Conference hydra::dejavu

    Is there some reason that we should make note of your dreams?  Do
    you have a track record of correctly predicting things based on
    your nocturnal illusions?  
    
    - Fill us in
    

    
    
    RE: .1
    
    *Big* earthquakes don't happen everyday!  And let's hope that John
    is not *really* becoming the Cosmic Anchovy - I don't know if the
    world could handle it :-).
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  John, did you ever consider that the big earthquake on the
    25th might be symbolic of something personal in your life or within
    yourself - a change of the status quo maybe?
    

    re: .1
     
        No, his predictions aren't worth too much...at least not any
    more than anyone else's...it's just that John's are more amusing
    because he has so much visible negative ego to share with everyone.
    
    Frederick
    ;-)
    

    RE:0
    
       If there is some type of meaning to your dream. I believe that
    it could be symbolic for an occurance that's soon to take place:
    an occurance that will effect the nation, country, an individual
    town, or city; it's going to be a well known happening (Everybody
    is going to know about it), such as flight 301.
    
    LORENZO
    

    An earthquake or a -shake up- on the 25th. 
    How was your xmas(25th)?  :^)
    
    Russ
    EW

RE: .1
    
    > Is there some reason that we should make note of your dreams?
    > ...
    
    John is trying to be open minded and do some investigation.  It
    is perfectly reasonable for him or anyone else in this conference
    to make a "public record" of any dreams which have some of the
    "flavor" of a premonitional dream, whether or not you are skeptical
    about whether the dream is likely to be veridical.  If there is
    no match then we have some basis of judging how often non-veridical
    dreams have that flavor.  If there seems to be a match, then we
    can try to judge how likely it is to be merely chance (which would
    depend in part on the size of the quake in human terms; e.g., if it
    doesn't have front page attention either nationally or in John's
    regional papers then it is unlikely to be more than a coincidence).
    
    					Topher 

    RE: John is trying to be open minded.....
            
    I appreciate the fact the John is being open minded, but he should
    take care that his brain doesn't fall out.
    
    Besides, without a month or even a year and no time limit,
    statistically the odds that he is correct is 100%  Sooner there
    will be an earthquake on the 25th. 
    
    You heard it hear first!
    
      
                                                      
    - Skeptical Sally
    
    

    RE: .8 Sally
    
    
     >    RE: John is trying to be open minded.....
            
     >    I appreciate the fact the John is being open minded, but he should
     >    take care that his brain doesn't fall out.
    
    
    Not sure if you are a new reader in this file, but the Cosmic Anchovy
    (a.k.a. John Mitchell) is one of the *last* people you have to worry
    about this occurring to ;-).
    
    Carole
    

    RE: .1
    
    >  Is there some reason that we should make note of your dreams?
     Do you have a track record of correctly predicting things based on
     your nocturnal illusions?  <
    
    Yes.  In fact the last occurrence of this type happened only two
    months ago.  I told my best friend about it as a sort of verification.
    The next day, it was revealed that what I said had happened had
    happened.  I do not wish to reveal what this event was for personal
    reasons.
    
    The prediction does not have symbolic meaning; it foreshadows an
    actual event.  I recall only that it will happen on the 25th.  I
    suspect it will be in January or February (I don't remember which).
    It will be this year.
    
    John M.
    
    P.S.  Hey Ray!  You read this stuff?
       

    
    	John,
    
    	   I thought you didn't go for all this metaphysical stuff.
    	No wonder you wanted me to avoid this file.
    
    	   Well, I'll go on record as saying that I have a recurring
    	dream that I will die before I turn 30 in a gruesome accident
    	with my car... a mammoth truck rolls over me... killed 
    	instantly as the tires crush the life from me.  Since I'm
    	28.5 now, it will only be 18 months before we find out if 
    	I'm right or wrong.  
    
    	   Not that I'd be missing much, mind you.  I also have a 
    	recurring dream of nuclear halocaust before 1999 (1998, I
    	think, but I can't get a firm fix... no calendars in that
    	dream).  Of course, I'm nowhere in the picture, since I
    	will have been crushed by a mammoth truck years before.
    
    	   In truth, I don't put faith in either of the dreams.
    	I see them as complete figments of my overactive 
    	imagination, which are crying out to become two of the
    	most banal stories I will ever write.  (*sigh*)  Perhaps
    	I am compelled to write them just to get them out of
    	my system (and my reality).  How embarrassing!
    
    	   Well, if I'm really lucky I'll be crushed by a mammoth
    	truck before I get around to writing them, and I can save
    	my reputation.
    
    	- Greg

    RE: .11 (Greg)
    
    The way you drive, I wouldn't be surprised if you croaked that way.
    ;-)  :-(
    
    I could do without the nuclear holocaust myself.
    
    John M.

    re: .11
    
          I prefer to stay out of anal-yzing dreams, particularly the
    dreams of others, but I find it sad that you wish to give weight
    to a lose/lose situation by talking about it and giving it
    "reinforcement" as it were.  Either way, you lose.  
    
    Frederick
    

                         -< Earthquake Ratings >-
                                                 
    Earthquakes are not uncommon. To keep things in perspective, here are
    two earthquake scales showing the approximate number of quakes each
    year for quakes of various strengths. Note that in a given year,
    you can expect 18 or so major earthquakes. Can a mathmatician (Topher?)
    figure out the odds of having one occur on the 25th of each month?

    The Richter scale is an absolute scale that shows the total amount of
    energy released in a quake. Two quakes that have the same Richter value
    release equal amounts of energy. 

    The Richter scale is logarithmic, so that an increase of one whole
    number is an increase of about 60 times in energy. For example, a 6.0
    quake has about 60 times the energy of a 5.0. Most people can perceive
    a quake of about 3.5 or so. 

    The intensity scale (Roman numerals) is more subjective, and is a way
    of rating the destructiveness of a given quake. The destructiveness
    varies widely, even for quakes with equal Richter numbers, since it
    depends on the location, local geology, types and numbers of buildings
    present, and other factors. The recent Armenian quake was quite
    destructive, but was not an unusual quake on the Richter scale. (Sorry,
    I don't have the exact figures handy.) 

    FWIW, in recent months, northern New England and adjacent Canada have
    had more minor earthquakes (around 4.0) than in recent years. A cluster
    of minor earthquakes often portends a major one. 

    Bruce

     Richter         Intensity          Number per year 
     Scale           Rating

     8-8.6                              1 every few years
     8.0             XII - Great

     7-7.9                              18
     7.0             X   - Major    

     6-6.9                              120
     6.0             VII - Destructive

     5-5.9                              800
     5.0             VI - Damaging     

     4-4.9                              6,200
     4.0             III - Minor

     3-3.9                              49,000

     2-2.9                             300,000
     2.0             II

     0-1.9                             700,000

    re: .8 "you heard it here first"
    
    I've read "you shouldn't be so open minded that your brains fall
    out" and variations on the above inumerable times, thanks to Steve
    Kallis!  
    
    After the last couple of days, I'm wondering if John is feeling
    ok.  Did some latent personality emerge with the new year?  He still
    signs himself John Mitchell and Cosmic Anchovy.  Maybe Cosmic Anchovy
    is disassociating into a second persona.  Wow!  Its been exciting
    reading, anyway.

    OK, we take the expected number of "significant" earthquakes as
    18.  There are 365 days in this (non-leap) year, 12 of which are
    25ths.  We need to assume that an earthquake is equally likely
    to occur on any day (pretty good assumption except for some very
    small effects).  We will also assume that the earthquakes are
    independent of each other, i.e., that one earthquake occuring on
    a particular day has no effect on the probability that another
    earthquake will occur on that same or another day (a weak assumption
    but good enough for our ball-park figuring).  We actually calculate
    the probability that *no* earthquakes will occur on a 25th, then
    subtract that value from 1.
    
    A given earthquake can occur on any of the 365 days, 12 of which
    are "target" days.  The probability that a given earthquake will
    not occur on a target day is therefore (365 - 12)/365 = 352/365.
    The probability that a second earthquake will not occur on a target
    day is also 352/365.  The probability that NEITHER will occur on
    a target day is (352/365)*(352/365) = (352/365)^2 (where * means
    multiplication, and ^n means raise to the nth power).
    
    By continuing that reasoning we find that the probability that none
    of the 18 earthquakes occur on a target day is (352/365)^18, which
    my handy-dandy scientific calculator watch tells me is equal to
    .5205906.  The probability that at least one major earthquake will
    fall on a target day is therefore equal to .4794093.
    
    Or, less precisely but more comprehensibly.  Given our assumptions
    are approximately correct it is as likely as not that there will be
    a major earthquake on the 25th of some month.
    
    Thanks for the summary (by the way, I just read an article that
    there is a movement afoot to replace the Richter scale.  The proposed
    new scale would look roughly the same, but would be based on
    measurements averaged over a moderate time (a few seconds?) rather
    than attempted "point" measurements.  It is believed that this will
    result in better correspondences to the actual energy output of
    the quake).
    
    A technical point -- I think that the "objective" scales are
    inappropriate for this purpose.  Unless we hypothesize that John
    is reacting to the energy released by the prognosticated earthquake,
    subjective impact -- importance in human terms -- is more appropriate.
    
    We could measure the earthquake in terms of financial damage, human
    lives and/or injuries.  In my experience a scale based on the
    subjective impact on the prognosticator is the most appropriate
    to apply, and $10,000 lost in Peru is just not going to be as
    significant to John (however worldly his viewpoint) then the same
    amount of damage in his home town.
    
    We cannot simply have John evaluate the significance of earthquakes
    to him, since his prediction is going to add apparent signigicance
    to any earthquake occuring on a 25th, however much he attempts to
    compensate (perhaps even overcompensating).
    
    It was for this reason that I suggested some measure of the placement
    and amount of coverage in John's local paper as a rough way of
    estimating what the significance of each quake would have been to
    John if he had not made the prediction.  Of course if John has a
    close relative or friend endangered in a "insignificant" quake on
    the other side of the world, our measure loses.  In such a case
    one labels the test as "negative but with suggestive elements."
    
    					Topher

Greg,

If you consider the human psyche to be a blank canvas, say after 
a cleansing meditation, then any thoughts that move across that 
screen should be treated as real.

Psychics have been told to believe that this faculty they possess 
is only their imagination. They've been told this by people who 
haven't cultivated this skill (everyone has it innately) and 
therefore have no way of understanding it.

Our world has changed. We no longer need to know if there is a fire 
coming towards us through the woods, or if a hungry bear is headed our 
way. Now we predict who is calling when the phone rings, when the 
next major earthquake will hit. Or in my case, when the lives of 
friends of a friend are in danger.

Butler's book on telepathy, reading the aura, psychometry, is a 
good resource.  It talks alot about how thoughts rise from the 
sub-conscious level to conscious level.

We can't be too crazy, right? They did hire us.

Kasha

P.S. Can someone please put me on a dis list to make sure that I know 
of the node for DEJAVU when it changes. 

    Thanks, Topher.
    
    I figured it a little bit differently. Please show me where I've
    gone wrong (in this specific instance, only, thank you!).
    
    There are 30 days in each month (approximately), and the chances
    of an earthquake occuring on the 25th of any month are thus 1 in
    30 (1/30th). However, there are 18 notable earthquakes each year,
    so the chance of having an earthquake on the 25th of any month is
    1/30 x 18 = 18/30 or  .6 --- better than 50%.
                                              
    That seems like too much! Or, is this like the "same birthday" game,
    (wherein the odds of two people having the same birthday is more 
    than 50/50 when you get a group larger than about 15)?
                                                      
    Bruce

    Hate to foul up your stats, guys, but this will not be an earthquake
    in an unpopulated area.  Go figure.
    
    Frederick:
    
    A camera only records a scene, it does not create the scene.
    
    John M.

    re: .19
      
         John, who is holding the camera?
    
    
    Frederick
    (by the way, John, you may be *pleased* to know that my friend
    Lazaris has predicted 5 and possibly 6 major earthquakes in the
    world this year in major population areas...but he implied that
    they would be in areas where people do not value themselves 
    very highly.  I am going to be entering a note into 358 that
    may add more to this [and then again, may not.])
    

RE: .18 (Bruce)

    You made what is probably the most common error in elementary
    probability calculations (and, in more sophisticated forms, the
    error crops up not infrequently in less elementary calculations).
    It is very easy to do -- it is *so obviously* the right thing to
    do even though it actually is wrong.

    Your calculation of the odds of a single earthquake falling on a
    target day is correct though approximate (the average length of
    a month is about half a day -- specifically 5/12 for a non-leap
    year -- longer than the "typical" value of 30 you used, so it
    overestimates the probability by a little).  Note that 12/365
    (exact value, which I used) is .0328767, while 1/30 = .0333333.

