Conference hydra::dejavu

    It amazes me - some of the stuff that people come up with!  Not
    to offfend anyone in here who might actually believe this...I laughed
    through the entire thing...
    
    what a crack-up
    
    "Away team?"
    
    I don't know why they didn't just say, "Beam me up Scotty, there's no
    intelligent life down here!"
    
    I'll admit...it's another theory about why/how people are abducted...
    
    what a hoot!
    
    ;)
    
    Everyone is entitled to their beliefs!
    
    
                           

    
    Re.0
    
    Well...that's...er..._interesting_.
    
    Cindy

    Please..............
    
    What kind of drugs are these people on?
    
    M

    Well it certainly was entertaining. I wonder how a different
    culture would react if portions of the bible were transcribed
    and they were previously not familiar with it? Where would
    the most unbelieveable portion be found? The flood or
    Jesus rising from the dead or maybe the story of Moses?
    Its great that all our beliefs are not the same. 

> Valuing Differences

Negatory.

While human worth may be, not all "differences" or opinions are created
equal. This one (in .0) merits no consideration whatsoever.

    I also prefer the principle of valuing individuals, and being a bit 
    more discriminating on 'beliefs'.    People have a right to publish
    trash on public networks.  But Thank God moderated discussions exist
    as well.
    
    							todd

> How can you prove it's false?

I can't prove anything, and have no interest in trying. Some things one
just has to know. If a person doesn't know, and chooses to accept this
material, that's their right, and their problem.

    It merits no consideration because :
    
    	(1) It is built from a mile high house of cards with no
    		apparent foundation, and
    
    	(2) Serious delusions, unlike simple speculation or light
    		fantasy, are potentially dangerous.
    
    It cannot be proven or disproven because :
    
    	(1) It is metaphysical gibberish without substance,
    
    	(2) It can be interpreted to mean anything anyone wants it to
    		mean.  That's why 
    
    		"these facts do come into focus or "prove" themselves if they 
    		 are seriously explored a step at a time."
    
    		and 
    
    		"in truth, they will be the most joyous
		sound of music" to the ears and eyes of those who have been
		waiting for them."
    
    	     It seems to me to be a typical occultist projective stimulus, like
    	     astrological forecasts, most predictions, and most of
    	     Theosophy.  People read what they want to be true into it,
    	     although it may have contain little or no useful meaning of its 
    	     own.
    
    	     Everyone's pet understanding of 'evolution' gets read into
    	     it, and people are expected to respond positively to
    	     the great challenge of 'evolving,' the details to be
             named later by some emerging leader.  This is the same
             kind of mumbo jumbo used by the Nazis to win over the hearts
    	     and minds of the German people.  Lest folks think it is
    	     'harmless fantasy' rather than potentially dangerous
    	     delusion.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

> > Some things one just has to know. If a person doesn't know, and chooses to 
> > accept this material, that's their right, and their problem.

> I guess the other party says exactly the same thing.

Yes, which demonstrates quite clearly the extreme limitations and drastic
consequences of relying on language to attempt to express things which are
inherently non-linguistic. That is: two expressed positions are at complete
odds; neither is "provable"; at least one of them is false. How does one
resolve this (find the truth)? There is a way, and it's not to be found at the
university's debating club.

Some things aren't knowable by intellectual gymnastics.

    re: .0,
    	Any further idea of the source of this article ?  USA TODAY was
    	mentioned.  Was it part of a news story, or part of a paid
    	advertisement, or chanelled to a columnist ?  It doesn't quite
    	seem to stand by itself with no further explanation as
    	an article for a general readership (?).
    
    								todd

    Since my previous note was cynical, even for me, let me out of respect
    for Mike and Marcos try a fuller explanation of my view on this issue
    of bizarre articles about aliens.
    
    re: .12, Marcos,
    
    ts> It merits no consideration because :
    ts> (1) It is built from a mile high house of cards with no apparent 
    ts> foundation, 

  m>Well! Then I must say that various *traditional* views that are accepted by
  m>*millions* even in the most advanced countries fall in this category. 
    
    No, imo, you can't support this kind of tabloid foolishness on the basis
    of similarity to traditional religion, on the implication that 
    religion (and therefore claims about aliens) are matters of individual
    taste or interpretation.  These are not claims about whether angels
    can beat demons in a wrestling match in two falls out of three, they 
    are claims that would have a testable factual basis if we had
    sufficient information to test them.
    
