - people follow God because they believe in Him, ultimately. I say if following a religion makes you a better person, go 4 it. I mean, Johan the Philosopher knows right from wrong by rationalizing it, but Sloppy Joe who works 9-9 at the diner has no time for philosophy- but he's a good man because he follows God's word.

Teens, although fairly sentient, on the whole need parental supervision. Their lack of life experience alone is enough to cause your average teen to make less-than perfect choices. Now although I agree that good parenting is the BEST cure, I also tend to think that it takes a village to raise a child, and you can't sluff the whole burden onto parents. Many say, "Not my brat kid" and turn the other way. A society has a responsibility to do the right thing for their young - that includes schools and even places of business pitching in.

Some teens ARE wise enough to make big decisions, but ALL teens THINK they are. :)

Sol

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Faye-

No, I haven't heard news of the club scene. I've always known the Japanese are much further behind when it comes to the women's lib., but I didn't know it was that bad.

My mom worked for the Japanese for several years and lived in Japan for six months. She had a very good experience without the abuse you mention. She was fairly attractive back then too, she did mention the business men were quite flirtatious but she was never touched, groped, propositioned or treated with any disrepect. This was back in the 70s.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

Ranger,

That sounds like what used to go on in my Junior High School. Do you think that America has made any progress toward Women's Rights in the past 30 years, say, or are we just a little better, but not much?

Sol

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Fred-

"Oh, and thank you Nat, you responded just as I expected you would. ;>"

Geez Fred, you're acting as if you think I didn't know you posted that letter just to push my buttons =P

Damien- Oh yeah I agree that using the TV as a babysitter has bad results. And I think any parent with common sense wouldn't let their 5-year-old watch South Park. The last thing anyone needs is a todler barking out "Pigfu*ker!" left and right. Although, it does sound kinda funny =)

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

A little better, but the right-wing isn't making it easy.

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

And in some cases, I hate saying it, many women don't realize their potential because they don't always get encouragement from society like men do.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I've been watching South Park since I was five and I turned out alright.

Also I invented the question mark.

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

And I was the First to use quotation fingers. Or so they tell me.

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm the princess of Canada...

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Yes you are.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

And I'm the King of Spain.

Sol

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Do you eat humble pie?

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

So does anyone out there belive in Satan, evil, he, she, it?

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

I believe that there is some evil entity that takes pleasure in the corruption of human kind. Be it Satan, Belzebub, Lucifer whatever.

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I don't believe that any being of pure evil exists. A pure evil being could not possibly sustain itself by my reckoning.

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

Why not Sol? God is a being and by many accounts he is pure good so why not a being of pure evil?

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Alright, enlightenment time:

Assuming we take for granted God as being in existance, and we allow for the creation mythology put forward in the Bible:

God made heaven, and he made the angels. When he was done, he created 4 Arch-angels to govern them. Azrael, Michael, Gabriel, & Uziel. They each had a specific task in Heaven, and they were not given free will. Then, God decided to make Lucifer, and he was the fifth Arch-angel. Lucifer was given free will, and was the most beautiful creation God had made thus far. Then God made Earth, mankind, etc. etc... So, one day, Lucifer decides he doesn't need God telling him what to do, and manages to rally a host of Angels to his cause, and there's a war in Heaven. Lucifer loses, and he is cast out of Heaven with all those who were faithful to him. Thus, hell.

Lucifer, in Latin, actually means "bringer of light" He was created by God to bring knowledge to mankind, to see how we would use the knowledge. throughout the ages it has become twisted into temptation and sin, simply because Lucifer went against God's will before the beginning. I'm not saying Satan is good. All I'm saying is that he was not always described as evil. Also, there was never a mention of 'demon' or 'devil' until the time of the bubonic plague in the dark ages, when the people who did not understand how the disease was caused needed a reason, and thus the church gave them "it is the work of Satan, testing our faith in God" when really it was plague-bearing fleas and a lack of hygiene that did the trick.