    However --

    There are two simple arithmetic rules in calculating probabilities.
    Imagine that you have two events, which we'll simply call event
    A and event B, and that the probabilities for each of them occurring
    is P(A) and P(B) respectively.  Now the two rules are:

	1) The probability that *both* event A *and* event B will occur
	is equal to P(A)*P(B) -- as long as A and B are "independent"
	of each other.  That is, as long as A occurring does not modify
	the probability that B will occur or vice versa.  If A were
	"first roll of a die will come up 6" and B were "second roll
	of a die will come up 6" then the two events are independent
	and the rule applies.  If, on the other hand, A were "it rains
	tomorrow" and B were "I go on a picnic tomorrow" then the two
	events are not independent of each other and the rule cannot
	be used.  Notice that I stated the assumption in my calculation
	that the earthquakes were independent of one another, specifically
	to justify use of this rule.

	2) The probability that *either* event A *or* event B will occur
	is equal to P(A)+P(B) -- as long as A and B are "distinct" events.
	That is, as long as *both* A and B cannot occur.  If A and B
	are not distinct then, in effect, you are including the probability
	that both A and B occur twice, once as part of the probability
	of A occurring and once as part of the probability of B occurring,
	so the probability you will get will be too high.

	As an example, suppose you had two coins which you wished to flip.
	Each has a probability of 1/2 that they will come up heads.  If
	you blindly followed this rule in trying to calculate the
	probability that one of the two would come up heads, you would
	add 1/2 + 1/2 and get 1 -- i.e., that it was certain that one
	or the other would come up heads -- which is clearly not true.

	If on the other hand the two events were that a single roll of
	a die is 1, and that the same roll of the die is 2, then these
	events *are* distinct, both of them cannot occur.  So the
	probability that either a one or a two will be rolled is 1/6+1/6
	or 1/3.

    When you multiplied the probability of a single quake occurring on
    a target date by the number of quakes in the year, you were attempting
    to apply the second rule, which meant you were implicitly making
    the inappropriate assumption that if one quake occurs on a target
    date no other quake will do so.  And so you got an overestimate of
    the probability.

    To see that this is indeed an overestimate rather than simply a
    counterintuitive result we can apply your method to attempt to
    calculate the probability that a quake will occur on a target
    date in a *two* year period.  The expected number of quakes is then
    36, and the probability we get is 1.2 -- that is, it is literally
    more than certain that a quake will occur.  This is clearly meaningless
    it says, for example, that out of 100 such two year samples we would
    expect that 120 (different) of them would have an earthquake on
    a target date.

				    Topher

    Thanks, Topher. 
    
    Glad you corrected my earthshaking errors.
    
    Bruce

RE: .19 (John M.)

    > Hate to foul up your stats, guys, but this will not be an earthquake
    > in an unpopulated area.

    As I said, I didn't think that a purely geological definition of
    a "major earthquake" was appropriate.  I did the calculations to
    illustrate the technique and because there was a specific request.

    I assume that (uninverting your double negative) "in a populated
    area" means "significantly impacting" a populated area, rather than
    meaning, at one extreme "with its epicenter in a populated area",
    or at the other extreme "detectable in a populated area."  Even
    so we have some problems with what "populated areas" mean: urban
    areas?, at least sparsely settled?, at least one person?  (Since
    earthquakes not due to volcanic eruptions do not occur in deep
    ocean, almost *everywhere* an earthquake can occur is populated,
    and the most active area for earthquakes (the "ring of fire" around
    the Pacific basin) is some of the most heavily populated regions
    on earth, so earthquakes are significantly more likely to occur in
    populated areas).

    I'll fall back on my "notable" earthquake idea.  I checked the
    Encyclopedia Britannica yearbooks for 1986, 1987 and 1988 (which
    is what they had at the Mill library), under "Disasters; Natural".
    In 1985 (listed in the '86 yearbook) there were five earthquakes
    that the editors found worthy of inclusion (with Richter values
    of 7.8, 6.3, 7.4, 8.1/7.5, and 6.1; the double value represents
    a quake and a major aftershock).  In 1986 ('87 yearbook) there
    were also five quakes (Richter 5, 5.8, 6.2, 7.5 and 6.8/6.3).
    But in 1987 ('88 yearbook) there were only three (Richter ?, 6.1/5.3
    and 5.8), with one of them apparently quite small.  It was
    included because "Heavy rains and earthquake aftershocks unleashed
    tons of earth and rock ... 96 dead, 10 missing" (this took place
    in Indonesia).

    The average for these three years is 4-1/3, but I feel justified
    in using a figure of five significant quakes per year, because
    of conservatism (better to overestimate the odds, then underestimate)
    simplicity, and to account for the possibility of a "locally
    significant quake" (John does live on the ring of fire, after all).

    So the probability that a "significant" earthquake will occur on
    a target date is 1 - (352/365)^5 or .1658407 or about 1 chance in
    6.  The probability that one will fall on the 25th of Jan or Feb
    is .0270986 or about one chance in 37.  The probability that one
    will fall on the 25th of Jan is .0136327 or about one chance in 73.
    Scientists generally count anything over one chance in 20 as
    "significant".

    If we wanted to be rigorous about this we could come up with a
    scoring system for various outcomes, and put this all to a formal
    test.

					    Topher

RE: .20 (Frederick)
                                          
    
    >  John, who is holding the camera?  < 


The camera doesn't care if the photographer is Ansel Adams or Grizzly Adams.
    
    
    > by the way, John, you may be *pleased* to know that my friend Lazaris
    has predicted 5 and possibly 6 major earthquakes in the world this year
    in major population areas  < 


Such predictions do not please me.


    > ...but he implied that they would be in areas where people do not
    value themselves very highly.  < 


Your "friend" Lazaris makes me want to vomit.  What a stupid, callous thing to
say!  Gee, bad things happen to people who do not value themselves very highly,
huh?  What a crock of SHIT!

It's a pity such disasters don't pinpoint charlatans; you'd have one flat Jach.


RE: .23 (Topher)

Thanks for the explanation.  BTW, I despise math (people wonder how I ever got
my degree).

Now if you can just figure out that card trick for me...   ;-)

John M.
                                    

    re: .24
     
         John, you are free to soil your clothes any way you want to...
    and I think it's a shame you have such limited imagination.  But
    for the rest of us, most of us can acknowledge that most of the
    destruction and trauma from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
    seem to occur in third world countries.  WHY is this?  Doesn't it
    also seem odd that third world countries are the ones which also
    represent humanity as irrelevant?  In other words, executions,
    murders, rapings, etc. seem more prevalent in those countries
    (look at the suicidal Middle-East people for example.)  It would
    very definitely appear to me that those people do not value life,
    others, especially themselves very highly at all.  It is almost
    a cultural belief...that life isn't worth living, really.  Even
    within microcosms of American culture, it is generally the poor,
    under-whatever, that commit a greater percentage of crime, etc.
    How highly do they value their lives?  Why do tragedy and the
    under-whatever seem to go hand-in-hand?  Is it "coincidence?"
    Not in my belief, John-Boy!
    
    Frederick
    

re: .20, .24 (Frederick and Lazaris)

|    Lazaris has predicted 5 and possibly 6 major earthquakes in the
|    world this year in major population areas...but he implied that
|    they would be in areas where people do not value themselves 
|    very highly.  
    
	I'm truely hope that this is a case of a misquoted
	misunderstanding.  The end of the sentence is almost 
	verbatim of what my church-lady mother told me 
	when I was asking her what her church was going to do
	to help the earthquake victims in Soviet Armenia.  She 
	proceeded to blithely inform me that Soviet people don't
	value life as highly as 'we' do.  I almost dropped the
	phone.

	Where do otherwise moderately reasonable people get this
	idea that other people, because they are different,
	do not value life???????

|    for the rest of us, most of us can acknowledge that most of the
|    destruction and trauma from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
|    seem to occur in third world countries.  WHY is this?  Doesn't it

	Third world like Soviet Armenia in the beginning of December?
	I think thou dost overgeneralize.

|    also seem odd that third world countries are the ones which also
|    represent humanity as irrelevant?  In other words, executions,
|    murders, rapings, etc. seem more prevalent in those countries
|    (look at the suicidal Middle-East people for example.)  It would
|    very definitely appear to me that those people do not value life,
|    others, especially themselves very highly at all.  It is almost
|    a cultural belief...that life isn't worth living, really.  Even

	This does not make sense to me.  I can't walk the streets
	of any major city in this country without fear of rape, 
	mugging, or murder.  It isn't clear to me who values 
	life more than whom.  What are you really trying to say?
	One of the scandinavian countries has an exceptionally
	high suicide rate.  How does that fit in with this
	world view?
	
	I don't know how much of this is Lazaris and how much
	of it is Frederick, but it sounds like a really narrow
	and unaccepting way to categorize a very large portion
	of humanity.  Remember WWII, and the gross generalizations
	that were the underpinnings of that horror.  Once one
	reduces human beings to nameless members of a general
	category, it is much easier to forget that they are
	human beings each with their own souls, each capable
	of suffering pain and experiencing love.

	Alison

RE: .25 (Frederick)

    
    >  I think it's a shame you have such limited imagination.  <
     
    
Odd....   Most people consider my imagination to be one of my greatest gifts.


Your idiotic statement about third-world countries is a monument to ignorance,
ethnocentrism, and disdain for those forced to live under less fortunate
conditions.  It displays everything that is worst in the
"create your own reality" school.  I assure you that I am showing rare
restraint here; if I responded in a way befitting such hubristic hogwash, my
reply would be set hidden by the moderators.

John M.
     

    
    	   I find all this talk of valueing life quite amusing.  Most
    	people value their own lives, some value the lives of others,
    	and a radical few value all lives... yet almost all can justify
    	killing to some extent.  
    
    	   And now we speak of natural disasters occurring to those 
    	who don't value life.  I suppose those who make such ridiculous
    	claims must redefine the term 'value', as there is no other
    	way to support such an argument.  
    
    	   Californians, then... do they value life?  Hey, they have 
    	earthquakes, earthquakes are natural, so they must not value
    	life.  Right?  What about the people in Kansas who have been
    	killed by tornadoes?  I guess they didn't value life either.
    	And the Texans killed by hurricanes... no life valuers among
    	them, eh?  I would have sworn some of them valued life.
    
    	   Lazaris is nothing more than a stage show put on for those
    	willing to pay ridculous prices for false enlightenment.  Will
    	you quote Ramtha next, Frederick?  
    
    	   If Lazaris is enlightenment, I'm glad to be in the dark.
    
    	- Greg

re: the last few

I think what Frederick originally said (in .20) was:
>    Lazaris has predicted 5 and possibly 6 major earthquakes in the
>    world this year in major population areas...but he implied that
>    they would be in areas where people do not value themselves 
>    very highly.  I am going to be entering a note into 358 that
    
That's a little bit different than "valuing life".  My first reaction
to the above statement was: "That certainly covers a lot of territory!"
The devaluing of the Self is one of the hallmarks of most organized
religions, governments and other large institutions.  You're probably
just as likely to find people with self-esteem problems in places like
Weston and Lincoln (two rich suburbs of Boston) as in Bangladesh or
Armenia.  So that's a pretty broadly applicable qualifier.  Who's
exempted--Esalen, Findhorn and Jach Pursell's immediate household?

I think the reason that trying to drag the Third World into this makes
matters worse is that it turns the distinction into a materialistic one.
The implication that those who suffer misfortune are only getting what
they deserve and that the upper crust has its position by some kind
of divine right (or inherent spiritual superiority) is one of those
pernicious doctrines that keeps cropping up over and over in the
history of human ideas.  I don't buy it for one second, but i guess
it doesn't surprise me to see it in a New Age context, since it has
proven to be a popular notion over the years.
								paul

    re:  valueing life...
    
    Of course, while we in the West _seem_ to place a high value on
    life, extending it at any cost, we (our institutions) 
    don't seem to place much
    emphasis on the _quality_ of that life once it has been
    extended (or created).  And we certainly don't have very many 
    qualms about  destroying it in the name of perpetuating
    certain economic institutions.  Nor do we examine very
    closely the effects of those institutions on the quality
    of life of those remaining alive.
    
    I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of abortion,
    euthanasia, commucapitalism, etc...  just tryingtt to point
    out that "valueing life" has a variety of interpretations.
    