    The claim that aliens transcribed this document is not a
    'traditional view,' any more than the claim that aliens built the
    Egyptian pyramids.  These are modern claims of fact that are subject
    to testing, not matters of faith like the existence of God, or even
    borderline matters of faith and fact like the nature of the 'soul.'
    And we have a hell of a lot more support for the ideas in the
    traditional religious practices than we do for the extraordinary
    claim that aliens write letters to USA TODAY.
    
    I have just enough knowledge of research into UFO's and other anomalies to 
    know that I am far from being able to provide even a balanced view of the 
    actual data from which intelligent conclusions would be drawn on this 
    subject.  Claims about extraterrestrials are completely 
    beyond my ability to evaluate intelligently.  And I can say with fair 
    certainty, beyond the ability of *most* people to evaluate
    intelligently.
    
    Accepting that, I could then take two paths : one is to reject 
    extravagant claims that don't even have a pretense of support as
    unworthy of consideration; the other is to listen to every piece of
    noise that rolls down the pike and let them all drag my feelings
    and ideas on the subject in whatever direction the wind blows.
    
    For what little I know about the subject, I'd rather at least have
    somewhat factual and precise information, even if I can't claim
    to be able to make well-supported and well-informed conclusions about
    it.
     
    That's why I feel this kind of 'grey basket' stuff merits no
    consideration by me.
    
    The reason I feel it merits no consideration by others is based on
    this, but carries it a little farther.  It is because I very much want
    research in this area to go on unhampered.  Since most people have as
    little background as I do on the subject, and since there are people
    who do devote the time and energy to seriously investigating claims
    of UFOs and ET contact from raw data and primary sources, 
    this kind of article out of left field, given any 
    credence at all, does nothing but harms the public reputation of those 
    researchers by giving ammunition to the most radical 'skeptics,' 
    (a category I don't fit into, believe it or not).   
    
    This might not be true of a well established field of study, which 
    can ignore the bad press on the fringes, but UFO study is nothing
    *but* fringes, so it is more vulnerable and we need to be more 
    discriminating about the sort of claims that are linked to
    the study.  
    
    	Maybe this slightly less contentious explanation will be
    	more helpful.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    I just wanted to say somethings here, since I am responsible for
    the base note.  While this particular note does seem to be
    incredulous, it has been entered to offer a view of a different
    reality.  What did others say of Copernicus when he postulated
    Earth was not the center of the universe?  No, I do not propose
    to elevate the base note to the same level as that.  However,
    we do need to emcompas all views, if indeed we propose to follow
    a loving path.
    
    Craig

    A fair rule of thumb is, the more an article makes quotes about the
    times a few scientists were proved wrong by scoffing at a new idea, the
    more the author is trying to divert your attention from the information
    he is presenting to you.

    Jamie.

    re: .15, Craig,
>    the base note.  While this particular note does seem to be
>    incredulous, it has been entered to offer a view of a different
>    reality.  What did others say of Copernicus when he postulated
>    Earth was not the center of the universe?  No, I do not propose
>    to elevate the base note to the same level as that.  However,
>    we do need to emcompas all views, if indeed we propose to follow
>    a loving path.
    
    No, it isn't foolishness simply because it seems incredulous.
    
    Plenty of incredulous seeming things turn out to have a lot
    of support.  This obviously isn't one of them, though, unless someone
    comes up with something pretty dramatic, which would make the
    basenote pale in comparison.
    
    It is foolishness because it makes an extraordinary claim 
    about something very specific with no support whatsoever and
    provides elaborate detail built upon that extraordinary premise.
    That's what I meant by 'house of cards with no foundation.'  
    
    "But Copernicus and Einstein saw the world differently !"
    
    There are two reasons why this analogy doesn't hold much water.
    
    (1) Seeing the world differently is something we all do to some extent,
    and by itself is a very poor basis for support of a general theory.
    
    (2) Visionary thinkers have unique revolutionary views, even when they
    	don't express them in precise and testable terms as Copernicus 
    	and Einstein did, they still serve as stepping stones for further
    	important ideas.  There is nothing at all new about
    	the Theosophical worldview or the theory that aliens are taking
    	over the planet.  There is no new information in the basenote in 
    	that sense.
    
