Conference hydra::dejavu

Incidentally, you can get Radio 4 on long wave
over most of western Europe. It's pretty faint here 
though (behind the Jura in Switzerland).

It's around 1500 metres and to make a nice
coincidence it ought to be 1511. ;-)

John D.

    
    
    Geesh, I *hope* not Jamie!
    
    Carole

    Radio 4 is OK until you pass through the middle of France then it
    fades. Last year I was reduced to driving to the top of a hill where I
    could just pick up Radio 4 on the car radio.

    Jamie.

    UNITED PRESS DATELINE 10 AUGUST 1991:
    
    UNITED GERMANY INVADES FRANCE.  MANY AMERICAN TOURISTS FEARED DEAD.
    

    >MANY AMERICAN TOURISTS FEARED DEAD.
                                    
    Thank goodness that I'm Scottish.

    Jamie.

    Well we arrived in France and discovered that the only place that the
    BBC Radio 4 could be received was, as usual, on the top of a hill.

    I used to drive there every morning on my way to buy the bread and
    would carefully time the trips so that I could stop and listen to the
    news.

    For a week nothing happened and I was sure that the whole thing had
    been pure coincidence, then the Soviet Union fell to bits.

    There are now a few French farmers who are scratching their heads
    trying to work out why the funny foreigners who were living in the
    holiday home in the valley used to drive to the top of the hill, park
    the car for about 5 minutes, then drive down again. I wonder if any of
    them noticed that it occurred on the hour. 

    Jamie.

    
    Interesting Jamie!  At least this time what looked like catastrophe
    has turned into something equally mind-boggling but truly exciting!
    
    Carole

    It is not over yet and it could still turn very nasty. I really hope
    that it continues on its present course but I'm not 100% certain of the
    outcome yet.

    Jamie.

    
    
    Yes, I agree.  With all the surprises we've had to-date, *anything*
    could happen!
    
    Carole

    
    It won't turn nasty.  Whats happening now is a catharsis.  The emotions
    have to be let out and the words have to be said... so much has been
    so repressed for so long.
    
    My boy Boris will see to it that everyone sticks to the letter of the law.  
    
    No witch hunts.  No more injustice.  Boris will keep the pendulum from
    swinging in the opposite direction and ending up in the same place. 
    He is a strong man and a good man ... a man of integrity and courage.
    He will guide the ship of state well through troubled waters.
    
    They just need some time to settle down and work things out between
    themselves.
    
    Everythings going to be ok now.  ... they just need a little time to 
    recover from such a big change... they'll be just fine.
    
    Mary Stanley

    I really wish that I had your confidence Mary. 

    There is one tiny point that you might like to consider. Some of the
    republics hate each other with a passion and it is quite possible that
    after the USSR breaks up completely they could have disputes that could
    lead to war. In some of those republics the USSR stationed nuclear weapons
    and there is a possibility of us having minor countries at war with
    nuclear capabilities. A rather worrisome thought.

    Jamie.

    re: .12 (Jamie)
    
        Yes, that is precisely the worry expressed by the U.S.  
    One centralized nuclear power is bad enough...several, not
    in harmony with each other and each of them having more power
    than Britain, France, etc., are worrisome.  This is perhaps the
    next major area to "overcome."
    
    Frederick
    

re: .12

	Yeah, imagine Lichtenstein (or Alabama for that matter)
	with nuclear capabilities...

	The world gets more like an old Peter Sellers movie
	every day.

	-Art

Note 1511.12         
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
    The UN can issue stern warning to waring republics to restrain themselves
    or be prepared to face the consequences from the rest of the world. 
    They won't dare risk that.
    
    Russia will undoubtedly bring in all satellite nuclear weapons and keep
    them under central control or destroy them. 
    
    Mary

    Re .15

    >The UN can issue stern warning to waring republics to restrain themselves
    >or be prepared to face the consequences from the rest of the world. 
    >They won't dare risk that.
   
    Hmmm look at Yugoslavia.

    >Russia will undoubtedly bring in all satellite nuclear weapons and keep
    >them under central control or destroy them. 
    
    And if some of the bigger republics decline to part with them?

    Jamie.
                            

    I was just thinking..... 
    
    If all of what is going on in Russia had been happening in the USA....
    
    The T shirts would be out by now..... 
    
                          "I survived the coup!"

    Jamie.

    I agree with Jamie.  (Phew!  I can't believe I just wrote that ;-)
    
    I think the same issues that have repeatedly led to a central, tyrannical
    government are still unresolved in what was the Soviet Union.  I
    suppose that what will happen now is that those who inherit the guns
    will take over and enslave their weaker neighbors.  One thing that may 
    make a difference is that they are facing a very harsh winter.  They may 
    find when they try to steal from their neighbors, that nobody has anything 
    for them to take.  
    
    When they have all reached rock bottom, then perhaps other countries will 
    be able to really help them.
    
    Mary 

Note 1511.16         
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
    
>    Hmmm look at Yugoslavia.

    It's Yugoslavia I had in mind actually.
    
>    And if some of the bigger republics decline to part with them?

    They won't (imho).  It's not something thats likely to do them any 
    good now... they are dangerous just sitting there and they have the
    potential to make them targets.  Besides... in the treaties that the
    Ukrane and Russia have signed the agreements have already been made..
    the others will agree too.
    
    It will end up being a lot like Europe... a loose connection of
    separate entities closely interwoven with economic treaties.. like the
    new European common market.
    