I believe Satan exists. I believe God exists. Through logic, you would think the 2 forces would balance out (good vs. evil) but from everything I was ever taught, God, who is ultimate good, can never be beaten by Satan, who is ultimate evil, because evil is weaker than good, and Satan was a disobedient creation of God. That also works for little kids, cuz what better way to keep them in line than a scary nun saying "obey God's laws or you will burn in HELL with SATAN."

Have I ever seen God? Have I ever seen "the devil?" My answer is no. I have seen the works of God, and I have seen acts of violence and hatred. Good and evil influence on the world? Definately. Ultimately, it comes down to the human condition. Greedy, selfish people will perpetuate acts of violence and hatred, while unselfish people will attempt to perpetuate acts of goodness and generosity. And in people, there are no absolutes, only shades of grey. A battle between good and evil? No, a battle of the conscience over doing something for yourself or doing something for others.

So, that means Satan is your greedy, selfish side, and God is your caring, giving side. In the battle of good vs. evil in your heart, who is winning? ;>

By Subcriminal (Nat) on Unrecorded Date:

Yin and Yang, my brother. I am a perfect balance of both =)

By Bryan Cummings (Houdini) on Unrecorded Date:

Intresting read on gender differences in elementary education.

http://encarta.msn.com/parents/features/teachersandboys.asp

By Funk Sol Brother (Sol) on Unrecorded Date:

I actually think that the "fight between good and evil" is an illusion. Is it really "us-vs-them" or is it "us with them"? I mean, we are all in this together. The act of separating the world into convenient little segments is actually a way for people to avoid responsibility, or to justify wrong action. The God-And-Satan thing feeds this myth, but such illusions do not exist at the divine level where all misconceptions are obliterated.

Sol

By The One Known Only as (Greyfox) on Unrecorded Date:

Ahhh, Grand Unification Theory. Yes. By creating levels of separation, we allow for blame to be passed to groups not perceived as 'our own' when in reality, all people and all things, everywhere, are merely parts of the same creation. By accepting others as merely another part of yourself, you eliminate separation, and therefore feelings of blame, greed, or hostility. Unfortunately, everyone today is so caught up in material wealth that spiritual wealth is oftentimes overlooked as sappy, weak, or even silly. It's just another way of saying that good and bad exist in all things, and there is really no clear definition between them within individuals. in each of us the capacity for ultimate good, as well as ultimate evil. It's called free will. We choose what path to walk, and usually it lies somewhere between, even though our best intentions may be for good. I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll just shut up and let y'all post something... L8R! ;>

By Technomage (Houdini) on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 04:34 pm:

Stolen from Slate Magazine today:

Attack of the Shark Lobby
By William Saletan


If you think it's been an embarrassing summer for Gary Condit
or Little League baseball, think of the poor shark. One shark
ripped an arm off a boy in Florida. A second destroyed a
swimmer's leg in the Bahamas. A third inflicted a fatal
17-inch gash on a boy in Virginia. A fourth killed a man in
North Carolina and tore off his girlfriend's foot. There have
been dozens of lesser attacks, but you get the picture.
Sharks have a PR problem.


Fear not. Marine biologists, shark-feeding tour operators,
animal rights activists, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have come
forward to denounce the media frenzy. They point out that
this year hasn't been the bloodiest and that most sharks
aren't out to eat humans. But too often, the apologists
overstate their case. They claim that sharks are "gentle" and
can be "trusted." Staying on dry land to avoid attacks is
like "being afraid of the bogeyman," University of Miami
Professor Samuel Gruber told the Washington Post. In a Wall
Street Journal op-ed, author Michael Capuzzo advised the
public, "Go on in, the water's fine."