    I'd add (3) that every crackpot in the world compares themself to
    Copernicus and Einstein, but that's obviously not a very strong
    argument, since for all I know Einstein may have compared himself
    with Copernicus.  :-)
    
    	I don't want you to suspect that I think you personally 
    	are responsible for writing that or that your reasons for
    	posting it aren't sincere and reasonable.
    
    	I simply disagree that it merits our consideration.	
    	IMO, you can't possibly 'encompass all views,' many are mutually
    	contradictory and many are demonstrably false for all practical
    	intents and purposes.
    
    	While I enjoy tabloid press sometimes, I get a little uneasy
    	when I realize from this conference and other places that 
    	people are reading it so uncritically (as opposed to 
    	'open mindedly.')
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

.12> > [...] How does one
.12> > resolve this (find the truth)?
.12>
.12> [...] I'd like to
.12> see how one resolves this since there isn't an absolute frame of
reference.

Ultimately, this can't be resolved by any amount of discussion or reasoning.

    re: .17, Marcos,
    
>>  The reason I feel it merits no consideration by others is based on
>>  this, but carries it a little farther.  It is because I very much want
>>  research in this area to go on unhampered. 
>
>Then you must reject the outright mockery of the early replies to this topic.
>They do nothing to elucidate anything.

    I guess I'd have to agree that a good parody would have been more
    effective than an argument, but I can't agree that mockery isn't
    sometimes appropriate.  It just has to be tactfully handled,
    and I lack tact sometimes.
    
    	Also, you are missing my point, Marcos.  There is _no information
    	content_ in the basenote to elucidate or mock.  Just an extraordinary 
    	claim and a leap right into common occult philosophy we've seen
    	a thousand times before with only slight variations.  
    
    	If there were something there, a thread of a theory of a piece of
    	data, I'd agree with you, but if anything deserves to be
    	ridiculed, stuff like this deserves it.
    
>> this kind of article out of left field does nothing but harms the public 
>> reputation of those researchers by giving ammunition to the most radical 
>> 'skeptics,' 
>
>In order to make such claims you have to substantiate them. I am sorry but I
>failed to see you do it. Maybe my fault but my opinion indeed.
    
    I don't understand.  Substantiation of what exactly ?
    
    If you want substantiation of the fact that radical skeptics use this
    kind of tabloid article to provide a case against UFO research, I can 
    provide that.  In fact, I'm using a very similar argument here !
    Even better, get a copy of one of Phillip Klass' books on 
    the subject and read the arguments yourself.  My concern is that most people
    reading things like the basenote after reading 'skeptical' literature
    will begin to feel that all UFO research is on an equally tenuous
    footing, and that all "UFOlogists" are undiscriminating
    ninnies, which is most assuredly not the case.  
    
    Perhaps the best substantiation I can give for this argument is that 
    that's exactly how I personally felt about it until fairly recently.  
    I rarely discriminated between tabloid reports and more serious
    research.  It took a while to realize that there was actually
    a difference.  For this insight, I credit the consistently intelligent,
    tentative, and well presented evaluations of serious anomalists like Topher.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Not always.
    
    "Silence give consent."
    
    ~All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
    nothing.~
    
    et cetera.
    
    						Ann B.

Marcos, what you call "unsubstiantiated mockery" was simply an
unprovable critical assertion:

.5> [...] This one (in .0) merits no consideration whatsoever.

We then charged off into numerous long notes debating all sorts of
unresolvable stuff, to what end, I don't know.

As to whether it's best to remain silent or not, I agree with you that
my criticism served no useful purpose. However the first sentence of my
reply .5 *was* indicated:

.5> not all "differences" or opinions are created equal

There seems to be some sort of epidemic currently rampant in the States
(usually lumped in with the *valid* "valuing differences" principle)
whereby all sorts of fuzzy-thinking and self-serving people are running
around saying "everyone has a right to their opinion", and concluding
(incorrectly) that, therefore, their opinions deserve equal
consideration -- even legal protection. Most opinions are fairly
run-of-the-mill, and an awful lot are truly demented, and don't deserve
the time spent refuting them. A very few are deserving of thoughtful
consideration.

How does one identify which opinions are worthwhile and which are utter
rubbish? One learns. Not everyone is capable of learning, to be sure,
but one can't even begin to learn without first being aware that there
really are differences in the quality of certain opinions and
"theories" versus others. Everyone is equally able to form an opinion,
but not every opinion deserves any attention.