    Mary... they have hit bottom.  No one is going to enslave anyone.
    
    Mary                            

    Re .19

    >It's Yugoslavia I had in mind actually.

    Well then the near civil war situation, with a rather ineffectual EC
    trying to keep together a cease-fire long enough to hold peace talks,
    plus the air force hitting civilian and military targets does not
    bother you? 

    I most sincerely hope that the USSR does not follow Yougoslavia's
    method of disintegration as they are far more heavily armed. What would
    happen if one side or the other in Yugoslavia had a nuclear capability?

    Remember nuclear capability is more than just ICBMs it also includes
    what are laughably called "tactical" nuclear weapons. These are
    smaller, much more portable and are designed to be used on the
    battlefield. It would be terribly tempting to for a republic to keep a
    few of them, "Just to be on the safe side" knowing full well that their
    neighbour had none.

    Mary, you make the assumption that those in charge are going to use
    their common sense. As history proves this very seldom the case. Some
    of these republics have been squabbling over their boundaries for
    centuries and I doubt if there is going to be a sudden change just
    because the Kremlin's yoke has been removed.

    The two biggest republics have made an agreement but as yet the rest
    have not.

    I think that you are letting your hopes cloud your judgement.

    Jamie.

Note 1511.20         
HOO78C::ANDERSON 

>    Well then the near civil war situation, with a rather ineffectual EC
>    trying to keep together a cease-fire long enough to hold peace talks,
>    plus the air force hitting civilian and military targets does not
>    bother you? 

    I said that the UN should tell them to knock it off, Jamie.  How did my
    words lead you to this conclusion about what I said? 
    
>    I most sincerely hope that the USSR does not follow Yougoslavia's
>    method of disintegration as they are far more heavily armed. What would
>    happen if one side or the other in Yugoslavia had a nuclear capability?

     Russia should (as I stated before) pull back any nuclear weapons and
    bring them under central control.
    
>    Remember nuclear capability is more than just ICBMs it also includes
>    what are laughably called "tactical" nuclear weapons. These are
>    smaller, much more portable and are designed to be used on the
>    battlefield. It would be terribly tempting to for a republic to keep a
>    few of them, "Just to be on the safe side" knowing full well that their
>    neighbour had none.

     I disagree.  Today's nuclear weapons are disintegrating as they are
    stored.... it is dangerous just to have them around.  Possession of
    them can make a republic a target in and of itself.  The "safe" thing
    to do is to get rid of them and fast.
    
>    Mary, you make the assumption that those in charge are going to use
>    their common sense. As history proves this very seldom the case. Some
>    of these republics have been squabbling over their boundaries for
>    centuries and I doubt if there is going to be a sudden change just
>    because the Kremlin's yoke has been removed.

     They'll settle down.  The UN has taken a much larger role in world
    affairs of late... this is another occasion where their attention is
    warranted.
    
>    The two biggest republics have made an agreement but as yet the rest
>    have not.

    They'll come around.  They need each other, Jamie... none of them are
    autonomous regions... winter's coming and food is scarce.  Nothing 
    brings people together like self-interest.
    
>    I think that you are letting your hopes cloud your judgement.

    Wouldn't be the first time, of course.  
    
    Lets hope for the best.
    
    
    Mary

    Well last night the TV was showing that the cease fire was not holding.
    They are meeting in Den Haag today in an attempt to get them to stop.
    Trouble is they don't want to stop. No one ever pays any attention to
    the UN.

    While you may be of the opinion that the nuclear weapons are
    disintegrating and nobody wants them I think that you will find their
    shelf life is quite long and I can think of several countries that
    would just love to have them. Remember some of them are quite small and
    portable.

    Jamie.

Note 1511.22         
    
>    Well last night the TV was showing that the cease fire was not holding.
>    They are meeting in Den Haag today in an attempt to get them to stop.
>    Trouble is they don't want to stop. No one ever pays any attention to
>    the UN.

    Saddam Heussein did.
    
>    While you may be of the opinion that the nuclear weapons are
>    disintegrating and nobody wants them I think that you will find their
>    shelf life is quite long and I can think of several countries that
>    would just love to have them. Remember some of them are quite small and
>    portable.

    Well, Jamie.... lets see if we can't figure out another way to get rid
    of them then.
    
    Is there a simple component or mechanism that triggers them?  
    
    Perhaps some technician (presently guarding them) could disengage it or 
    defuse them before he leaves the country.  
    
    Is there a mechanical function involved?  Perhaps it could break down.
    
    Are there any computer's involved in the triggering mechanism? 
    Computers can become quite unreliable under the right conditions.
    
    Perhaps the soldiers currently guarding them could remove the plutonium
    and take it with them (if thats possible or safe to do).
    
    I don't know a whole lot about them.  Can you give me some help with 
    this?  Tell me how they work and we'll go from there and see what
    happens.
    
    Mary

    Re .23

    >Saddam Heussein did.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong here. But Saddam Hussein blatantly ignored
    everything the UN said until the Allies started to beat his armies
    to a bloody pulp. 

    Even then he continued to ignore their calls for him to give up all his
    nuclear technology. Only when Bush made it abundantly clear that the
    war would restart and Saddam would be resoundingly beaten did he pay
    any attention.

    I repeat nobody, unless forced to with violence, pays any attention to
    the UN.

    The method of disabling the nuclear weapons is not the point. That
    would no doubt be very simple. However convincing the people who are
    in a position to do this disabling, given the fact that they may
    themselves wish to use the weapons, is an entirely different matter.