Welcome to Jaws V: The Spin. In this sequel, fast-talking
flacks for man-eating predators prove they're out to lunch.
Let's get a few things straight. Gentle creatures don't
devour human limbs. The bogeyman doesn't bleed children to
death. And the water wasn't fine for the two people who lost
their lives to sharks in the three days after Capuzzo's op-ed
appeared. Here's the bait the shark lobby is offering, and
why you shouldn't take it.


1. Other animals and activities are more dangerous. Apologists
say you're less likely to be hurt by a shark than by sunburn,
bees, snakes, jellyfish, dogs, cars, lightning, or toilets.
Fair enough. But sunburn can't kill you in an instant.
Jellyfish and toilets aren't mobile predators. Bees don't eat
you and don't attack unless threatened. Everyday dogs are
domesticated. You can avoid a shark's habitat; you can't so
easily avoid a snake's. You can recognize a situation likely
to produce lightning; you can't so easily anticipate a shark
strike. If a car comes at you, you might be able to steer
your way out of disaster. If a shark comes at you, forget it.
Gruber says "being hit on the head by a coconut" is a greater
danger than a shark attack. Has he been hit on the head by a
coconut?


2. This year's fatalities are coincidental. Apologists dismiss
the recent serious attacks as "freak, unconnected events."
The New York Times says they're "isolated incidents" and
scolds those who imagine "there is something more than
coincidence at work." Coincidence? Let's look at the data:
shark attack, shark attack, shark attack, shark attack. How
hard is it to grasp the connection? Second prize in the
obtuseness category goes to the shark tour operator who told
the Orlando Sentinel that the kid who lost his arm in Florida
and the guy who lost his leg in the Bahamas "just happened to
be in the wrong place at the wrong time." Where was that
place? The same place the tour operator deposits his
customers: in the water with the sharks.


3. This year is no worse than others. According to the Times,
scientists say "the recent global trend in shark attacks is
down. … Statistics from the International Shark Attack File
of the Florida Museum of Natural History, based at the
University of Florida, show the global number of shark
attacks is down this year, with 52 reported so far. The
overall number was 84 for 2000 …"


Wrong. According to the ISAF's Web site, "Actual numbers of
shark attacks certainly are going up
[http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/attacks/howwhen.htm ]
each year," though the per capita rate hasn't changed. The
ISAF's "2000 Shark Attack Summary" reports
[http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/2000attacksummary.htm ] 79 unprovoked attacks on humans last year—"the largest
tally since the ISAF began recording such statistics in
1958." That's roughly three incidents every two weeks. The 52
attacks reported in the first eight months of 2001 matches
that rate.


Are the apologists embarrassed by these numbers? Not at all.
They've got every angle covered. If the tally of attacks is
low, they brag that it's low. If it's high, they persuade
reporters not to overplay such freakish "coincidences." If
it's typical, they say it isn't news. Sometimes they can't
keep their story straight. The Florida Marine Research
Institute, prodded by state tourism officials, recently began
posting articles on its Web site downplaying
[http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=12798 ] the attacks. According to the Sentinel, "The first version
carried the not-so-reassuring headline: 'Recent Shark Attacks
Are Not Unusual Events.' Within days, it was amended to read:
'Sharks Bites Are Still Not That Common.' "


4. They're not attacks. They're accidents. Apologists
attribute nearly all shark attacks on humans to "mistaken
identity." As Capuzzo puts it, this year's attacks "are
almost certainly accidental—in cloudy water, a shark mistakes
a pale foot for a fish scale, and strikes. It is indisputable
that sharks don't prefer human flesh, as anyone who has gone
swimming in the ocean can attest." Anyone, that is, except
David Peltier, the boy who was ripped open off the Virginia
coast the day after Capuzzo's op-ed appeared. According to
the Associated Press, Virginia's top shark expert has
determined that Peltier's killer "was a marauding bull shark
that probably meant to eat him."