    /bruce

    Re .last_few:
    
    Speaking as a participant and not in my official capacity, I think
    the bent taken is beginning to be counterproductive.  Going back
    to perhaps the seed crystal, in .25, Fredrick elaborated the statement
    this way:
    
    >for the rest of us, most of us can acknowledge that most of the
    >destruction and trauma from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
    >seem to occur in third world countries.  WHY is this?  Doesn't it
    >also seem odd that third world countries are the ones which also
    >represent humanity as irrelevant?  In other words, executions,
    >murders, rapings, etc. seem more prevalent in those countries
    >(look at the suicidal Middle-East people for example.)  It would
    >very definitely appear to me that those people do not value life,
    >others, especially themselves very highly at all.  
     
    Let me see whether I can very carefully demythologize this a bit.
    First, there is no clearcut evidence that the richest and most powerful
    nations are somehow less proof against the ravages of natural
    happenings (note that word) than the weakest and least affluent
    nations.  However, there are ways that they are better able to cope.
    Let me use a personal experience: when I was in my mid-teens, my
    father, an Army officer, was stationed on a post in Japan.  Now
    the Japanese live on volcanic lands and have frequent minor
    earthquakes.The house we lived in was designed with that in mind,
    and was rather resilient, flexing with the earth tremors.  The house
    my wife and I live in, if transplanted from Massachusetts to Sendai,
    would have cracks throughout, if it maintained its integrity; it
    wasn't built with frequent earthquakes in mind.  Thus, whenever
    an earthquake hits in Japan, the preparations already built into
    the towns and cities helps minimize the damage.
    
    Likewise, ask a Floridian about hurricanes.  These are frequent
    enough so that precautions can (and are) taken to minimize the damage.
    In short, "life values," whatever these might be, are secondary
    considerations.
    
    It is rather counterproductive to consider that while the quality
    of life is different in different countries, usually due to
    socioeconomic or political considerations, that any member of any
    of the countries values life any less than in the more affluent
    lands; if they did, their people would rapidly become extinct.  Now
    it may be that a despotic overlord might value his subjects' lives
    much less than those of his immediate family, but that's not the
    same thing.
    
    >................................................... It is almost
    >a cultural belief...that life isn't worth living, really.  Even
    >within microcosms of American culture, it is generally the poor,
    >under-whatever, that commit a greater percentage of crime, etc.
    >How highly do they value their lives?  Why do tragedy and the
    >under-whatever seem to go hand-in-hand?
     
    The fanatics that sacrifice themselves do so _because_ life is very
    much worth living; such sacrifices, in battle (however this is defined)
    are ways to ensure that their souls go to their paradise.  That's
    far different from a "what's the use?" philosophy.
    
    <A little philosophical interlude>  That there are high crimes in
    economically disadvantaged areas of the United States has little
    to do with the criminal class believing that life is not worth living;
    quite the contrary: they risk a great deal _because_ they love life
    and want to live it well (creature comforts); indeed, it's frequently
    the _more affluent_ young that use the narcotics, presumably to
    escape their pampered lives, than the socioeconomic "lower middle
    class."  A mystic might observe that some of the affluent youth
    is choking on materialism but hasn't the patience with asceticism.
    <Disable philosophical mode.>
    
    I am a little saddened to see some nerves getting raw; this I attrubute
    in part to the New Moon (yes, Virginia, Full Moons aren't the only
    time folk can be edgy; if Watson's references are even partially
    correct, it's at spring [as opposed to neap] tides).
    
    Dejavu as a conference is usually quite amicible.  If we disagree,
    let's just say so.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>================================================================================
>Note 943.31                  Earthquake on the 25th?                    31 of 31
>ERASER::KALLIS "Anger's no replacement for reason"   79 lines  11-APR-1990 03:23
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^

Steve, (and you too, bruce, in reply .30!)
why don't you just *tell* us whether John was right.....
Arie :-)

         While I was re-reading my notes on Friday night, I noticed
    that I may have erred a bit in "reporting."  Since I don't have
    access to this notesfiles from home, I was unable to "correct"
    myself.  What I should have said (and not a direct quote...I
    speak from my notes) was that Lazaris predicted 5, possibly 6
    major earthquakes this year.  He did not say they would be in 
    major population areas (as per my notes.)  Also, he said that
    *they* would occur in areas where people tended to value themselves
    low.  The *they* may have referred to the earthquakes or to 
    disasters in general...I cannot tell from my notes but for anyone
    to whom this is important, ask someone else who attended or listen
    to the tape which should by now be available.
          Now then, *that* out of the way, thank you Paul and Bruce
    for a modicum of sensibility.  It is clear that we have crime
    in our country, but "statistics" show that it is a small percentage
    of our population who are the majority of offenders.  Rapists and
    the like are repeatedly shown to be individuals with historys of
    abuse and low self-esteem.  How highly do you think they value
    themselves or others or life in general?  Moreover, whenever we
    do create "natural" disasters, why is it that it hasn't been tens or
    hundreds of thousands who have perished?  IS it only because of our
    superior technology or literacy rate?  Hmmm.  I wonder.  Further,
    valuing self does not make one superior over another.  To bring
    genocide into this conversation is extremist and unwarranted and
    can only be done because of a "pathological" interest in making
    an emotional plea.  *YOU* can make that connection, *I* certainly
    don't.  There is no better than here...there is, as has been 
    discussed so many other times in spiritual exchanges of thought,
    only more than.  As Mr. Righteous Mitchell has talked about before,
    humans are not higher in consciousness than animals, or other
    humans, or plants, or minerals...or anything else in creation. 
    They are simply on different places along the massively intricate
    paths.  For those of you looking for a public "reason" to hate
    Lazaris, congratulations for exposing yourself to reactionary
    rationale and righteous (though misplaced) anger.  In any case,
    while there may be groups who run around feeling superior (as
    I believe all religious groups that I am aware of do) and can
    therefore justify whatever intrusion they perpetrate onto others,
    looking for that here is remiss, from where I sit.  No one to 
    which we allude to here is saying "love less", if anything the
    reverse is true.  LOVE MORE...of yourself so that you can then
    have it spread to all the reaches of your reality.  No one among
    those being vilified here has said "turn your back"...instead they
    said "embrace those parts that have not learned self-love".  
    This hardly sounds like some of the atrocious junk some of you
    are vomiting.  
         Enough!  If you wish to compound your ignorance with lies,
    do so.  I prefer more understanding, thank you.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .32 (Arie):
    
    Check it out.  You can, too!
    
    :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

                                     
    I attended the Lazaris session in Florida in the beginning of December
    and also heard this mentioned.
    
    After giving it some thought, my own interpretation of this is that
    those who are victims (or perceive themselves as victims) are going
    to be getting a double-whammy.  Because of their very misfortunate
    situation, they cannot see a better world from their perspective
    and therefore their negative experiences just continue on and on
    and on.  I'm not just referring to the Third World sections of the
    globe - I'm referring also to the street people in the US (etc.).
    
    What I believe my own responsibility in this is, is to do something
    about it.  Try to help those people who need just a small bit of
    love in order to see themselves as worthwhile human beings and not
    some 'barnacles on the surface of the Earth' (think Lazaris used
    these words, but not entirely sure).  Empower people to believe
    in themselves and we can turn the above situation around.
    
    I don't believe Lazaris meant this to be a doom and gloom prophecy
    so much as they meant it to be a call to action to those (of us)
    who are more fortunate and who do have the power right now to change
    the world and make it a better place to live in.
    
    My own plan of action for 1989 is going to (hopefully) include more
    involvement with Amnesty International, and I will be putting more
    information on this in this and other notes conferences as I get more 
    involved in it in the next month or so.
    
    Now is the time to look at 1989 and see what you can do to help
    make the world a better place.  Use the month of January to plan
    and get going on something (it can be just a small project, a medium
    project or large project).  
    
    And don't forget yourself in this either.  Make time to exercise,
    read, sleep, eat the right foods, and take good care of yourself
    because if you don't, then you're not going to have the energy to
    help anyone else out.
    
    Let's get going!
    
    Cindy

    Thank you Cindy.
      
    I think there was a massive misunderstanding due to 2 things in .20--
    first, Frederick said people who do not value themselves highly (i.e. 
    low self-esteem) which was apparently confused with people not valuing 
    life in general, and especially his (mis)use of the word "but," which 
    suggested that such disasters are ok because they are only happening
    to people who do not value life anyway.  
    
    I think people writing in this notesfile should be more careful
    of how they use language.  And make certain before throwing stones
    (axes, nuclear warheads, etc.) that they really understand what the
    other was saying.  After all--they may not really be callous and
    insensitive.  Just illiterate and inarticulate! ;-) 
    
    On to probabilities...would it be correct (and simpler?) to say
    that with 12 25's/year and 5 major earthquakes per year there are
    60 chances in 365 (assuming not a leap year) that a quake will happen
    on a 25th, which works out to 1 in 6?  :-)
    
    Mary
    1 chance in 6

RE: .36 (Mary)
        
    > <<Approximate probability calculation for chances of a "notable"
    >   earthquake occurring on the 25th of some month.>>
    
    I promise, I wasn't even tempted to giggle a little (though your
    smiley face seems to indicate that you were willing to yourself).
    Probability calculations are very tricky and counterintuitive, and
    anyone who attempts to understand and/or perform them is to be treated
    with respect -- whether or not they get it correct.
    
    Basically you made the same mistake that Bruce did, though somewhat
    more subtly and differently.  The reason that it was close to the
    correct answer (rounded off to the same 1 in 6 that I got) is that the
    error in this method becomes smaller the less likely it is that a
    "collision" (more than one earthquake occurring on a target day) will
    occur.  With five notable earthquakes a year (rather than the 18
    major earthquakes a year in Bruce's calculation) the liklihood that
    more than one will "hit" is much lower.
    
    Note that by your calculations, in two years there will be 2*5 notable
    earthquakes, and 2*12 target days, and thus 4*60 chances in 2*365
    days.  So the probability, according to this, that a notable earthquake
    will occur on a target day in a two year period is 2*(prob occurring
    in one year) or roughly 2*(1/6).  More generally, by this reasoning,
    the probability that such a combination will occur in n years is
    roughly n*(1/6) (or more exactly n*(60/365)).  The probability that
    it will occur in 7 years is then roughly 7/6 (or exactly 420/365)
    or more than certain.
    
    Essentially, you are saying something like "There is 1 chance in
    365 (I'll say 1in365) that the largest notable quake will occur on
    Jan 25; 1in365 that the largest quake will occur on Feb 25; ... ;
    1in365 that the largest quake will occur on Dec 25; 1in365 that the
    second largest notable quake will occur on Jan 25; ...  and 1in365 that
    the fifth largest notable quake will occur on Dec 25."  You are then
    adding up the 60 probabilities of 1/365 to get 60/365.  But as
    I said in my previous note, adding is only justified when the events
    are distinct -- when one of the notable quakes occurring on a target
    date precludes the possibility that any of the others will also.
    
    Good try at trying to make sense of the number though.
    
    						Topher

    Re: .25, .33 

    Frederick,

    Your basic premise has no factual basis.

    Consider:

    The U. S. of A. is the *ONLY* major industrial country that still has
    a death penalty. The U. S. of A. has the highest crime rate of any
    major industrial country, and one of the highest suicide rates.

    So far as natural disasters go, and for whatever it's worth, the good
    old U. S. of A. has more tornadoes and thunderstorms and associated
    deaths and damages for these storms than any other country. 

    However, thunderstorms and tornadoes are local storms and do not effect
    large ares. The storms with the greatest potential for widespread
    disaster are hurricanes (also known in other countries as typhoons,
    williwaws, and by other names). Hurricanes are essentially tropical
    oceanic storms, and as such they are most apt to hit tropical land
    areas close to the ocean. This includes a substantial part of the the
    so-called undeveloped countries. Because many inhabitants of these
    areas live in what we consider substandard housing, there often is a
    large loss of life. It is simplistic and derogatory to say this occurs
    because "tragedy and the under-whatever ... go hand-in-hand."

    (The southeast coast of the U. S. of A. is overdue, statistically, for
    a major hurricane. If a hurricane such as several in the 1930s to the
    1960s hits near any major populated area, the dollar and human damage
    will be staggering.)    

    You corrected yourself to say that Lazaris predicted 5 or 6 major
    earthquakes this year. In .14, the figures show that the world
    averages some 18 major earthquakes each year, with more than 100
    additional quakes with the potential for major disaster. It would be
    miraculous if Lazaris were correct. (Incidentally, the Armenian quake
    registered about 6.8 on the Richter scale.)  

    You also said that the disasters may not be earthquakes, but they
    will occur in areas where "people tend to value themselves low."
    Well, 1989 has already seen two major plane disasters in Great
    Britain and Ireland. Are these considered areas where people value
    themselves low? [How do you recognize such an area, anyway?]
    (And how come none of the esteemed soothsayers predicted this double
    whammy?)