    I fear that you tend to vastly over simplify things if you assume that
    they would do so from humanitarian reasons.

    Jamie.

Note 1511.24         
    
>    Correct me if I'm wrong here. But Saddam Hussein blatantly ignored
>    everything the UN said until the Allies started to beat his armies
>    to a bloody pulp. 

    Well he does now doesn't he?
    
>    I repeat nobody, unless forced to with violence, pays any attention to
>    the UN.

    Saddam is an example... everyone doesn't have to learn the hard way..
    some humans are smart enough to learn by example... perhaps Yugoslavia
    is among them.
    
>    The method of disabling the nuclear weapons is not the point. 
    
    Yes, it is the point.  
    
    >That
>    would no doubt be very simple. However convincing the people who are
>    in a position to do this disabling, given the fact that they may
>    themselves wish to use the weapons, is an entirely different matter.

    You just tell me the "very simple" way to do it and let me worry about
    the rest.
    
>    I fear that you tend to vastly over simplify things if you assume that
>    they would do so from humanitarian reasons.

    Go play shrink with someone else, Jamie.  If you have information on
    how to disable the weapons, then provide it ..and spare me your analysis
    of my assumptions.  If you don't have the information then I'm wasting
    my time discussing it with you and I'll go away.
    
    Mary

    Talking of wasting time, Jamie... you are.
    
    Laurie.

    It is very simple to disarm a nuclear device.  It is also quite
    lethal.
    
    It is cheering to note that a few of the republics are hustling to
    dump their missiles and bombs in the lap of Russia.  Perhaps they
    think the possibility of being the destination of a pre-emptive
    strike is too unattractive to balance the `pleasant' possibility of
    being the source of a pre-emptive strike.
    
    I just hope that everyone kept good inventory records.
    
    						Ann B.

re: .25 
VERGA::STANLEY 
    
>>    That
>>    would no doubt be very simple. However convincing the people who are
>>    in a position to do this disabling, given the fact that they may
>>    themselves wish to use the weapons, is an entirely different matter.
>
>    You just tell me the "very simple" way to do it and let me worry about
>    the rest.

	I think it's time you changed your brand of glue, Mary...

	-Art  ;-}

    I don't much care what you think, art.

    Wearing my moderators hat --

    A bit more civility here on all sides -- including a bit more care in
    how statements intended to be innocuous are phrased -- would make this
    conference a more pleasant "place" to be.  Everyone take a deep breath
    and lets just assume that the needed apologies have been made so we can
    "start fresh".

					Topher

    Tactical nuclear weapons are designed with features that make them
    easy to permanently disable, in the event of an impending capture.
    The electronics that sequence detonation are easy to ruin and hard to
    replace.  An improper authorization code will initiate the
    self-disabling action too.
    
    Some weapons have mechanical interlocks that prevent the core material
    from compressing.  These too are not reversable once activated.  Some
    weapons require insertion of core material or mechanical guides in
    order to function, the key items are stored separately, and can be
    destroyed with only a hammer.
    
    Anyone with enough training to arm one of these weapons can also render
    it unusable in a matter of a few minutes.
    

    Well either Mary is very na�ve or she is making a bad job of trying to
    wind me up.

    Mary the only reason that Hussein is paying the slightest attention to
    the UN is because an estimated 100,000 of his people were killed. No
    doubt if the same number of Yougoslavians were slaughtered then they
    might just pay attention to the UN too. If you think that they are
    going to stop just because the UN said so then you are obviously not in
    possession of any of the facts. Yesterday the fighting increased.

    Since you seem to have only a vague notion as to what a nuclear device
    is then let me give you a quick explanation on how one works, in simple
    terms. 

    Radioactive atoms are unstable and give of particles at high speed. If
    these particles hit another atom it may cause that atom to break up and
    fire off more particles. Now depending on several factors this can
    become a chain reaction. That is, each particle hits a atom causing
    more to particles to do the same. This is a nuclear explosion.

    The chain reaction will only happen if a condition called "critical
    mass" has been reached. There are several ways of reaching this. One is
    to pile up lots radioactive material in one place and another is to
    compress it violently so the atoms are closer together.

    The latter method is used in nuclear devices. A shaped explosive charge
    rams the radioactive material into a very small space, critical mass is
    achieved, a chain reaction starts, a minute amount of matter is changed
    into a vast amount of energy and there is one heck of an explosion.

    Now to disable a nuclear device: you can remove the detonator for the
    conventional explosive device, remove the conventional explosive device
    itself or remove the nuclear material. Any or all of these will disable
    it. As I said it is very simple.

    One word of caution, when you are taking out the nuclear material don't
    stack it all in one pile or you may reach critical mass and start a
    chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. Oh and do wear gloves
    and a mask as plutonium is an alpha radiation source. Should even the
    tiniest speck if it get inside you it can cause lots of problems.

    BTW just in passing, what are you going to say to anyone who challenges
    you as you enter the buildings where they are stored?

    One final point. Some of them are quite small and portable and can very
    easily be hidden. Do be sure that you get them all.

    Jamie.
                                                         

Mmm, sometimes Jamie, you miss the obvious.
Mary doesn't have the same world view as you!
This isn't the RAMBO_BLOWS_AWAY_THE_BADDIES conference
either (or the BOYS_OWN_ATOMIC_WORKSHOP). 
Put the two together and what do you get?
You get solutions (which may or may not work) which
are a long way from what the person in the street 
might come up with.