    This society seems to have become conditioned to accept _anything_ said
    or printed or televised.
    
    Monographs, like the one quoted in .0, offer no proof, no explanation,
    no basis in known facts. 
    
    Doubt is critical to a thinking, discriminating intelligence. To
    express doubt where there is no compelling basis for belief is normal
    and expected. This doubt is an attribute of a reasoning and thinking
    individual.
    
    The question isn't how we can doubt. The question is why we should
    believe. Where's the compelling reason, body of facts, observations?
    

    Well, Marcos, I see you contradict yourself.  If you *really* believed
    that not responding was best, you wouldn't have responded to me.
    
    If, on the other hand, you sensibly believe that different situations
    require different responses, I hope that you do not object to other
    people, such as myself, feeling the same way.
    
    							Ann B.

    Considering .0 as a work of art, for the moment, the most interesting
    thing about it is the way it blends so many elements that are both
    off-mainstream and (usually) mutually incompatible.  It looks like a
    deliberate effort to produce as heady a mixture as possible of wildly
    divergent elements.
    
    The main blend is between "New Age" themes (reincarnation, other
    planets identified as other spiritual realms, etc.) and dispensational
    Christian eschatology (the end of the world and judgement for sinners;
    the divisions of history into different historical epochs; the figures
    of God, Christ, angels, and demons; the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11; 
    and the overriding theme of The End being Near).  This is an
    interesting blend because it takes elements from two groups that are
    usually antagonists.  The act of blending underscores those features
    that the two groups actually have in common -- a dissatisfaction with
    the everyday world as it is and an expectation of its immenent
    overthrow.
    
    There are secondary blends.  One is the introduction of Gnostic themes
    into the mixture -- sex as something spiritually encumbering, and the
    creatures of the middle heavens as essentially hostile and evil.  This
    last bit is a rather nice touch, though it took no particular effort to
    make, since the theme has lived in our culture as "monsters from space"
    (real or feigned) for a long time.
    
    Another secondary blend is the introduction of the "Star Trek" theme. 
    This is least effective and most superificial of the ones I have
    examined so far.  It extends only to a few forced references to the
    starship Enterprise and to "away teams."  It may, however, be an effort
    to lend some hard hi-tech luster to the work, which otherwise has very
    little of the futuristic, scientific, or technical in it.  It is very
    understandable that people composing an exercise in combining diverse
    elements would want to work in the hi-tech, but they have not succeeded
    very well.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: Marcos
    
>If you read again my first reply to this string you'll see that the basenote
>puts together various of the other stuff that is entered in this conference.
    
    Individually interesting perhaps, sometimes tenuous and sometimes
    not, the topics do not hold together into a single grand conspiracy or 
    alien invasion theory in my opinion, and I think it is dangerous
    for people to believe such a thing on such weak evidence.   
    
    It is also my opinion that the seeming natural tendency to lump all 
    unexplained things together into the same category and to try to
    explain them all at once with a single theory is more harmful than
    beneficial and probably best fought in our ongoing struggle for insight and
    against superstition.
    
>Then since, according to you, there's no informational content in the basenote
>then those various other stuff entered here lack information also. Then maybe 
>the whole conference is all a sheer waste of time.
    
    	Maybe.  Or maybe there should be separate conferences to examine psychic
    phenomena from different perspectives ?   There are tradeoffs to that
    approach, as with the moderated conference vs. free discussion
    approach.  I honestly don't know which is best.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    I second Marcos.  I'd like to see this sort of literary text analysis
    done on more such examples.  Thanks, Earl.
    
    Laura

    Hey, I DID laugh through the whole thing.  The idea that there are
    people out there who actually believe this stuff both amuses me and
    frightens me.
    
    It amuses me because I can't imagine anyone honestly believing that...
    
    It frightens me because I put them in the same category as David
    Koresh.  Yes, the  man was entitled to his opinion.  He thought he was
    Jesus Christ.  Okay.  He even had some people belive him.  I respect
    that he held that belief.  However, I also think the man should have
    been locked up in the lonney bin....
    
    As for these people?  If they just have this belief, that is fine.  If
    they go around doing something about it...
    
    and yes, I think it's funny.  It isn't a mockery, I sincerely see humor
    in it.
    