    Bruce

    
    Re.38 (Bruce)
    
    Short interjection here - (sorry if this is a repeat) - when I was
    down in Florida at the Lazaris session on 1988/89, they said at
    that time that they had predicted for 1988 that 4 large earthquakes
    would take place.  Then they went on to say that only 3 had actually
    taken place.  2 days later, I woke up to hear of the Armenian disaster
    and realized that the year was not yet over at that point.
    
    It is difficult to explain the eerie sense of realization I had
    at that moment...as if it were frozen in time. 
    
    It isn't scientific proof or anything even close.  I can't give
    you numbers, equations, statistics or anything like that (and I
    will add that I was a science major in school).  But inside I just
    know.  And this knowing, yet not being able to adequately communicate
    this sense - this certainty- of knowing to you is very frustrating 
    indeed.
                  
    Cindy

    re: .38
    
         Okay, Bruce, thanks for the statistics you provided.  Let me
    add that though the tragedies in the air were very devasting to
    many, both directly and indirectly, it does not even remotely come
    close to the sufferings and deaths experienced in several African
    nations---hundreds of thousands dying each year of drought, starvation,
    wars, etc.  Do they value themselves?  I think that they have a
    rather grim acceptance of life and death...life is easy to come
    by, death is almost as easy.  Is this valuing self?  In the U.S.
    the consensus seems to say that more than 2.2 kids or whatever,
    is too difficult, too expensive, too taxing, etc. for the average
    couple.  There is no similar attitude that births are taken for
    granted, nor for deaths, either.  Many other first world nations have
    a similar attitude.  
         Let's make something clear right now.  No one is saying that
    the "valuing self" attitude is the ONLY reason for these tragedies.
    Similarly, no one says that ulcers are ONLY caused by worry.  The
    point is that not valuing self TENDS towards a counter-productive
    energy while worry lends itself towards creating ulcers.  I really
    don't understand the difficulty some of you seem to have with this
    approach.  You want to believe that you create your own reality,
    yet you refuse to acknowledge that attitudes and beliefs as well
    as thoughts or emotions have anything to do with *certain* realities.
    Either it works all the time or it doesn't, in which case we may
    as well eliminate all rationales, logics, etc. and turn into
    nonsensical blobs of cosmic energy or something.  Lots of time has
    been spent in this conference attempting to demonstrate the 100%
    validity of creating one's own reality...through and through...
    why are some of you putting up roadblocks here?  Some of you are
    doggedly determined to refute this...that's okay, I can accept
    that.  But for those of you who run around saying "you create your
    own reality" and don't have the strength of conviction to follow
    that through to the hilt, I say you better rethink your stance,
    because you DON'T believe you create your own reality.  YOU still
    hold to ancient ideas of smaller to larger, past to present...victims
    of a world that can do with you whatever it wants to.  Sorry,
    gang, I'm not getting on your TITANIC with you, no matter how big
    your boat looks.
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: .40 (Frederick)
    
    > Sorry, gang, I'm not getting on your TITANIC with you, no matter how
    big your boat looks.  <
    
    
    ....he said from his cabin on the Andrea Doria.
    
    
    John M.
      

    I'm kinda' lost here.
    
    Earthquakes happen all the time. Mount St. Helen was one hell of a
    blast and it was not alone. Other volcanos with accompanying
    earthquakes have happened. Some much larger than St. Helen. 
    
    Storms are a fact of life on this planet.
    
    What do these have to do with anything except for attracting attention
    to the prophet?                                            
    
    Ok I can prophecy too. There will be more earthquakes this year. The
    ozone hole will get bigger. And lot's of poor people will die. Anchovy
    will not eat a hamburger this year but will consider it. Steve will fly
    another airplane. Cindy will write several articles on prisoners of
    conscious and Mikie? will succeed in pissing off more people. B^)
    
    Further today is always the only day we have to chose. I prophecy that
    we will all chose things. Some choices will help us and others, some
    won't. 
    
    Oh yeah, I predict that some of these prophecies won't come true.
    But then again, I don't value it. I have no reason to care as long
    as Steve doesn't land his airplane on my house, Anchovy doesn't
    flame me for ordering his diet, and if Cindy doesn't drag me off
    to Florida. B^)

Well! I'm actually quite impressed with this topic,
not for the content, but for the way it has avoided
turning into a slanging match. Keep it up. :-)

John_the_libran_rabbit.

(Could we perhaps value all life? All the cells of this entity earth?)

    One thing that makes verifying these sorts of predictions so difficult
    is that they contain generalizations.  For example:
      
    major earthquake - who defines major? 
      Richter scale?  Say anything over 8.0 is major, if a 10.0 happens
    in the antarctic and nobody dies is that more major than an earthquake
    measuring 5.0 that kills 5,000 people?
    
    major disaster - who defines major?  who defines disaster?
      yes, the airplane crashes were a disaster.  But Frederick is right.
     Millions of people starving to death everyday is far bigger a disaster.
            
    People Who Value Themselves Low - Who decides what is an indication
    of low self-value?  
    
    Maybe somebody who values him/herself low is somebody who needs lots
    of things to feel like somebody.  Or somebody who needs lots of money 
    in the bank to feel like somebody. Or somebody who needs lots of power 
    to feel like somebody.  
    
    Maybe people who value themselves low are greedy, capitalist, 
    imperialist dogs? ;-)
    
    Maybe somebody who can live in extreme poverty and still have children
    and struggle to survive is somebody who values all life, including
    his/her own?
               
    YCOR - We can affect our reality, I'm not certain we can effect
    it.  ;-)  Certainly, in a nation of such power and wealth we have
    more capability than most to affect it.

    Frederick, 
    
    Accepting death does not mean that you don't value life. I have
    known dying people who valued the life left to them even more because
    they knew they were dying.
    
    I have had several close family members die. That does not mean
    that I don't value my life, or anyone else's life, including yours,
    any the less.
    
    Your simplistic attitude that people in undeveloped countries do
    not revere life is simply wrong. It is also chauvinistic.
    
    You are right in pointing out that plane crashes, etc., do not compare
    with ungoing deaths from drought, starvation, and so forth. But
    the predictions dealt with traumatic happenings. That is what we
    are discussing.
    
    Bruce                                            
                               

We seem to have a lot of disagreement on the words Frederick wrote. Where do we
agree? Do we all agree on the opposite? That we can make this world a better
place to live when we all try and value life more? If that is the case, then we
can start; in the way Cindy has written, a few replies back (and thanks for the
way you wrote it, Cindy!).

I myself find it difficult to judge other people on how they value life.
Especially because I have found out, and see around me, how those words can be
misunderstood. Fredericks words are misunderstood; to me, those words do not
feel like a judgment. But as soon as they are understood as a judgment, they get
an opposite meaning.

Right now I am reading a biography of Richard Wagner, the 19th century composer.
It is explained how *his* words, how honorable and sincere they were meant, were
misinterpreted later, and misused by the nazis in WWII. 

Why do I make this comparison? Well, because the words of Lazaris, as cited by
Frederick, contain the same kernel for misinterpretation. For me, it would be
the reason why I myself would be careful in citing them.

Peace please,

Arie

    re: .46
       
          I agree with what you wrote; in fact, I sent a note to a few
    others expressing the frustration that often comes up in "reporting"
    of information.  In Lazaris' case, he long ago nixed the writing
    up of a verbatim transcript of his seminars, though it clearly would
    generate more income for Concept:Synergy.  Among the reasons, the most
    clear message is that he speaks on various levels and can conclude one
    thought several sentences later...making it difficult to transcribe with
    accuracy as to meaning, especially since that meaning can be construed
    differently by different people.  He has made it very clear that
    he speaks to us INDIVIDUALLY, not as the illusion of the group would
    have us believe.  But that's somewhat off subject.
    
    re: .45
         
          Bruce, I don't know where you're coming from, but from where
    I sit I may not be able to describe the difference to you between
    a loved/(loving) relative dying and the undignified, pathetic,
    hopeless death of a starvation "victim" in Africa, but I can 
    FEEL that there is a difference.  IF you can sense a difference,
    then maybe you can understand where the thought comes from that
    just might indicate why that person dying in a barren landscape
    has that environment to live in whereas your favorite relative
    has not created that set of environmental nightmares. If you don't
    get the sense, then I can only say too bad.  I don't wish to describe
    the differences in beliefs and attitudes of humanity to you.  I
    don't wish to point out that many cultures and sub-cultures share
    common beliefs and attitudes.  I also don't wish to point out that
    maybe those shared beliefs and attitudes acccount for the differences
    in the way these lives are lived out.  I do wish to point out, 
    however, that though I may harbor some chauvinistic views, I am
    definitely not alone among the men and women of this conference
    who adhere to those views as well, that I have worked diligently
    for a couple of decades to reduce or eliminate those views, and
    that the statement appears to me to be totally irrelevant to the
    issue and nowhere apparent to me.  Chauvinism is best defined as
    the view that men are superior to women...it is a view that in
    our world-wide society is held firmly in place not only by men
    but by women, too.  Where in the world does this fit into this
    topic?
    
         To repeat what has been stated perhaps more eloquently by
    a couple of others, it is not for us to judge any individual
    as for their feelings of any type...let alone whether or not
    that individual has feelings of low self-worth, self-confidence,
    self-esteem, self-respect, self-love or any other form of self-
    valuation.  Clearly people hide their feelings from others all
    the time.  And why not?  The minute one does, the judgments rain
    down upon their expression...a case in point is all the closet 
    readers of this notesfile.  We can, however, for our own
    understandings, make discernments and evaluations and make 
    decisions based on them.  To that extent, if I feel that by
    loving myself more I can avoid certain geological or atmospheric
    disasters, e.g., I will certainly work harder at doing so.  I am
    repeatedly running across data from the consensus indicating at
    least partial agreement that attitudes influence health, successes,
    etc.  That *I* believe that together with beliefs, emotions and
    thoughts they are the basis of our entire reality, does not mean
    that I cannot see some of the differences some in here have tried
    to point out.  For the greatest truth, in my view, is that we
    cannot begin to see the entirety of anyone's thoughts, feelings,
    attitudes or beliefs, NOT EVEN of self, let alone anybody else.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    re: .47 - Frederick:
    
    To many people, chauvinism has come to mean simply undue partiality
    to a masculine viewpoint. That's a relatively recent extension of
    the original meaning.
                             
    Actually, chauvinism's primary meaning has more to do with excessive
    or overweening patriotism, and comes from the name of a character
    in a French play, who displays irrational devotion to Napoleon.
    
    Sorry to introduce the nitsy comment in a heated discussion, but
    this is a pet peeve of mine (which I should probably cross-post
    in JOYOFLEX)
    
    Gloria 
    former student of comparative literature, among other things 

    Chauvinism: 
    
    1. Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country;
    fanatical patriotism.
    
    2. Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own group: male
    chauvinism.
    
    

RE: .47
    
    Frederick, Nicolas Chauvin was widely known for his belief in the
    intrinsic superiority of men over women, Europeans over anyone else,
    Frenchman and French culture over all other people and cultures,
    and the absolute infallibility of his government.  The word chauvinism
    may thus refer to excessive patriotism, or a conviction as to the
    intrinsic superiority of ones ethnic or cultural group as well as
    ones gender.  Until the "women's movement" of the late 60s, the
    former definitions were much more commonly used than the last one.
    
    						Topher

    re: .47
                                                                
    There was one line in reply .47 that particulary caught my
    attention:
    
    < ..............................To that extent, if I feel that by
    < loving myself more I can avoid certain geological or atmospheric
    < disasters, e.g., I will certainly work harder at doing so.  
                                   
    For myself, I would change one or two words:
    
    To that extent, if I feel that by loving *others* more *they*
    can avoid certain geological or atmospheric disasters, e.g., I
    will certainly work harder at doing so.
      
    Thanks for provoking such a good thought and realization.
    
    Jill

         Re: .25 - Frederick, you said that 3rd world countries have
         far more executions, murder, and rapes, than other countries,
         and that "these  people do not value life, especially
         themselves."

    There is not a scintilla of evidence for this view. It comes entirely
    from your biased chauvinistic attitude. (And if you don't know what
    "scintilla" means, look in the dictionary, which is what you should
    have done with "chauvinistic.") The U. S. has its share of rapes,
    murders, and executions.

         Re: .40 - You said that Africans have a rather low view of
         themselves.  You also said that "I really don't understand
         the difficulty some of you have with this approach. ... You
         DON'T believe you create your own reality." You went on to
         lambaste (look it up) every one who does not  accept your
         views of reality. 