Involving alien beings, shifts in reality and
different states of conciousness. 

If it's weird we can imagine the possibility. ;-)
(Which for me doesn't necessarily mean *believe* the reality).

Try reading between the lines a bit.

John D.

  
  Re .32
  
  > ... the key items are stored separately, and can be destroyed with only
  > a hammer.                                          
  >  Anyone with enough training to arm one of these weapons can also render
  >  it unusable in a matter of a few minutes.                              
  
  Reminds me of a Heinlein short story [ "The Green Hills of Earth" ? One in
  the same collection anyway ] wherein an attempted coup by the military (who
  controlled space-based weapons systems) was effectively foiled by one loyal
  plod who did precisely the above to a number of weapons and forced a
  stand-off on the remaining ones until help arrived (by which time he'd
  snuffed it as a result of living in an environment of plutonium dust).
  All good Boys-Own Hero stuff (but well written ... as you'd expect from RH).
  
  Frank

RE .34 (John)

>This isn't the RAMBO_BLOWS_AWAY_THE_BADDIES conference

Hey, I didn't know you were reading that one too? Did it move? I cannot find
it on BLASTER:: anymore!

:-)

Arie

    >>This isn't the RAMBO_BLOWS_AWAY_THE_BADDIES conference

    >Hey, I didn't know you were reading that one too? Did it move? I cannot
    >find it on BLASTER:: anymore!
    
    Try DENSA::RAMBO_BLOWS_AWAY_THE_BADDIES or press Kp7 or select.
    
    Jamie.
    

Re .33 (Jamie):


    >Now to disable a nuclear device: you can remove the detonator for the
    >conventional explosive device, remove the conventional explosive device
    >itself or remove the nuclear material. Any or all of these will disable
    >it. As I said it is very simple.

Or, and this is "easy" too, you can subject the nucvlear material to a carefully
metered dose of thermal neutrons while in the subcritical state.  This has the
added advantage that you don't have to remove anything, and theoretically can 
be done at a bit of a distance.

    >One word of caution, when you are taking out the nuclear material don't
    >stack it all in one pile or you may reach critical mass and start a
    >chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. ...

Or, more likely, simply something approaching a meltdown.  No explosion, but a 
lot of neutron flyx, not to mention airborne contaminants.

Or there's always alchemy. ;-)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Mary,
    
    I guess this is pretty obvious by now, but one possibility is to focus 
    on those who have enough training and know how to disable them.  I
    don't know what rank of person it would be, but I do remember reading
    an interview of a "very nervous young lieutenant" who had the power to
    detonate one and figured that there was probably an equally nervous,
    young whoever on the other side with equal power.
    
    This actually gives me hope, because I think its at the lower ranks of
    officers that you are likely to find people of conscience and humanity,
    who haven't (in *their* minds and hearts) reduced life to statistics and 
    numbers and 'surgical strikes.'  I think those that have climbed the
    ranks to the 'top' are more likely to have shed these 'burdens' along the
    way in order to 'make it.'
    
    the other Mary

    Strangely enough they choose and train people who will follow orders
    without question. These people are also tested regularly to make sure
    that they will follow out their appointed duties. They are stationed in
    many different bases. I may be a tad cynical but I strongly suspect
    that they will not all have nervous young lieutenants ready to step in
    and save the world.

    As I said some of these devices are very portable and I would not bet
    that they are all where they should be at this moment.

    Jamie.

Note 1511.33         
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Mary the only reason that Hussein is paying the slightest attention to
>    the UN is because an estimated 100,000 of his people were killed. No
>    doubt if the same number of Yougoslavians were slaughtered then they
>    might just pay attention to the UN too. If you think that they are
>    going to stop just because the UN said so then you are obviously not in
>    possession of any of the facts. Yesterday the fighting increased.

    Jamie,  I'm not interested in political discussions at the moment.
    I am sorry for snapping at you though.
    
>    Since you seem to have only a vague notion as to what a nuclear device
>    is then let me give you a quick explanation on how one works, in simple
>    terms. 

    thank you
    
>    Now to disable a nuclear device: you can remove the detonator for the
>    conventional explosive device, remove the conventional explosive device
>    itself or remove the nuclear material. Any or all of these will disable
>    it. As I said it is very simple.

    Is this common knowledge in the world military organizations?  I
    mean...  would a soldier acting as a guard (for example) know this 
    information and how to do it?  Would he recognize the conventional 
    explosive device?  Or would it have to be a specialist familiar with
    the equipment?
    
    And one more question... do different military organizations from 
    different countries have soldiers who are less informed than others?  
    ... in other words... would a Russian be able to do it but not a Chinese 
    soldier or vice versa?
     
>    One word of caution, when you are taking out the nuclear material don't
>    stack it all in one pile or you may reach critical mass and start a
>    chain reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. Oh and do wear gloves
>    and a mask as plutonium is an alpha radiation source. Should even the
>    tiniest speck if it get inside you it can cause lots of problems.

     Where could they put it?  Could they just leave it scattered on the
    ground if it weren't touching or should they bury it?
    
>    BTW just in passing, what are you going to say to anyone who challenges
>    you as you enter the buildings where they are stored?

    The easiest thing to do is to have those who are guarding the buildings
    do it themselves... don't you think?  They have the time and the
    opportunity.
    