    It's much like when a little kid comes in and tells all the grown-ups
    he's Superman.  They all smile condescendingly, laugh a littl, maybe
    reminisce (sp?) about when they were young and were whoever, but they
    also anticipate that the child will outgrow such a fantasy, not
    seriously believe in Superman (or the Easter Bunny, etc)
    
    When the child grabs a red cape and then goes to the roof the adults
    don't laugh anymore but take the kid to a shrink.
    
    It's okay if there are people out there who have adopted such terms
    from Star Trek as "away team"  (they ate too much pizza while watching
    these shows before bed...)
    
    but I don't think they have a very tight grip on reality.
    
    I am not mocking people for their beliefs...I'm laughing because I
    think it's funny.
    
    Oh, and by the way, I did have an athiest laugh at me for my belief in
    God in front of several people.  Didn't even ruffle my feathers.  I
    didn't think he was making a mockery of me.  I didn't care.  If these
    people truly believe in this stuff than they won't care either.  If
    anything they would be sitting around smugly thinking, "Stupid fools. 
    They'll see I'm right..."
    
    Anotherwords if there is a man out there yelling the world is going to
    end tomorrow and the rest of us laugh at him, I guess we'll only find
    out tomorrow who is right.
    
    These people are entitled to their ridiculous beliefs.  If anything,
    they provided amusement to me and I could use the laughs!
    
    
    

    Thanks.  ESW

    Yes, Earl has a unique talent for literary review.  I particularly
    enjoy his contributions.
    
    Marcos, if you were honestly looking for a literary critique,
    then why didn't you just say so, instead of playing into this
    apparently pointless dialogue over plausibility ?   
    
    I got the distinct impression that you were claiming that it wasn't
    'disproven' and therefore was *plausible*, not that you were intereted
    in its merits as literature.
    
    If I misunderstood the context of your comments that badly, then I'm very 
    embarrased and a bit contrite.  I guess I have to admit to
    believing that fictional literature and factual research have somewhat 
    different (though overlapping) purposes and different (though
    overlapping) criteria for evaluation.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Re.35
    
    Ditto what Todd wrote.  I did not know you were looking for a literary
    analysis.
    
    Also, Marcos, my comment about the article being _interesting_ was a
    reflection of how I felt after reading the article.  Sorry you took it
    as unsubstiantiated mockery.  
    
    Cindy

    Marcos:
    
    As a fellow noter...the one who did laugh...
    
    When I read Cindy's note...I interpreted it as ...
    
    "hmmmm.interesting..."
    
    just she wrote
    
    don't read more into things than what is there
    
    I said I laughed
    she said she thought it was interesting
    
    sounds simple to me
    
    

    
    Re.37
    
    Marcos,
    
    What .38 said.  I did not say it was stupid, ridiculous, idiotic, the
    most outrageous thing I'd ever read, or anything of the sort.
    
    I said it was...er..._interesting_.  That's all.  I don't think I can
    say it any clearer, or be any more specific than this.
    
    Cindy

  OK, I read the first few comments in the same way that Marcos did.

  Whilst I do not agree with the basenote, I also agree that precisely the
  same criticisms can be levelled at practically any belief, idea or theory
  that appears in this (or any other) conference and so was interested to
  see how the parallel views developed - especially as some people are/were
  apparently using two different rulers to measure credibility (or otherwise).

  I don't think it's worth getting upset about (or even just to the "publicly
  polite statement" stage).

  Frank

    I like to analyze, and I have some spare time, so here's another
    analysis, though perhaps not quite as tactful as my first.
    
    What .0 gives us is another example of the "walk-in" phenomenon: people
    claiming to be spirits from another planet inhabiting human bodies.  If
    you think walk-ins are faking or mentally unhinged, you will probably
    think the same of "The Two," since they have done little that is
    qualitatively different from most walk-ins.  However, there *are* some
    differences:
    
    First, they are not *exactly* walk-ins; they are more like avatars --
    humman incarnations of superhuman spirits.  The difference is that a
    walk-in gets a used body, having swapped with the original owner.  An
    avatar inhabits its body from birth.  There are other avatars around
    now, I believe, one or two claiming to be Maitreya, the next buddha.
    
    Second, there are a lot of them.  Besides The Two themselves, we have a
    dozen or more avatars representing the apostles and possible other
    disciples.  I have heard of multiple walk-ins before, but the groups
    appeared to be smaller and more casual.  I have not heard of multiple
    avatars before.
    