    Tell an African dying of starvation that if he creates another reality,
    he won't be starving. What it sounds like to me are saying, is that you
    can't understand how anyone can disagree with your stated opinion.
    That's a pretty chauvinistic attitude.

         Re: .47 "Lazaris ... long ago nixed the writing up of a
         verbatim  transcript ..."

    In other words, Lazaris doesn't want to be held to his word, and
    doesn't necessarily mean what he says. WOW! Most of what I know about
    Lazaris is from reading Notes, and he sounds like a top notch
    charlatan.

    More on death and dying. I once spent a year as a special fellow
    at the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) Center for
    Suicide Studies. During that year I worked extensively with people
    who attempted suicide, families of those who had committed
    suicide, dying patients, and other assorted and desperate people
    in misery. I wrote several research papers which were published in
    various scientific journals. 

    It was an interesting year. I don't think there is much you can tell me
    about how people go about the business of dying. Some people die with
    dignity. Some people do not. Some people are ready to accept death.
    Some people are not. This goes for suicides, as well as natural deaths
    and some accidents. There are certainly cultural differences on how
    death is viewed and accepted, but in the end we all die alone. 

    It has little to do with financial status, race, sex, or country of
    origin. Only chauvinists would believe these factors have a bearing.

    Bruce

RE: .47 (Frederick)

    >  IF you can sense a difference, then maybe you can understand where
    the thought comes from that just might indicate why that person dying
    in a barren landscape has that environment to live in whereas your
    favorite relative has not created that set of environmental nightmares.
    < 

My god, there you go again.

I don't see any difference between your original stance and this one.  All of
the clarifications of your original statements have not erased the underlying
falsehood which, I daresay, smells to high heaven.

The misguided belief that people in unfortunate situations chose that "reality"
on this or some other supposed spiritual plane seems to be a product of our
affluent times.  Rich cult-figure "channelers" are that way because they chose
that reality.  If you are not affluent or living in a temperate zone it is
because you chose that reality.  Thus every tragedy, personal or public,
becomes the sole affair of the victims.  It is a wonderful way to feel smug in
one's own fortunate situation while simultaneously distancing oneself from
somebody else's discomfort; an all too human weakness.

I think that future historians will look back on the ludicrous and faddish
notion of YCYOR with the same fascinated repugnance with which we view the 
"manifest destiny" of our forefathers.

John M.

    Perhaps if you were a Don Juan Matus you could "choose you
    own reality". About how long did it take Carlos C. to learn
    to change his reality? Perhaps this is what Lazaris means?
    I know that it's possible to change ones reality, but I for
    one do not yet know that I know that I KNOW that its possible,
    which is what it takes. Perhaps it's how you look at it.:^)
    
    Russ
    EW

    Re YCOR:
    
    This is rapidly, if not precipitiously,  plunging into a
    black-hole-level rathole.
    
    Even within this Conference, "creating ones own reality" has shown
    vastly different meanings.
    
    1) Nobody but a masochist would "create a reality" where they slowly
    and painfully starve to death.  And statistically, to have a whole
    countryside of people creating a "concensus reality" of that sort
    is an even more remote probability than running into one person
    at random who would want to do that. 
    
    2) Even assuming a metaphysical way for a starving person in, say,
    Eretria, to change his or her reality sufficiently so that they
    would not starve would require training sufficient so that by the
    time she or he learned it, they would have passed the point of actual
    starvation.  That makes the point moot.
    
    3) Fredrick, you take _much_ from the Lazaris workshop on faith/belief.
    There's nothing wrong with that; however, that you might feel its
    validity may not mean that others agree with you (or, more importantly,
    with Lazaris).
    
    4) Let's "agree to disagree" on this one.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .52
    
         Bruce, congratulations on your past fellowship.  It sounds
    as though you did learn more about suicides, etc. than I ever
    will (or care to.)  I will continue to disagree on the quality of
    life in first world countries and third world countries, however.
    I wonder what you consider the accounts of the Khmer Rouge in
    Cambodia or "so-called" atrocities in Argentina or Chile or Honduras
    or Iran or ...??  Does this sound to you like typical American
    fare?  Not for this American, it doesn't.  Do those accounts sound
    like the valuing of life to you?  I would agree that the U.S. lags
    far behind most other first world countries in the murder, rape,
    etc. statistics, but it is my belief that it is far more "civilized"
    than many if not most third world nations.  I don't find anything
    you or anyone else has written to change my views here.
         Thanks for pointing out that I was not aware of what is apparently
    a rapidly-becoming-archaic use of one word.  I do not need insults,
    however, from you as to my language abilities, which may or may
    not "measure up" to yours.  Insofar as pushing my views on others,
    I will say that I do make an effort to not do that.  What I will
    try to do, as often as I feel it is appropriate, is offer an
    alternative to consensus views as offered by you and a few others.
    This in the interest of letting others know that the consensus is
    not the view of ALL.  It is not up to me to change anyone's point
    of view, it is up to the individual.  But for those seeking alternative
    realities, perhaps there is a ray of hope and truth in some of my
    views.  I can say that I shall never, ever return to the narrow-minded,
    unspiritual points of view shared by those among you who pride
    themselves with their intelligence and knowledge.  I will not argue
    this further, I hope.  As for the create your own reality point
    of view, it has been argued in this notesfile many times before...
    I'm not about to rewrite all its views.  That you can't see it,
    understand it, or accept it is not my problem.  You certainly don't
    have any lacking of contempt, narrow-mindedness or animosity towards
    views that aren't yours, either.
    
    Anyway, you are free to think as you will...hopefully I am, too,
    oh benevolent one!
    
    re: .53  
    
          John, you are such a cartoon!  You really get off on this,
    don't you?  It's too bad you don't use your incredible energy more
    usefully.  Actually, your response is so ignorant to things that
    have been written in these notes before that I and probably others
    would have to acknowledge you only for your desire to confront,
    argue, battle, and strangle, among other adjectives.  Talk about
    pathological!  Down, boy, down!  It isn't blood, it's only air!
    
    
    Frederick
    

    RE: .56 (Frederick)
    
    "Cartoon?"
    
    
    "Strangle?"
    
    
    John M.

I wish we could take a break from this topic and come back to it
when some of the hard feelings have died down.  There are some
important disagreements showing up here, but there seems to be no
way to resolve them readily, since they are based deep feelings
and personal faith in most cases.

Perhaps if we take some time to let the fallout settle down, we
will see that there was something of value (or at least of potential
interest) in what someone we disagreed with said.  Or maybe not.
We may also find that life experiences modify our own closely held
views (at least that's happened to me many times), so that our
interest in defending them isn't quite so fierce.
							paul

Those of us who have created our reality to contain
famines and wars maybe ought to show just a *little*
compassion for the victims of our creations. Mm?

John_ex_frog - \/
               (o) - newly_incarnated_as_rabbit.

 My heart tells me,that although your mind may believe

that the suffering created their reality. Your heart would

give them what they need. Minds hold ideas,but hearts often 

know the truth.

          George D.

Thankfully the harsh words of Bruce (.52) and John will not prevent Frederick
sharing the information he has to offer.  As one of the 'closet readers' of
this notesfile, I'll take this opportunity to publicly thank Frederick for
all the time and energy he has expended.  Many of us (from those who I've
talked with off-line) appreciate his efforts.

I don't agree with everything he has written, but I am grateful for the 
chance to read his (and Lazaris' views) and decide for myself.

Ro

Looks like a bit of a paradox here. Death whether personal, demographic,
or global is distasteful.  At the same time nothing ever dies;
it only changes form, so why be upset about it?  Well, I'd be upset
if I were interrupted in the middle of a perfectly good play or movie.

I would also be upset if the person sitting next to me started heckling
the players.  Guess this person is pretty much identified with what
he sees? Maybe he doesn't like what is going on?  Maybe he ought to write
his own script or become an actor himself as to do it better at least
to his liking.

Then there are the critics.  Those people who consider themselves outside
the play and pretend to furnish some service to the audience at no cost
to themselves.  Just as those of potential audience who only read
what the critics write and never actually go to a play seem to shirk
responsibility.

Yes, it seems a paradox.  All these people; actors, writers, audience, critics
and others in abstention each having a different position.  Does position
denote responsibility?  I don't think so.  I think that the only choice
any of these characters in this analogy have is one of responsibility
for their own position.

Responsibility: The willingness to admit, whether you are fully aware
of it or not, that you are cause in the matter.

Larry

    Larry, I like the model...
    
    I feel that at times I play or have played all of the above roles...
    but i'm trying to let go of the ancillary ones, such as critic.
    
    aside:  I used to be very active with photography.  I haven't
    done much with it lately, 'cause i felt that the camera created
    a barrier between me and the action, turning me into an observer
    rather than a participant.  I haven't yet resolved that.
    
    /bruce
    

Let me put my smiley-face here up front,

;-))).  

See it?, remember it, smiley-face....

*If* Frederick is right about negativity being a major factor in YCOR,
then, if this 'debate' continues as it has in the past several replies,
then we will be the cause of the earthquake on the 25th - here in DEJAVU
land!  

We'll all be dead and it will be John's fault for having the dream in 
the first place!!!

So there...

Terry ;-) (smiley-face again incase you didn't see the first one...)

OH Terry, come on...... John M. couldn't possibly have that much power

8^)

re: last one.

> OH Terry, come on...... John M. couldn't possibly have that much power

  Do you have any idea how many anchovies he's probably eaten????
  Now that's power...

  Terry 

    Re .66 (Terry):
    
 >Do you have any idea how many anchovies he's probably eaten????
  
    Yeah.  Zip.  Zero.  Nil.  Nada.  Naught. None.
    
    An Anchovy eating anchovies, while it happens in Nature, doesn't
    happen in this file.  Rather cannibalistic, what?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

      Well, I enjoyed all the responses since my last one,
even John's ( :-  }  Thanks, Ro, for an extra nice kicker for me.
      Actually, someone wrote me off-line with some provocative
questions and it caused me to pull a few thoughts together.  Let
me see if I can do it on paper...
      For starters, I see creating your own reality not as a few
becoming-trite words, but rather as ESSENTIAL to accept, if not
to understand.  Let me address those who say it isn't so in a manner
which I have done before.  And what is interesting is that though
I have asked this before no one has ever responded directly to the
question (at least not with more than an "I don't know.")  IF we do
not create our own reality who does?  IF we only create a partial 
reality, which part (PERCENTAGEs, for the mathematicians/scientists)
do we create?  I will again state that we are *almost* forced to
take either an all or none position.  If it's being done for us,
then we are the big time losers of life...concepts of free will get
instantly destroyed.  If we create a partial reality, who is ever
going to decide which part?  50%?  Well, then some of us are really
screwing up our 50% and some of us are getting royally screwed by the
50% that isn't ours.  If it's a sliding scale, then we can slide
anywhere from 0% to 100%.  BUT THAT INCLUDES 100%!!!!!!!!!  You see,
once you put all your goofy emotions aside, even in very simplistic
terms we are left with having to choose 100% of reality's creation.
For those of you who are unsure, confused, etc., take time out here
and go ponder on it for awhile.  For those of you *STUCK* in beliefs
of worship to something/someone else, stop here so you don't blow your
fuses.  WARNING: This belief is hazardous to religious worshippers.
Why?  Because they no longer can count on whatever it is they are 
worshipping to do it for them.  In other words, they must then assume
100% responsibility for the world and everything else they are aware of
and that's too scary.  So, stop here, non-believers, so that you don't
cause yourself any damage... or else proceed at your own risk!
  