>    One final point. Some of them are quite small and portable and can very
>    easily be hidden. Do be sure that you get them all.

     How many are there?
                                                         
Note 1511.32         
RIPPLE::PETTIGREW_MI                                 
    
    Thank you very much... this is what I was looking for.
    
>    Tactical nuclear weapons are designed with features that make them
>    easy to permanently disable, in the event of an impending capture.
>    The electronics that sequence detonation are easy to ruin and hard to
>    replace.  An improper authorization code will initiate the
>    self-disabling action too.
 
    Could anyone just walk up and put in random numbers and thereby disable
    the weapon?  Could a low level person do it... a guard or something?
       
>    Some weapons have mechanical interlocks that prevent the core material
>    from compressing.  These too are not reversable once activated.  Some
>    weapons require insertion of core material or mechanical guides in
>    order to function, the key items are stored separately, and can be
>    destroyed with only a hammer.
    
So only authorized personnel have access to these key items... they could 
    conceivably take them along when they leave the country, thereby leaving 
    the weapons useless?
        
>    Anyone with enough training to arm one of these weapons can also render
>    it unusable in a matter of a few minutes.

    Are these people kept in close proximity to them usually?  So... they'd
    probably be stationed close by right now.  Are conditions such that
    they are not being allowed near the weapons?    
      
    It seems as if they could very easily get to them and disarm them
    before they are pulled back.... something a responsible soldier would
    certainly do, one would think...
    
    I'll bet that all of the weapons that are not returned to central
    control are disabled ... either by those responsible for their key
    items or by whomever guards them.  
    
    These are the times that try men's souls. Nervousness prevails during 
    these times... the safe way is best... no one would even know... it would
    be so easy for them to do... punch in a random access code.. sometimes
    it's done out of compulsion.. not knowing why exactly... troubled
    times draw the soul through storms of emotion... the self-destructive,
    the impulsive act... who knows why things happen as they do... the
    random chance happenings that move men to act..  one at a time... 
    driven by different sets of circumstances, motivated by different
    emotions... the pattern forms... the results are the same... the
    weapons... all of them... are disabled by their watchers and their
    guardians.  so mote it be...
    
    Mary

CARTUN::MISTOVICH                                    
    
	-< seeing double = seeing two paradigms at once! >-
         
         Yes... where chaos reigns the paradigms overlap and flow into
         each other...the possibilities are without limit.
    
>    I guess this is pretty obvious by now, but one possibility is to focus 
>    on those who have enough training and know how to disable them.  I
>    don't know what rank of person it would be, but I do remember reading
>    an interview of a "very nervous young lieutenant" who had the power to
>    detonate one and figured that there was probably an equally nervous,
>    young whoever on the other side with equal power.
    
I see lower level .... simple guards... I don't know ranks... they merely
    walk up and push buttons at random... an impulsive act of
    self-destruction ... or so they think at the time... then fearful of
    what they've done, they resume their posts and say nothing to anyone
    about what they've done.  They quickly push it out of their minds...
    and no one ever suspects.
    
>    This actually gives me hope, because I think its at the lower ranks of
>    officers that you are likely to find people of conscience and humanity,
>    who haven't (in *their* minds and hearts) reduced life to statistics and 
>    numbers and 'surgical strikes.'  I think those that have climbed the
>    ranks to the 'top' are more likely to have shed these 'burdens' along the
>    way in order to 'make it.'
    
    I don't see it as even a conscious act on the part of the disarmer but
    rather an impulsive one.  He is an arm of God nevertheless... a part of
    the whole... he need not fully realize the magnitude of what he does
    for his people.... he is a hero regardless.. albeit unspoken and
    unknown.
        
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    As I said some of these devices are very portable and I would not bet
>    that they are all where they should be at this moment.

Whereever they lie... they draw their guards ... simple men or desperate
    men or despondant men... all are drawn to punch in meaningless numbers
    and quickly push the act from their minds...

    Will this work?
    
    Is it consistent with the "Truth"?... with reality?  Is it possible for
    it to work this way, I mean?
    
    Let me put it another way... is there a locked door over the buttons
    that will keep the guards from being able to fulfill the impulse?
    
    Tell me ... so we can adapt it if we need to, ok?

    In the Western systems the interlocks to stop accidental firing are
    very complex indeed. Unfortunately there is only very limited
    knowledge of the Russian systems.

    You asked as to their numbers. Thousands. They have enough of them to
    kill off all life several times over. Some insects that can tolerate
    high radiation levels might survive but it is doubtful.

    BTW If you are thinking of influencing their thought patterns I feel
    that I should reveal a little known secret. They wear special head
    covering, Actually it looks like a world war one flying helmet and
    covers all but the face. Through this runs a fine mesh of wires and
    these are used, coupled with a computer and some other highly
    classified equipment (that they always deny exists) to set up a mental
    force field that blocks the guards brains from external influence.
    
    Jamie.

    Jamie,
    
    The head coverings won't work.  The energy that we use (actually, the
    energy that manifests us into our "physical" selves) is in a very 
    different range of wave lengths/frequencies than we are aware of in the 
    "physical" realm.  This is why western science has such a hard time
    testing and measuring it and, thereby, *proving* it.  They do get 
    occasional glimpses, though.
    
    According to models I've seen that were developed (as I recall) by 
    phsycists at Stanford U., the lowest level is very near light speed and 
    it ranges far faster than light speed, putting it into negative space 
    time.  (I apologize if this seems confusing...the description started 
    getting way over my head and very difficult to visualize.)
    