True, most shark bites happen because sharks have poor
eyesight and mistake us for easier, tastier prey. But why is
this comforting? The bottom line is that they'll keep biting
us. Sidestepping this unpleasant fact, the shark lobby
defends sharks the way lawyers defend drive-by shooters who
accidentally kill bystanders. The assailants, according to
these shark advocates, are merely "confused" or
"inexperienced juveniles" that are "out there trying to make
a living." One marine biologist told Time, "I used to call
them shark attacks—now I call them incidents. It is not a
case of sharks preying on humans. It is just humans sharing a
spot in the ocean with sharks—at the wrong time." Another
scientist explained to the Post that sharks attack only when
"humans get in the way."


In other words, blame the victim. A shark "must make quick
decisions and rapid movements to capture its traditional food
items," says the ISAF. "When these difficult physical
conditions are considered in conjunction with provocative
[http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/attacks/howwhen.htm ]
human appearance and activities associated with aquatic
recreation (splashing, shiny jewelry, contrasting colored
swimsuits, contrasting tanning, especially involving the
soles of the feet), it is not surprising that sharks might
occasionally misinterpret a human for its normal prey." If
you tan, splash, or wear a bright bikini, you're asking for
it.


5. The problem isn't an increase in sharks. It's an increase
in people. According to ISAF Director George Burgess, shark
attack "is largely motivated by the number of people in the
water." Following this logic, Burgess and his colleagues
argue that the only reason sharks are biting more people is
that more people are available. Again, why is this
comforting? "Shark attacks will drop off precipitously now
that Labor Day has come, because there will be less human
flesh in the water to be bitten," the Times predicts
dismissively. How this prediction vindicates the Times,
rather than the shark-fearing people it ridicules, remains a
mystery.


6. We're more dangerous to sharks than they are to us. The
real story is "not shark bites man, but man bites shark,"
says Burgess. "Humans have been killing off 100 million
individual sharks per year by overfishing. Meanwhile, sharks
are killing eight humans per year." So what? We're not
sharks. We're humans. We're trying to figure out whether to
get in the water. Shark-fishing statistics don't help us. Do
you object to that cold calculus? Do you want to talk about
responsibility? Then stop excusing every shark that maims a
child while "trying to make a living."


Fortunately for the shark lobby, relief is on the way: Bears
are invading towns in New Mexico. Last month, one bear mauled
an old woman to death; another chased three boys and bit one;
a third wounded a pair of Boy Scouts. Don't worry. It's just
coincidence. The poor bears are unusually hungry this year,
and anyway, they're just following their instincts. Trust me.
I heard it from the bear lobby.

By Yo' Daddy (Sol) on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 07:44 am:

Is this really a war? An article I read:

http://slate.msn.com/Earthling/01-09-17/Earthling.asp

By Yo' Daddy (Sol) on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 01:54 pm:

Article:
Handling the Rage

http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/1728.88997

Sol

By Vengence is Mine (Knight_hawk) on Unrecorded Date:

I'm gonna give two examples. First was with Fred and Eric at the Diner. We had just finished gaming and Eric needed to make a decision on what to do or something and asked us to pick a number between one and ten. I thought about and said four. I got a strange look from both Fred and Eric as that had apparently been the number both of them had been thinking of.

The second one was with my coucin and Uncle at a pizza place. We were haveing dinner and my cousin who is a Diabetic had to take his blood sugar levels. He asked his dad to guess the number and his dad said 170 this was wrong and it was my turn. Again I thought about it for a minute and said 245 or something close to that and my cousin just stared at me. He showed us the screen on his detector to show that I had nailed it on the first try.

So it can happen but it helps if you know how well you know the person in question.

Oh, I just remembered another case were I did it. It was the spring after I was promoted to black belt(due to a clerical error I was given a junior grade belt rather than a full one.) So I was sitting thinking that my Sensai was going to call my name, but then I thought no he would wait until Dec. Well needless to say I was surprised when he called me up for the promotion. Apparently he had told my parents that he was going to do this so i think I fed off of their thinking of it subconciesly (easier since they are my parents).