      For however many of you that can grasp the concept of creating
your own reality:  
 
      Yes, it is scary.  Perhaps that is why so many of us avoid, with
so much intensity, facing it.  The responsibility is and becomes enormous...
and that is a play on words, for the universe and everything that we
are aware of is the most enormous thing we are aware of.  But at the same
time it becomes extraordinarily freeing!  How so?  Because we can then
lift the onus of having outside forces doing things to us...because we
can then take total control of what we experience...because no problem
need ever be unsolvable or solutionless.  Anyway, most of what I am saying
has already been written about in many other places, even within these
notes.
      How does this tie to the subject of the hour?  ;-)  Well, as I
and others have ocassionally pointed out, everything starts from inside,
then works outwardly.  The closer anything is to you, the closer or more
"real" that reality is.  The closer anything is to you, the closer you
are to the thoughts/beliefs/feelings/attitudes that you HAVE/ARE.  To 
the extent that something exists in a remote part of the world, that is
the extent to which it is a reflection of yourself.  For theoretical fun,
let us say that we come to hear that there are billions of beings
being systematically cannibalized in a distant planet of some distant
star system.  By our standards, this would be devastating to say the least.
But we could shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is, they're
too far away to help, anyway, and besides we have enough problems of our
own."  So we probably wouldn't help them.  Well, our world was once like
this...people too far away to help.  Now, however, we have the means to
help others.  Others who are having their own cannibalisms, as it were.
What do we do?  Clearly we cannot help hundreds of millions all by ourself.
We cannot ask "God" to do it since that is an abnegation of our responsibility.
We CAN, however, work with the "forces" that we are a part of to make
the reality different.  Again, that starts from within, but it also reaches
out to seek help or guidance from those parts of ourself that are greater
than we are.  No one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, here...no
one is saying that since you do it all that you therefore should understand
it all.  NO, it is mostly beyond our capacity to understand.  So, we can
work to understand ourselves, work to consciously be aware of our thoughts/
feelings/beliefs/attitudes and work to bring them into functions of love,
caring, harmony, peace, etc.  And then just know that the reality will
reflect that.  Does it take faith?  It certainly requires trust, and trust
is not something to toss around.  But without it, doubt, lack of focus,
mixed feelings, etc. will dilute the positive aspects to an extent that
the benefits will not be as strong, if obvious at all.  So, maybe we can't
do anything about the person sitting on a barren landscape with nothing
to eat, and maybe we can.  But we can certainly do things to those
who are closest to us.  We can start with self, then mate (if any) then
the closest friends, etc. and on down the line to however far we can
extend our energy.  If we can be teachers and proponents of love, and
we can touch everyone in a positive manner, then so can others, who can
in turn touch others, who can in turn touch yet others...
If we choose a more direct course of action, then realize that your reality
has shifted.  That it is no longer way out there, it has at that point become
much closer.  Then you can focus on that and work to resolve or solve the
problems at hand.  Simultaneously, recognize that this is all a reflection
of thoughts/feelings/beliefs/attitudes that are VERY, VERY important to you.
RESOLVE these t/f/b/a's and the issue will no longer exist.  Is this true?
Based on the amounts I have worked with in my life the past few years, I'm
inclined to say "yes."  Based on what I have been "taught", then of course
it's true.  Compassion?  Yes, definitely.  But at the head of the list
is ourself.  Compassion begins with self-forgiveness (but doesn't end there.)
Compassion is one of many parts which comprise love.
     Well, my little "stream of consciousness" has withered for now.

By the way, Terry, I like that:  If we have an earthquake on the 25th,
it will be John's FAULT.  ;-)

Frederick

                            

My two cents;

I look at it like this, when I see the number of diverse camps of thought
here in DEJAVU about YCYOR. I really don't give a sh*t whether you 
feel that way or not. I don't see YCYOR as really improving anything or
harming the state of the world or ones soul. It just is another form
of belief, among the myriads of dramas being played out on the stage
of this conference and the world. 

So I play the person who looks at the total set of beliefs in this
conference and including my own, and trace it back to the source of
the all. The one energy that manifest thru us all, in the many, many
masks of belief that we all assume. So the one that looks out of the eyes 
of Frederick or John M., or Steve K., Cindy P., Terry, etc.... is the same
center. Similiar to the one basic energy of the Universe, playing out
all these different parts thru the wonderful actors in this conference.

My opinion is that Reality is just pretty damn big, bigger than what we
can understand completely. All the different forms of expression that 
is being acted out here, are a part of that one basic energy. So if 
you want to use the "G" word, GOD, that is the word I'd use, to describe
that one basic energy of the universe.

Reminds me of a verse from G.K. Chesterton:
                    
                    But now a great many thing in the street
                    Seems any human nod
                    Where shift in strange democracy
                    The million masks of God

Quite a Play.
Do you feel a RRrrRrruummmMMmbbBBbbllee?

-Arthur
                                                            
                                           

	E. J. Gold says: "What you THINK you see is what you see".

Seems to me that I created it all and no longer remember having done it.
Then when I am with another person our realities  automatically
co-exist and we *agree*.  We agree that some 24,000 people got
wiped out in Afganistan and some 24,000 people die of hunger and starvation
every day on this planet.  We agree  and hence co-create a reality.

Now I ask: are we powerless over our creations?  Given that there are some
two billion co-creators each with his or her agenda and level of responsibility
*or* remembering around their creation there is a great deal of mass surrounding
these paritcular realities.  What can one individual do? How can one's reality
and the agreement which powers it make any difference at all?

Well, if the overall agreement is "somebody else did it" and reality
just runs on it's own; it is pretty difficult to convince this mass otherwise.
Difficult and not impossible.  If a person is just willing to entertain the
notion that he or she has something to do with it, "it" meaning the
way things are, he or she can remove their agreement from the mass.
If enough people remove their agreement such that it no longer HAS to be that 
way; then the mass begins to fall apart.

Buckminster Fuller said it best: "Do you want to prevent Nuclear war?
Then don't *you* set off the bomb".  If two billion got that message,
if each and every one of us on the planet got that message, there would be
no nuclear threat.  I suggest that  taking the implied necessity for
pollution and the deaths of millions; once removed from the mass agreement
those things would go away and stay away.

One might ask oneself the question: "What about my own personal survival
is necessary for the deaths of millions of others?"

Larry

    
    Re .70:
    
    Well said, Larry. Masterfully put.
    Thanks.
    
    
    Gloria

    I have a question for Fredrick:
    
    If we create our own reality, are the Jews of Europe responsible
    for creating the deathcamps of Nazi Germany? 
    
    I am interested in this from the viewpoint that Germany was, at
    this time, a first-world country, and I'm wondering how this 
    relates to his concept of the value of life in third-world 
    countries.
    
    -roger
    

RE: .61 (Ro)
    
    > Thankfully the harsh words of Bruce (.52) and John will not prevent
    Frederick sharing the information he has to offer.  < 
    
                                                         
    Harsh?  Moi?  G'wan, you big silly!
    
    And far be if from me to cramp Frederick's style!  Right Frederick?
    
    Frederick?
    
    
    John M.
    

    Re: .70 "two-billion co creators"
    
    ???
    
    Lorenzo, you just un-created half this world's population,
    
    watch where you point that thing......
    
    		;-)		MWR
    

re .68

I think I know what you're saying, Frederick, but I just don't happen
to believe it.  I don't believe we as individuals create 100% of the
reality we experience.  I do believe we create the meaning that this
reality holds for us, but that act of creation is NOT EASY.  And that's
a qualitative judgment, not one based on scale: it's not easy for us,
not easy for the planetary consciousness, not easy even for God.  We're
all struggling to make this creation work.

So the materialistic judgments don't necessarily hold water.  We know
(it's a truism, isn't it?) that one can be poor but happy, or rich
but miserable.  It's the meaning we impart to our experiences that is
the creative component.  Does that then impact the way we help to bring
our futures about?  Yes!  But _nothing_ is guaranteed here.  And trying
to generalize about rich and poor nations, like any other form of
value-loaded generalization based on "them and us", creates a false
separation between our selves and the rest of Consciousness.

[End_of_sermon.]  I could go into more detail about this, but I'm not
sure what point there would be to that.  Hope it makes some sense to
someone reading this.  (And, .69, Arthur, I agree with a lot of what
you're saying.)
							paul

    re: .72
    
         Roger, this is so difficult to respond to in a way that won't
    be attacked, but I will make a small effort...incidentally, this
    question (or one similar) is one that often comes up, most recently
    I saw Shirley MaClaine responding to this.
    
         In the first place, this original diversion from the topic
    was talking about current affairs...times change, and those of us
    on the planet now tend to be coming more from the conscious than
    from the sub-conscious, which was more prevalent during the era
    of the Third Reich.  Secondly, what you are talking about is out
    of context from the topic insofar as natural disasters are concerned.
    But if one is to recognize that each of us is creating our own
    very personal reality and we are responsible for it, then no matter
    what the "outcome" of our lives, we are the ones who did it.  Those
    who die tragically are just as responsible for their lives as are
    those who caused deaths of others.  What is extremely critical to
    remember here is that all of these actions are mostly NOT coming
    from the conscious mind.  No one (almost, with the exception perhaps
    of some or all suicides) deliberately subjects themselves to 
    torture or hardship.  Many times, too, the person(s) committing
    the acts of brutality or hardship are completely unaware of the
    extent of their unloving cruelty.  All this means as that we often
    (mostly, it seems to me) act unconsciously or sub-consciously.
    What it means is that we need to be more aware of what we are
    doing, consciously.  These acts don't have to be so dramatic to
    be hurtful, however.  Not being aware of the negative impact
    one has by doing something as simple as shouting or complaining
    or some such similar thing can likewise reveal a less-than-
    conscious mind (although not necessarily.)  So what I have been
    talking about is simply that we need to recognize that what
    we "see" is a direct result of thoughts/feelings/beliefs/attitudes
    that WE ARE PRODUCING.  If you want different results, manipulate
    one or more of the four components.  There is a great deal more
    to this than the simple answers I have come up with, and no doubt
    you feel I haven't responded to the question directly.  Hopefully
    you can understand why I wouldn't want to, because simply answering
    "yes" to your first question is far more provocative than I deserve.
    
    Paul (number .73?)
    
    I will out front acknowledge you for the indepth thinking which
    you have shared with us from time to time, and know that what you
    have stated comes from serious thinking on your behalf.  However,
    where I find limitation is simply in your view that there is a
    material reality which is separate from a spiritual reality.  I
    disagree.  I hold firmly to the view supported at least in part
    by quantum physics which holds that the material world is not
    held together by a material girl (  :-)  ) but rather by the
    four components listed above (or "thought", if you will.)  I
    do not believe that there is such a thing as an observer as
    your reply implies, therefore there is no separation between
    between what is attitude and what is material.  Also, while
    I agree that ULTIMATELY there is no them and no me, all is
    one, etc., that that is simply not the name of the game at this
    level of reality.  In other words, we create a "them" as
    a way to have impact.  By having impact, we can experience
    love (or other emotions) both as a giver and a receiver.  So
    that if you remove impact, we would simply not exist.  So,
    to make it simple, yes there is a you and there is a me...ultimately,
    for me, there is only me.  But not here on this level of reality.
    With that belief in place, it makes it more of a challenge, if you
    will, to bring harmony to the reality in which we are a part.  So
    the game gets to be played in the manner in which I believe it is
    being played.
                      
    Funny, but the last couple of days I have been hit with a couple
    of different sources indicating that perhaps I am too reactive.
    Anyway, I don't think I can argue with that much...it does seem
    to me that I've been in "warrior mode" way more than feels comfortable.
    In fact, it tends to be draining.  Thanks to those of you who
    can disagree with more "coolness".
    
    Frederick
    

Well, I know one thing for certain Frederick - you
certainly have arranged your reality to allow you to
type very lengthy replies - where do you get the
time from? :-)

John   V
      (o)

    RE: .77 (bearded John)
      
         It comes from being underemployed.   ;-)
    
    
    Frederick
    

                             < Why I'm Angry >

    While eating lunch (cosmic tuna fish on whole wheat), I have been
    pondering the many interchanges in this note. 

    I have been wondering why so much of what has been said about YCYOR has
    aroused such good old fashioned anger in me. There are many opinions in
    notes that I disagree with, but few of them arouse my anger. 

    For one thing, I'm not sure I understand YCYOR. Does a two-month-old
    baby dying of starvation in Africa create its own reality? Does the
    mother of this baby create her own reality? Did a 40-year old German
    Jew who died in the gas chamber in 1940 create his or her own reality?

    To carry it a step further, for those believing in multiple
    reincarnations, (another myth, in my opinion, but we can debate that
    one someplace else) did the two-month old baby do something in a previous
    existence so as to create a existence wherein it starves to death?

    Of course, most of *US* are enlightened enough so we create a reality
    which gives to us a good job and the good life in a major industrial
    nation, with all the wonderful things that go with this marvelous
    reality. 

    In my opinion (which is not necessarily the same as IMHO) I think YCYOR
    is a load of crap. But that's not what makes me angry. What does make
    me angry (read my words, Frederick) is the smug supercilious attitude
    that many (not all) of the YCYOR arguements imply that goes something
    like this: "We're living (or have lived) right, and our reality is
    simply marvelous; those poor unfortunates whose reality is not so great
    have chosen to lead these miserable existences, and they deserve what
    they choose."                        
                                         
    This attitude is the root of all prejudice. It is the feeling that you,
    simply because of your existence, are better and superior than others. 
    It's the same attitude many people have toward those of a different
    religion, race, country, or financial standing.  
                                          
    Unfortunately for the human race, you're wrong. I'll fight this
    to the end.
         