    Mary 2
    
    ps.  Mary 1 -- you sly fox, you ;-) 

HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    BTW If you are thinking of influencing their thought patterns I feel
>    that I should reveal a little known secret. They wear special head
>    covering, Actually it looks like a world war one flying helmet and
>    covers all but the face. Through this runs a fine mesh of wires and
>    these are used, coupled with a computer and some other highly
>    classified equipment (that they always deny exists) to set up a mental
>    force field that blocks the guards brains from external influence.
    
    Silly Jamie :-) ... that makes no difference to us, we aren't radios or
    tv's broadcasting waves... we effect reality on the atomic particle
    level.    

    Out in the void, where the fractals dance and the patterns form the
    Strange Attractors of existence... there we see find the patterns 
    we seek.. the patterns of our human reality.. the ones that form 
    tomorrow ... and into them we weave the change.. Lords of Chaos..
    come and dance with us in this direction.. the pattern is altered..
    
CARTUN::MISTOVICH                                    
    
>    The head coverings won't work.  The energy that we use (actually, the
>    energy that manifests us into our "physical" selves) is in a very 
>    different range of wave lengths/frequencies than we are aware of in the 
>    "physical" realm.  This is why western science has such a hard time
>    testing and measuring it and, thereby, *proving* it.  They do get 
>    occasional glimpses, though.
    
    He's silly, huh Mary? :-)  ... it's that old technology hangup again, I
    think... boys (or males would be more appropriate I guess) keep looking 
    for models to build and machines to take apart...  magick doesn't work
    that way.. magick works with the stuff of life itself, not wires and
    machines...
        
>    According to models I've seen that were developed (as I recall) by 
>    phsycists at Stanford U., the lowest level is very near light speed and 
>    it ranges far faster than light speed, putting it into negative space 
>    time.  (I apologize if this seems confusing...the description started 
>    getting way over my head and very difficult to visualize.)
    
It must look like balls of light. :-) ... or we could make it look like
    space ships, I'll bet... flying saucers would be nice... I like fying
    saucers..
        
>    Mary 1 -- you sly fox, you ;-) 
    
    This ought to be pretty funny.. don't you think? :-)  I'll bet they get
    wicked pissed... if they ever notice that is ... I'll bet they don't
    even notice...

    If your magick is so good and affects particles at the void level, then
    why are you worried about influencing people?  Just breakdown the entire
    atomic structure of the missle and make it vanish!
    
    No security hassles... no codes needed...
    
    and at the speed of thought it shouldn't take any time...
    
    that is if you really no how to manipulate these energies... hmmm

re: 1511.42 
VERGA::STANLEY 

>        -< Jarrick, this is my choice..this is what I want..the "Way" >-
[...]
>         Yes... where chaos reigns the paradigms overlap and flow into
>         each other...the possibilities are without limit.
[...]
>I see lower level .... simple guards... I don't know ranks... they merely
>    walk up and push buttons at random... an impulsive act of
[...]
>    I don't see it as even a conscious act on the part of the disarmer but
>    rather an impulsive one.  He is an arm of God nevertheless... a part of
>    that they are all where they should be at this moment.
[...]
>Whereever they lie... they draw their guards ... simple men or desperate
>    men or despondant men... all are drawn to punch in meaningless numbers
>    and quickly push the act from their minds...

	So, just when and where are you and your buddy, Jarrick, going
	to do this ?  If, as you say, various realities are overlapping,
	then there should be some *tangible* result in the regular, old
	four-space that we all know and love.  And if Jarrick isn't just
	some bit of psychic flatulence, if she/he/it has the powers you
	claim, then he/she/it should be able to pinpoint the "where",
	"when", and "what" of the event for us.

	-Art

Note 1511.47         
TEAM01::TEAM10::SCHNEIDER                             
    
>    If your magick is so good and affects particles at the void level, then
>    why are you worried about influencing people?  
    
    I'm not worried about it... I just know that it works and so I do it.
    
    >Just breakdown the entire atomic structure of the missle and make it 
    >vanish!
    >No security hassles... no codes needed...
    >and at the speed of thought it shouldn't take any time...
    
I've never done that before... do you think it would work?  
It's like suggesting a different way to swim to a swimmer.. ok to try but
    not while trying to rescue someone I would think.    
    
>    that is if you really no how to manipulate these energies... hmmm
    
    Well... there are some things we KNOW we can do... and some things we
    haven't thought to try yet.  It seems foolish to try something new in the
    middle of a crisis situation though... to me anyway.  That might be
    a good sort of experiment but there is a time and place to experiment
    ... it's certainly worth playing around with... I'd try it anyway... but 
    this isn't a situation that warrants playing around (in my humble opinion).
    
    Why don't you try it that way yourself?
    
WBC::BAKER 
    
>	So, just when and where are you and your buddy, Jarrick, going
>	to do this ?  If, as you say, various realities are overlapping,
>	then there should be some *tangible* result in the regular, old
>	four-space that we all know and love.  
    
    It's already happened... and will continue to happen throughout the
    week.
    
    >And if Jarrick isn't just some bit of psychic flatulence, if she/he/it 
    >has the powers you claim, then he/she/it should be able to pinpoint the 
    >"where", "when", and "what" of the event for us.

    Speaking on his behalf... who is to say that you are not just some bit
    of physical flatulence smelling up my reality?  
    