    Third, the story is a little different.  All walk-ins talk about being
    from another planet.  (So do these.  That's what makes them so like
    walk-ins to my mind, despite their technically being avatars.)  So all
    walk-ins have a more or less UFO-flavored story.  To this, they often
    add a Theosophical flavor, which is to say a modified Hindu flavor,
    with multiple planes/dimensions of being, reincarnation, karma, etc.
    The Two use all this and add figures and imagery from the book of
    Revelation, in a manner reminiscent of dispensationalism -- one of the
    schools of interpretation of Christian prophecy.
    
    Fourth, they give the UFO/outer-space side of the story a Star-Trek
    flavor, though only very superficially.  To my mind, it has the
    unfortunate literary effect of sounding silly.
    
    These differences are interesting -- religiously interesting if you
    believe them, at least artistically interesting if you don't -- but
    they do not remove The Two from the general class of walk-ins and
    avatars.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re.42
    
    >Hah! Someone finally noticed it. It was really "strange" (to use a 
    >mild word) to see ***some people*** laughing at something that they so 
    >feverishly supported a little while back in this conference.
    
    Can you be more specific, Marcos?  Who exactly are you speaking about?
    Are you implying that I am one of them?
    
    Cindy

    >Hah! Someone finally noticed it. It was really "strange" (to use a 
    >mild word) to see ***some people*** laughing at something that they so 
    >feverishly supported a little while back in this conference.
    
    Why is it strange ?  Isn't that part of the basic nature of faith ?
    Even *I'm* not radical rationalist enough to think that people
    are totally consistent in their every belief (!). 
    
    								todd

    Marcos,
    
    Just because a lot of us contented ourselves with reading our previous 
    walk-in's notes, doesn't mean we believed them any more than this one.
    
    Maybe people's capacity for reading various forms of outlandish claims
    are reaching saturation point. Another possibility is the fact that the
    "Two" are not noting here themselves, it was posted by someone who
    stated that (s)he didn't believe the article, either. Since our
    previous "walk-in" was noting here herself, I for one didn't want to 
    possibly harm someone by telling her I thought she was nuts ( to put it 
    bluntly). I simply read for emmm, amusement, for lack of a better term.
    
    As I seem to remember, you were one of the most outspoken critics at
    that time....
    
    Don't take this the wrong way, but try and chill out. Is it really
    worth it?
    
    
    Marilyn
    
    In any case, I believe you were one of the most outspoken    

    
    Just clarifying, Marcos.  
    
    After all, I didn't even realize you had been referring to my original 
    note with your indirect comments (among others) until you explicitly 
    referenced my quote in a note later on in the note string.
    
    So I guess it's cleared up now.  And you are right, I did not laugh...
    
    Cindy

    
    	I'm just wildly speculating here, but maybe to a small degree
    	reasonable seeming things look different to people when carried
    	to an extreme to exaggerate what seems strange to others about them.
    
    	In fact, I recall it's a classic rhetorical tactic, taking 
    	a person's general principle to an extreme to show them
    	why it seems so bizarre.  That's what a lot of the teaching
    	fables and myths do, in a way, isn't it ?  Taking an idea to
    	an obviously exaggerated extreme to make a point ?
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    Never mind, Marcos.
    
    Must be some astrological event impacting communications...or
    something.
    
    Cindy

>    Must be some astrological event impacting communications...or
>    something.
    
    Sometimes it amazes me that we communicate even as well as we do
    in this conference, considering how differently we all see things.  :-)
    
    							todd

    
    I was speaking with Steven McFadden last night (astrologer, and author
    of "Profiles In Wisdom"), and he mentioned that now is a terrible time
    to attempt communication.
    
    We should get some relief after Sunday though...
    
    Cindy

>    I was speaking with Steven McFadden last night (astrologer, and author
>    of "Profiles In Wisdom"), and he mentioned that now is a terrible time
>    to attempt communication.
    
	But are you sure you understood him properly ?    
    

    Hey
    
    I DON'T support walk-ins
    
    I just thought this was so ridiculously put it was funny
    
    I don't support walk-ins
    
    I agree that anyone can twist about anything around...that atheist guy
    I mentioned in a previous note really thinks it's hilarious that anyone
    would believe in God, let alone Jesus Christ...
    
    he's entitled to a good laugh...
    