    Bruce                                                   

    A while ago I read quite a bit of the Seth material that was
    channeled through Jane Roberts.  He, too, spoke of creating
    your own reality, and one of the thoughts I remember may provide
    a different view of the sufferings and atrocities that go on 
    in our world.
    
    I believe he said (to the best of my memory) that *sometimes* 
    many people create a reality in which atrocities occur in order
    to prove, display, or show something.  For example, a number of
    souls may decide that for further growth of our collective souls,
    we need to learn what can happen when power goes awry.  So, the
    souls convene (Please don't ask where or how--remember this is
    my interpretation) and decide that someone will be a Hitler, someone
    will be the Gestapo, some will be the victims, and so on.  The souls
    also agree that they will meet together in events and environments
    that will foster their growth as individuals in this way.  In 
    essence, they set up the environment (or stage) for what they want
    to do and then do it.  It seems to be a matter of a number of souls
    working together to prove a point--in this case, that power used
    in the wrong ways is brutal, inhumane, tortuous, and any other term
    you would like to apply.  The important point Seth seemed to make
    (at least to me), is that the lives were created, lived, and ended
    in a way that brought this point home to the rest of the world.
    It is a collective agreement of souls to do something (anything)
    so that we could all learn together.  The physical lives were 
    brutal so that we (the rest of us) could learn the brutality of 
    life and hopefully learn to be more accepting, compassionate, and 
    helpful.  
    
    Since life continues on other planes of existence or through other 
    life experience, the emphasis is on the growth that occurs instead 
    of the fear of death in this life.
    
    He also said that souls often join together in smaller groups
    to learn other important lessons.  For example, sometimes souls
    agree to be part of the same family so that they can
    work out problems of addiction, jealousy, self-hate.  Others may
    agree to work out issues as friends: sharing, fear of rejection,
    or interdependence. 
    
    Everything seems to be aimed at growth on the spiritual level.
    
    If my memory serves me, I also think Seth mentioned the collective
    beliefs that *could* create such natural disasters as floods,
    earthquakes, tornados, and so on.  If anyone is interested, I would
    be glad to review my books and bring in those thoughts as well.
    
    Jill

    
    
         I think most of us generally misunderstand the whole meaning
    begind the YCYOR philosophy. It seems like what we try to do is
    interpret it through the extremely limited perspective of our or-
    dinary consciousness. For one thing, we tend to see ourselves as
    separate, discrete entities rather than one unified *Being*, connected
    within this universe (which is how Einstein would have us see it).
    Myself, I prefer to think of the expression "CCIOR" (Consciousness
    Creates Its Own Reality) as being closer to a true description of
    how our lives are guided. Picture one overall whole (which you could
    call God) of which we are little extensions, still connected and
    able to draw as much as we need of the total source of power/energy,
    and imagine that this entire living universe/consciousness unit
    is a dynamic structure which transcends the physical limitations
    of space and time and what not. 
    
       I agree that it doesn't seem to make much sense that anyone would
    consciously choose an existence of suffering, but maybe just looking
    at that 'suffering' is taking things too far out of context. For
    example, I think of going to the dentist as suffering, but within
    the context of my overall quality of life and health it's a suffering
    I choose to put up with from time to time. Along those same lines
    then, if we are all eternal, reincarnating extensions of one limitless
    whole, what in comparison is one death by starvation, or one war
    or other disaster. These are probably no more than individual lessons
    in the whole of *God*'s plan...
    
    
    Roy
    

    re: .79 (a kinder, more gentle computer...is definitely in order)
    
         Since I seem to be the ball-carrier in this "skirmish", I
    will attempt to respond.  First let me state that if what you say
    were correct, I would completely agree.  Honest.  
         A part of what makes me angry, in return, is the frustration
    at not being able to explain the intricacies and the complexities
    involved...especially in the course of a couple of replies such
    as this.  What you are getting from me is over 4 decades (Gasp!)
    of my knowledge absorption, specifically here several thousand hours
    of very active learning.  Not just dollars, but hours.  While I
    certainly don't qualify as a life expert, or whatever, I do feel
    that I have sufficiently grasped the matter in a manner that makes
    more sense to me than the first three decades of my life did.
    Okay, this all sounds like ego talking, maybe it is.  The point
    I am trying to get to is that it is NOT EASY to explain this simply.
    That one must reach and search and think and study and look and
    seek and all the while be open to concepts that go against what
    I have been calling here the consensus.  BUT IT FITS.  AND IT WORKS.
    There may very well be people out there who say that since certain
    humans chose a certain path, so be it, don't interfere.  Bruce,
    I'd be on your side, if this were the end results.  Those who promote
    those views are sadly misinformed, in my view.  They're the ones
    responsible for the term "the ME generation."  I am not among them.
    You see, Bruce, if we accept that people choose a certain reality
    (which I believe they do...but I will qualify it) then they also
    choose, by free will, an ability to change it.  What is not stated
    here is HOW that change is enacted.  Could it be possible that that
    change is to come about on account of our direct involvement?  Do
    you get this?  Let me repeat it...What if this person creates a
    lifetime where they are born into horrible conditions.......UNTIL
    such time as a helper comes along to offer an alternative.  In other
    words, if someone is drowning do you watch or do you help?  In your
    example the "excuse" would be they chose it...in my preferred, more
    appropriate scenario, they may be choosing to have their life saved
    so that they can learn some other lesson.  Have you followed this
    or do I need to say more along these lines.  Though people are
    each individually choosing their realities does not mean that we,
    as individuals, should turn our responsibility and power over to
    some belief that says "pretend they aren't there."  In fact, as
    I indicated in a prior reply, it means quite the opposite.  So,
    while at first "glance" what you said appears to be the prevailing
    outcome, in fact it isn't.  The outcome is more love, more
    responsibility...but NOT at the expense of one's own martyrhood.
    
          I wish I had time here to write up some information of which
    I am aware which would add yet more support to this view.  I cannot
    do it simply.  Let me say something else, though.  You also cannot
    just take a little piece and then use it out of context from the
    whole of which it depends.  I have tried to also indicate that there
    is more than just an operant conscious mind or even sub-conscious
    mind or even the unconscious mind...there is of necessity here
    an understanding that there is also a Higher Conscious (Higher Self)
    mind.  It is the Higher Conscious which directs the birth...it is
    the conscious (in our case) which directs the life.  And it's so
    much, much more intricate than this simplicity, too.  If you could
    accept that like tends to attract like (this is not in concrete,
    by the way) you would perhaps have more understanding why "groups"
    or "groupings" occur as they do...and I refer to groups of race,
    groups of cultures, groups of families, groups within families (maybe),
    groups among workers, etc, etc.  As I once pointed out in another
    topic, if you were a spirit who wanted to become physical and wanted
    to learn (as one of several focuses for your lifetime) how to
    deal with anger, for example, where and how would you pick a place/
    situation to be born?  If you picked a country where the consensus
    has some type of anger or other, righteous or otherwise, then you
    would be right at "home" in your stacked deck of exploration of
    anger.  Is this leaving too many holes?  I hope not...it's so much
    more difficult writing this than it is verbalizing it vocally.
         Once again, I am not just taking parts of this and rejecting
    the rest.  It all has to be taken in in order for the rest of it
    to be understood, I think.  As I said, for me it's been thousands
    of hours...as something is explained, another question pops up and
    the response to that has to be found, which brings up yet another
    question and on and on.  I have followed so many thoughts around
    and around and back and on that I have finally culled enough to
    see how the puzzle will look when completed, though I still lack
    many of the pieces.
          To reiterate, your premise is incorrect from the standpoint
    of CYOR as I have taken it.  There may very well be others out there
    who have an unsimilar definition.  I just want it understood that
    I do not hold to any kind of view that does not include love as
    somehow being the ultimate goal...but without guilt, anger, jealousy,
    fear, hurt, righteousness, blame, etc. that so many other systems
    keep intact.
          Further communication at this level of intensity is much
    easier, thanks.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .80 (Jill)

    >  The important point Seth seemed to make (at least to me), is that
    the lives were created, lived, and ended in a way that brought this
    point home to the rest of the world. It is a collective agreement of
    souls to do something (anything) so that we could all learn together.
    < 


This is one of the most bizarre and illogical things I have read in this
conference to date.

I guess it is safe to assume that if souls get together in some kind of cosmic
town meeting of sorts to decide to teach a lesson of some kind, other souls
elsewhere are gathering together to decide not to get the point.

One of the 1000 problems with the example you cite is that the lesson, as it
were, is simultaneously the atrocity itself.  If we consider all the wars,
crimes and such to be lessons, then the greatest service the "teachers" could
do is to stay out of the classroom!

On another note, ever notice how the spirit world is as prone to faddishness as
this one?    Why weren't supposed channeled entities touting YCYOR back in the
1920s when channelers (then called mediums) were all the rage?   Seems that
the afterlife reported by the "spirits" changes with the audience.

John M.

                                                             
    I'm sorry I don't have time now (and I probably will be just as busy
    until toward the end of the week) for more than a cursory answer.
                                                             
    ACYOR (Accepting Your Own Reality) doesn't mean you can't try to change
    things. It means simply accepting the facts of your life and situation
    - good, bad, and inbetween -  and working to change things from that 
    point of view.
    
    For example, Martin Luther King was a realist - he accepted the
    universe on its own terms, as bad as much of it was. But he also
    accepted the reality that there were things he could do to cause
    change, and he worked toward that goal. (He also accepted the reality
    that there was a good chance he might be killed - and he was.) 
                                   
    Bruce

    re: .85
    
        Bruce, er, um, it seems to me that your last paragraph could
    easily be used as argument for creating one's own reality.  That
    Martin Luther King predicted or anticipated his own death could
    very well be called self-fulfilling prophesy...just another version
    of creating one's own reality.
    
    Frederick
    

re: last one (Bruce)

>    ACYOR (Accepting Your Own Reality) doesn't mean you can't try to change
>    things. It means simply accepting the facts of your life and situation
>    - good, bad, and inbetween -  and working to change things from that 
>    point of view.
    
     You mean something like, If you don't like your current reality,
     change it, ie create a new one?  Sounds like it to me...

     Terry
   

    
    ACYOR and YCYOR as concepts have some good points.  It just seems
    to me as though those who are into these things are trying to re-
    invent the spiritual wheel.  These things have been said in much
    less coarse terms in the past.  If you are really searching then
    you will find that this concept doesn't matter or is confusing.
    It appears to be as agressively spiritual to some as is Christianity
    and "fire and brimstone" lectures are to others.  Those who are
    willing to slow down, practice what they preach (accepting), and
    listen and think, will find the common thread in it all.  If you
    are *really* looking, that is...
    
    In case it isn't clear what my point is, I am trying to say why
    go to the trouble and time of creating a new language to say some-
    thing old, unless you can guarantee that the language that you create
    will become the universal one.  If perhaps instead we looked solely
    for the universal language we would find that language to be called
    love, acceptance, and communication (REAL communication).  Perhaps
    if we really communicated and accepted and listened the words written
    by a thousand cultures would be allowed to take root and become
    powerful to us.  It's all been said a thousand times - are you sure
    that none of the thousand will suit you?
    
    
    Guy
    

    re: .88
      
         Guy, while I think I would agree with you to some extent,
    I can add that if what had been said before had been so eloquent,
    then why isn't more of the world listening?  Perhaps others in
    our historical past have been enlightened enough to carry signs,
    but perhaps those of us looking have been looking for neon instead
    of paint on plywood.  There are many new awarenesses at this point
    in consciousness that added to all the "evolutionary" changes,
    justifies a re-wording, clarification and even new presentation.
    Then again, all the waters have been muddied---perhaps we're
    not willing to wait a few thousand more years to let the silt
    settle back down.  I, for one, am grateful for those whom I feel
    can provide me with a nice set of goggles...and they're new goggles
    to me.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    O.K.  I can deal with a new presentation of the old ideas.  But
    I feel that it is already there in old texts.  People are afraid
    of those old texts because of their own prejudices.  So perhaps we do
    need a new presentation.  But then how many people following the
    old presentations would still miss the boat because of their lack
    of wanting to look at those old ideas in a different way.  What
    is really the essence of the person and his or her relationship
    to their own spirituality does not easily change - so they should
    learn not to fear new or foreign interpretations of their own sacred
    writings.  It can only bring new dimensions to their meaning.  If
    people can't look at say the Bible or the Koran or the Upanishads
    with a different angle and interpretation then they will not go
    for some kind of "modernization" of the old ideas, it will only
    appear as perhaps "New Age mumbo-jumbo" or the like.  
         The problem with many religions is their lack of new material
    to fit the collective of modern times.  I'm not talking about revamping
    old material, I mean the creation of a new myth, the myth of the
    modern man.  At the time of Christ the Age of Pisces(I think) was
    just ending and the collective unconscious was ready for a saviour.
    Christ was incredibly gifted and filled the void perfectly.  He
    succeeded in harvesting the body of knowledge found in the collective
    which the people needed.  After the disciples no more books were
    added reflecting the myth of the times.  No one has harvested the
    collective unconscious.  The Jewish folks cut off their myth gathering
    even earlier.  Any new books in the Koran?  Baghavad Gita?  Whatever
    else?   Yeah, I'd say we're primed for the new age.
    