    Why should we pinpoint anything for you?  Go figure it out for yourself... 
    or as The Grateful Dead say, 
    	..... "believe it if you need it, or leave it if you dare".

    re :.49

    There is no more of a crisis now than there was during WWII, and the
    planet survived.  There's no more of a crisis than there was 2 years
    ago.

    You asked why I am not doing anything about it... here's your answer...

    I am doing something about it.  I have completed my training in the
    art of warriorship and I have taken complete responsibility for
    everything that happens in my life.  After I basically fixed myself,  I
    spent months balancing my relationship with my wife.  After that, I
    created a new life in this world, and I am teaching my daughter to take
    responsibility for her life, not indulge her ego and to lovingly serve
    others through action.  I have balanced my relationship with my family,
    my inlaws and my immediate friends.

    I am now beginning to work to bring balance to my neighborhood and
    community.  In other words, I am acting locally to effect things
    globally.  

    Willing some soldier in Asia to disable a nuclear missile is not only an
    abuse of a warrior's power (and thus evil), it is also impractical due
    to the amount of energy required.

    It is a lot easier for me to "help fix" the corner of the world that I
    impact.  I suggest you do the same.  The rest will take care of itself. 
    The healing won't satisfy your need for immediate gratification, but it
    will be permanent when the people of the world choose  peace (not when
    the are telepathically willed to peace by a group of "spiritual power
    manipulators").

    (It's like Luke Skywalker...  He didn't "will" the death star to
    blow-up... He just loved his dad!)
    
    
    Y'elan
    Kevin

TEAM01::TEAM10::SCHNEIDER                            

>    There is no more of a crisis now than there was during WWII, and the
>    planet survived.  There's no more of a crisis than there was 2 years
>    ago.

    I was born in 1945 so I can't be held responsible for WWII... the
    planet may have survive but we saw first hand the harm that nuclear
    weapons can do... and that was minor compared to what the number and
    power of today's nuclear weapons can accomplish.
    
    Any nuclear threat is a crisis in my eyes... two years ago the Soviet
    Union had their nuclear weapons firmly under control... today the 
    breakup leaves a great deal of doubt.. Do you not see that for
    your self?
    
>    You asked why I am not doing anything about it... here's your answer...

    I don't recall asking that.  Didn't I ask why you didn't try your own
    suggestion your self?
    
>    I am doing something about it.  I have completed my training in the
>    art of warriorship and I have taken complete responsibility for
>    everything that happens in my life.  After I basically fixed myself,  I
>    spent months balancing my relationship with my wife.  After that, I
>    created a new life in this world, and I am teaching my daughter to take
>    responsibility for her life, not indulge her ego and to lovingly serve
>    others through action.  I have balanced my relationship with my family,
>    my inlaws and my immediate friends.

    That sounds very positive..
    
>    I am now beginning to work to bring balance to my neighborhood and
>    community.  In other words, I am acting locally to effect things
>    globally.  

    Sounds positive to me... looks good on a bumper sticker too ;-) (just
    kidding, no harm intended)
    
>    Willing some soldier in Asia to disable a nuclear missile is not only an
>    abuse of a warrior's power (and thus evil), it is also impractical due
>    to the amount of energy required.

    Well, ... apparently your concept of evil is different than mine.  
    I do not consider this to be an abuse of power.  "Do what they wilt,
    be the whole of the Law ... Love is the law, love under will"
    
    I also do not find it to be impractical nor a drain of energy.  I've
    expended far more energy than that willing far more people to maintain
    a condition for a much longer time.
    
>    It is a lot easier for me to "help fix" the corner of the world that I
>    impact.  
    
    Do what you want to do.  Do whatever is easy for you to do.
    
    >I suggest you do the same.  
    
    Why?  I apparently find a different path to be easier walking than you
    do.  Who are you to tell me what to do anyway?  
    No Warrior... no magickian would tell another what path to walk.  Perhaps 
    you are more concerned with control than with warriorship.  Controllers
    do not make very good warriors.
    
    >The rest will take care of itself. 
    
    Perhaps I am it's way of taking care of itself.
    
    >The healing won't satisfy your need for immediate gratification, but it
    >will be permanent when the people of the world choose  peace (not when
    >the are telepathically willed to peace by a group of "spiritual power
    >manipulators").

    What healing?  What chance do the people of the world have when their
    choices are considered irrelevant by the controllers and power
    junkies.... by those who would kill their children in Tiananmen Square
    .. running over their skulls with tanks while they sleep in their tents
    ... rather than talk to them...   while the movers and shakers of the
    world manipulate and lie and steal and kill in order to maintain their
    positions of power.  What a joke!  What a laugh!
    Power is there to be used by all of us and any of us who choose to use
    it.  
    	... do what thou wilt, be the whole of the law...
    
>    (It's like Luke Skywalker...  He didn't "will" the death star to
>    blow-up... He just loved his dad!)
    
    I'm not Luke Skywalker and my dad is dead.
    
    I don't follow you, Kevin ... I walk my own path.  I answer my own
    call.  
    
    The church says there is only one way.  The government says there is
    only one way.  Kevin says there is only one way.
    
    The TRUTH is that there are many, many ways.  And we are free to
    choose.
    
    Mary

    Re .51

    >The TRUTH is that there are many, many ways.  And we are free to
    >choose.

    But how can those who guard the missiles be free to chose it you intend
    to influence their choice?

    Jamie.