    ;^)
    
    

    It is not unusual ;), but wasn't the basenote just something
    informational and didn't the person only enter to hear what the rest of
    us thought about it, or did I completely miss the point?????  Guess you
    gotta be REAL careful on how you present your humble opinions.  (NOTE: 
    the use of the word 'you' is not intended to be directed at any
    individual).  How's that for CingMA????  ;)  Let's lighten up, tomorrow
    can be a great day!
    
    Respectfully,
    Sandra

    Wow!  It took 58 replies.

>    Wow!  It took 58 replies.
    
    No it didn't, you found out what some people thought of it in the
    first few replies.  You just got a lot of extra stuff you didn't
    want in addition, and that's what took 58 replies to hammer out.  :-)
    
    							todd

RE:                    <<< Note 1859.58 by STAR::SROBERTSON >>>
    
�    Guess you
�    gotta be REAL careful on how you present your humble opinions.  (NOTE: 
�    the use of the word 'you' is not intended to be directed at any
�    individual).  
    
    Sandra, it is for precisely that reason that your statement should
    have been more correctly written as:
    
    "I guess one has to be REALLY careful as to how one presents one's
     humble opinions".
    
    Contrary to popular belief, the use of the word "one" as above is not
    the exclusive domain of genetically-challenged British blue-bloods,
    there is a purpose to it.
    
    Helpfully, Laurie.

    OK, then...I stand corrected...
    
    /sr

    I never realized we had a company (and conference) full of grammer
    graduates!
    
    I also never thought I'd see the day when people were practically
    apologizing for their opinions.  This doesn't seem like the kind of
    conference where people's opinions make such a difference to others...
    
    I don't get offended by the alien opinions in here although I don't
    share a lot of them.  There are probably people in here that don't
    agree with ghost and dream opinions.
    
    They may laugh, they may not.
    
    I just don't understand why this note got so apoligetic?  I thought the
    base-noter put the note in to get people's opinions/reactions to it.  I
    put my opinion and reaction in re .1
    
    That is to say that my reaction was to laugh, because it did put a
    smile on my face and laughter in my heart.
    
    My opinion is that although these people have the right to believe
    whatever they want, I don't share it.
    
    I don't see why anyone would apologize for their opinion, their
    reaction, and CERTAINLY not their grammer!  I know only one person in
    the company who was an English Major from college before he came to
    DEC.  I didn't realize there were so many of you out there.
    
    What I am trying to say is..."one or you, who cares?  We get the
    point!"
    
    The noter apologized ahead of time...for what?  Because her choice of
    grammer might offend someone in here?  Please!
    
    

    When the grammar (no e in the word) is so bad that it confuses the
    meaning of what is written, it should be pointed out that there is a
    fault. Then in future the mistake can be avoided.

    Jamie.

    
    Grammaer?
    
    Cindy

RE:          <<< Note 1859.64 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Eat more plums!!!!" >>>

�    When the grammar (no e in the word) is so bad that it confuses the
�    meaning of what is written, it should be pointed out that there is a
�    fault. Then in future the mistake can be avoided.

    Actually Jamie, you might have liked to have pointed out to the author
    of .63, that the author of the you/one note actually felt it necessary
    to point out that the "you" she had used wasn't intended to refer to
    any individual, rather to "us all". I merely pointed out that there is
    a standard way of doing that. I was not nit-picking grammar. The noter
    clearly was unaware that "one" should be used in such circumstances.
    
    Besides, she didn't apologise, she said "I stand corrected".
    
    Laurie.

I really hate it when someone thinks they have something worthwhile enough
to say, then goes back and deletes all of his/her notes so that you end up
with a series of responses to who knows what.  (for that matter I hate getting
so busy I don't have time to keep up 8-)

They laughed at Galileo and Copernicus.  They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Laughter does not impart validity.

I expect we will see a marked increase in the volume and intensity of such
claptrap and rubbish as the millenium approaches.  It seems to have something
to do with people giving undue significance to an arbitrary point in time.

Did anyone ever go check the USA Today reference?  I'd be interested in 
determining if the article was ever actually published in a real newspaper
(as opposed to one of the grocery store tabloids).

EW pretty much seemed to hit the nail on the head, IMO.

Well, I guess that is enough for now.

80)

> Did anyone ever go check the USA Today reference?  I'd be interested in 
> determining if the article was ever actually published in a real newspaper
> (as opposed to one of the grocery store tabloids).

  You don't seriously consider USA Today to be a "real newspaper", do
  you? The only thing serious about it is the sports coverage.