    Guy
    

    RE: .90  Guy
    
    >.....  At the time of Christ the Age of Pisces(I think) was
    >just ending and the collective unconscious was ready for a saviour.
    
    
    It was the Age of Aries that was ending at the time of Christ;
    it is the Age of Pisces that is ending now and we are moving into
    the Age of Aquarius.
    
    Carole    

    
    Thanks, I knew that doubt was there for a good reason. :-)
    
    Guy
    

    Tomorrow is the first 25th of 1989.
    
    Will there be an earthquake?  We'll all see tomorrow.  :-)
    
    Jill

    
    so far so so g o !
    		  o d      O l   2   h u s   l f !
    			    n y   3   o r     e t   (this month)
    
    	Craig 

    Humm, That earthquake in USSR was/is pretty darn close.
    
    -j

    Re: -.1
    
    Not close enough. If you read Topher's statistical analysis (.16),
    you'll see by extrapolation that the odds of an earthquake occuring
    on either of any *two* specified days of a month during a year 
    must be about 1.
    
    Bruce                                                  

RE: .95 (j)

    Unlike in horseshoes, a "near miss" doesn't count at all, unless you
    decide in advance what will constitute a near miss and how you will
    count it.  The reason is that there are so many ways that something
    can be a near miss: one day earlier, one day later, two days earlier
    two days later, one week earlier, one week later, one year later,
    the 15th of the month, you didn't hear about it until the 25th,
    the last survivor was found on the 25th, 25 people died, 250 people
    died, 2500 people died, and so on, ad infinitum.

    It's not that such near misses are completely meaningless, its just
    that you cannot count them as evidence.  What you have to do with
    them is to learn from them, then the next time a similar prediction
    is made you take it into account in deciding how to evaluate whatever
    occurs for evidence.  You might say "My past experience warns me
    that these predictions sometimes seem to miss by a bit in time,
    so I'll count a direct hit by so much, a miss by one day as so
    much and a miss by two days by so much" (we've only talked about
    counting all or nothing, but you can set things up so that some
    things count as better evidence than others).  But you have to
    watch out: the more that you are willing to accept as evidence --
    even weak evidence -- the less a direct hit will count.

RE: .95 (Bruce)

    Yes and no.  Your conclusions are right but there are some minor
    problems with how you got there:

    1) If you are willing to "count" a day before the target day then
    you would certainly also be willing to count a day after.  This
    means that you would need to count three days a month not two.

    2) The quake actually occurred Monday morning -- two days before
    the quake.  If we count two days before the quake we would also
    have to count one day before the quake, one day after and two
    days after as targets, making it five days per month or sixty
    target days in the year.

    3) In .16 I make the calculations on the basis of the average number
    of "major" earthquakes a year (18).  As discussed later, this is
    too high, since we are really concerned with the number of significant
    quakes a year.  In .23 I estimated the number of significant
    earthquakes a year (5) on the basis of the number of "notable"
    earthquakes a year.  I think that this is the more appropriate
    number (and I would say that the new Soviet earthquake does qualify
    as significant).

    4) You fell into that oh-so-easy trap.  Simply adding probabilities
    in this case way over estimates things.  While the probability
    is high for two target days a month and eighteen earthquakes a year,
    it is lower than "about 1".

    5) Small effect -- I made a stupid arithmetic error in .16.  I
    subtracted 12 from 365 and got 352 instead of 353.

    Overall here are the probabilities

	18 "major" quakes a year:
	    12 target days; prob = .4521355 or about 1 in 2
	    24 target days; prob = .7060271 or very roughly 2 chances out
		of 3 (note -- considerably less than about 1).
	    36 target days; prob = .845739 or about 85%.
	    60 target days; prob = .9605428 or about one chance in 25
		of it *not* occurring.
	5 "notable" quakes a year:
	    12 target days; prob = .1539243 or about 1 in 6
	    24 target days; prob = .2882826 or between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3.
	    36 target days; prob = .4050024 or about 2 chances in 5.
	    60 target days; prob = .592587 or about 3 chances in 5.

    If we had decided in advance to count near misses the same as
    direct hits and thus, as it would turn out, include the latest
    Soviet quake, the 3 in 5 figure would be the appropriate one to
    use.  While a single positive response could easily be explained
    as a coincidence, it is not so a priori likely as to be dismissed
    entirely.  Six successful predictions in a row would constitute
    good evidence by the standard criteria (1 in 20 or better odds
    against occurring by chance).

				    Topher

    Well my earthquake dream has yet to come to pass (hopefully not),
    but here's an interesting tidbit.
    
    Last night I was cleaning out my desk and came upon a bit of paper
    where I recorded a nightmare I had about a terrible plane crash
    (Jan. 1986).  The flight number was to be 237.  Uh....wasn't that
    the number of the ill-fated plane in Scotland?  Just wondering.
    Hey Topher, what's the probability of....oh, never mind.
    
    John M.

    Sorry, John
    Flight 103.
    
    thanks
    dave pierson

    
    An earthquake - registering a 6.8 on richter (sp?) scale happened
    in Mexico today (early this morning)...April 25th.  
    
    

    
    
    ....and wouldn't you know, the Cosmic Anchovy isn't here when
    we *really* need him! ;-)
    
    Carole

    
    Try the Disney Channel.
    
    Cindy

    I really don't think that this counts for much.  The facts, according
    to todays Globe:
    
    The quake was 6.8 on the Richter scale (the famous Mexico City quake
    that killed 10,000 people in 1985 was 8.1 -- seven times stronger). 
    Only one person was killed (thank goodness): electrocuted when an
    electric wire fell on him.  Two major injuries were reported: from
    jumping from a building in panic.  No major damage to buildings.  Some
    flooding from a leak in an aquaduct.  A lot of power outage from downed
    lines.
    
    A not very noteworthy quake.  Bruce's table in .14 says that there are
    approximately 120 quakes between 6.0 and 7.0 each year.  There is only
    about 1 chance in 50, therefore, that at least one such quake *won't*
    occur during the year on the 25th of some month.
    
    Basically, this quake was reported at all because of it *was* no big
    deal in contrast to the '85 quake.
    
    So, unless John was in Mexico City when it struck, I would say this is
    a washout.  But there are still 8 more chances.
    
    					Topher

    re: .104 (Topher)
    
        Maybe John has Mexican blood in him?
    
        Actually, I think it's rather interesting, just the same.
    
        By the way, I think you are in error about the magnitude.
    On television yesterday I heard an "expert" say the earthquake
    in '85 was about 100 times stronger.  (It's probably in an earlier
    note in this topic but isn't each point in the Richter scale
    a factor of 10 [or is it 100] over the preceding point?)  Also,
    this quake was horizontal versus vertical.
    
    Frederick
    

    On the Richter scale an increase of 1 is a 60 times increase in
    energy.						   Larry

RE: .106 (Larry):
    
    Well, I was wrong, but I'm not sure that you are right; can you give
    me a reference.
    
    Two references I checked said (after some simple algebraic
    manipulation) that:
    
    	log(E1/E2) = 1.5(M1 - M2)
    
    where E1 is the energy of the first earthquake, E2 is the energy of the
    second earthquake, M1 is the magnitude of the first earthquake and M2
    is the magnitude of the second earthquake.
    
    I assumed that the logarithm used was a natural log (base e), as that
    is the kind of log generally used in technical matters.  In fact,
    because the Richter scale was set up on a powers of ten basis in the
    first place, the common logrithm (base 10) was intended.
    
    Using base 10 rather than base e in the formula gives us that
    the 85 quake was about 90 times more powerful (in energy) than
    yesterdays.
    
    However, this formula implies that an increase of 1 on the Richter
    scale corresponds to about 32 times as much energy rather than 60
    times.  After making one dumb error I would not presume to claim that
    my figure is right and yours is wrong but I don't see where I've gone
    off on this one.
    
    					Topher

    Hi Topher,
    	I just looked up richter in the dictionary (American Heritage)
    and thats what (and all) it said. Now it's really buggin me. I'll
    swing by our library this afternoon and look in whatever encyclopedia
    they've got down there. Note that the dictionary specified 'energy'
    and we could be talking some other quantity here, like measuring
    voltage gain in Db's can lead to some confusion. Later,	Larry.

    Topher,
    	The encyclopedia agreed with you: LOG E = 11.4+1.5M which works
    out to what you have already said. It also said "The relationship
    between E and M is at best only aproximate; the relationship between
    E and M appears to be variable.". Just like so many other things
    we enjoy discussing in this file, Richter units must be a matter
    of belief. There must be a 'least miraculous' Richter. ;^)
    								Larry

    > ...the relationship between E and M appears to be variable...

    Yeah, Earl and Mertle.  I heard they're having trouble too.

    About Richter.  If you take formula:

          E((M*X)/�+(1-E�))/(a�+b�-c�) = MC�/�
          (where � is the size of Michael Jordan's left shoe)

    It's easy to see that the sliding, trimetrical relationship between
    the quake's epicenter and the escalating, bifunctional elipse as it
    becomes tangent to the earth's axis when multiplied (using a helio-   
    centrifical counter tangent, of course) will create a force equal to 
    the solar-plexular meridian algorithym.  This results, as anybody could
    guess, in subterrainian superfissures that, when heated to a temperature
    greater than that of the dark side of the moon, will, without fail, slip.
    This slippage, measured on the standard, psuedo-euclidian Richter scale
    will indicate there has been an earthquake within a 500 mile radius of
    the nearest Burger King.

    So there.

    Terry  *<;')
    

RE: .110
    
    Thank you, Terry, for explaining that.  It all makes sense now.
    
    					Topher :-)

    
    Re.110 (Kasper)
    
    WOW!  Terry, I'm duly impressed!
    
    You've finally mastered the use of the Compose Character key.
                             
    Now drive to the nearest BK and treat yourself to a vanilla 
    shake - you've earned it!
    
    Cindy

    Reply to .112, Cindy

   > Now drive to the nearest BK and treat yourself to a vanilla 
   > shake - you've earned it!
    
    BK? Barf Kitchen?
    

    > Now drive to the nearest BK and treat yourself to a vanilla 
    > shake - you've earned it!
    
      Ditto on the 'Barf-Kitchen'...  I wouldn't eat/drink or even
      use the bathroom there.  The food's bad, they encourage the
      destruction of the rain forests and they are contributing to
      the depletion of the ozone by using styrofoam.  Oh yeah, and
      they use white bread.  Yuck!

      Terry ;')

    re: .20 et al
    
          Is anyone keeping count?
    
          Armenia, California, China--all major earthquakes in heavily
    populated areas with loss of life and major expenses.  Are there
    any others?
    
    Frederick
    

    
    October 30, 1989
    
    ALGIERS - Two earthquakes about 15 minutes apart struck northern
    Algeria last night killing at least 14 persons and injuring manhy
    others.
    
    Most people killed were in the Tipasa region about 40 miles west
    of Algiers and in the town of Cherchell on the Mediterranean coast
    60 miles west of the capital.
    
    Quakes were estimated at 6.0 on the Richter scale.  This region
    has a history of earthquakes.

    
    
    Also read in the new EARTHQUAKE notesfile a prediction that another
    California earthquake will hit between November 10 and 16.  This
    is based on predictions made by Jeanne Dixon (not someone I follow
    closely ;-)) and a geologist in California who correctly predicted
    the 10/17 quake.
    
    Carole

    So did one happen?  If it did, it didn't hit the papers.

    re: .115 (me)
    
          Well, to probably close out the year...an earthquake in Australia
    earlier today.  5.5 on the Richter Scale isn't too bad, but the
    duration of 45 seconds is what no doubt did them in.  Eight
    fatalities is what I heard.
          This seems to coincide well with Lazaris' predictions of this
    current and soon to end year.
          Incidentally, he forecast more earthquakes for the coming
    year as well as volcanoes and other devastations.  He was less precise
    with them, I think, though, than what he told us at this point last
    year.  He strongly emphasized water as being the most critical issue
    we face or will be facing.  ANyway, this is off the topic.
    
    Frederick