    Jamie,

    In the maelstrom of our chaotic existence, so much happens that we view 
    as chance or as fate or as destiny.... it's not... it never has been.

    We are pushed and prodded by powerful institutions and individuals
    at every turn.  We have religious fanatics and groups and individuals
    of all kinds using whatever means they can think of to force others to
    conform to their personal conception of good and evil... of reality.
    We have Madison Avenue and political groups using the newest and best
    technology and psychology to influence us at every turn.  No one judges
    that to be evil... thats just the way it is.

    All about me are those who wish to restrict my choices... they tell me
    what to smoke, what I should eat and wear and drink and when, they tell
    me that once I am pregnant I no longer have individual choices.  And
    yet the newspapers are full of stories of bankers who steal from their
    own banks and politicians who betray their public trust for personal
    gain.  All around us is evil... but is it really?  Or is that just the
    way it is?

    The world is full of evil, Jamie... the planet is teaming with those
    who relentlessly pursue their own agendas without regard for the rights
    of others, with those who lust for power at any cost... thats the way
    it's always been.

    Some of us are 'natural' holders of power.  We do not abuse it.  We do
    not use it frivolously nor for ambition nor for personal gain.  Unlike
    many of those who hold power within society... political power, financial
    power, power of life and death, power to incarcerate.... unlike those
    others... we CARE about those whom we effect with our minds... we take
    great care to protect them, to shield them from any consequences of our
    acts... and what we do always benefits them as well.. as part of the whole.

    From time to time, we feel called upon to intervene in the affairs of
    men.  We do not approach such action lightly.  We consider fully the
    total ramifications of that action we are about to take... including the
    imposition we are making upon the others.  We *choose*, Jamie.  
    We choose *consciously*... with great care and deliberation.

    In this case, those who guard the missiles are in as much danger as the
    rest of us... as the planet.  They will be the first to die from a 
    nuclear disaster.  Their families will suffer.  Their Earth will
    suffer.  

    I take this step with full knowledge of what I do.  I accept full
    responsibility for the act.  This is what I want... it is my choice.
    If it isn't the right choice, then it won't work...it won't happen.
    If it is right... then it is right for all of us and *thats* why it
    works.

    It's always been this way, Jamie.  Since the very beginning of time,
    people like me have lived on this planet with people like you.  We
    have always intervened when we felt called upon to act on behalf of
    the whole.  Thats just the way it is, Jamie.  Thats the way it's always
    been... you just never knew it.  
    
    You saw the others... those whose faces appear on the nightly news, 
    those who flaunt their money as a mark of their privilege ... of their
    station... but you never saw us, you never knew what we did or how it 
    effected us all... but we've always been here.. doing what we do... 
    either in full awareness or not... as wild talents.

    Judge us as you will.  That too is your choice.  But remember, that all
    is connected ... and in judging us, you judge yourselves as well.

    Do you think that those who would kill us for what we do... those who 
    would stop us... those who in our murky past would burn us at stakes or 
    submit us to Inquisitions are better than we are?... kinder?... of more 
    integrity?  
    
    Would your world be a better place if they held such power instead of
    us?  Look at how they are now and consider the nightmare that life would 
    become... especially for those who are the least bit different.. who
    don't fit into their molds.

    We do what we do because we can, and because we are supposed to... thats
    the way it is... thats the way it's always been.  

    We are what we are.

re: 1511.51 
VERGA::STANLEY 

>    I do not consider this to be an abuse of power.  "Do what they wilt,
>    be the whole of the Law ... Love is the law, love under will"

	If you're going to quote Crowley, at least get it right:

		"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
			-Liber al vel Legis

	I do hope you'll be a bit more careful about such details
	when you're playing "puppetmaster" with all those guards
	over in the eastern bloc.  Be a pity if you ended up 
	triggering a nuke, eh ?

Note 1511.54         
WBC::BAKER 
    
    >	If you're going to quote Crowley, at least get it right:

    If I need a secretary, I'll certainly consider you for the job.
    Hows your spelling?  Do you type?
    
    >	I do hope you'll be a bit more careful about such details
    >	when you're playing "puppetmaster" with all those guards
    >	over in the eastern bloc.  Be a pity if you ended up 
    >	triggering a nuke, eh ?
    
    Interestingly enough... in my line of work... such details are 
    considered to be petty and irrelevant. 
    
    At least if I trigger a nuke it will be an accident that happened
    while trying to prevent a nuclear holocaust...of course there
    are others who would trigger them on purpose just to prove that
    they have a penis.  
    
    I didn't put them there, pal.  I didn't see to it that their numbers
    increased to a point where there was more bomb power than there was
    planet to destroy.
    
    And I have a lot more faith in myself and my motives and intentions
    than I do in you and yours.
    
    	... so go quote Crowley to someone who cares what you think...
    

    (Wow, are all guardians of the universe so touchy??  I hope the world
    saviors are a lot less angry when they focus their intentions.)

    In previous notes VERGA::STANLEY made the comment that she had only
    good intentions as she went about controlling the minds of others.  I
    think every power manipulator thinks her/his intentions are good.  Mind
    manipulation is mind manipulation. In my opinion, it is always wrong!
    Do others agree/disagree? I am curious.

    But back to "so-called crisis" at hand...

    It sure seems a lot easier to kick back for 10 years or so and let the
    unveiling peace take its course.  Considering that the Soviet nuclear
    power will be back in the hands of the Supreme Soviet and that it takes
    codes from a group of over 14 people to launch them now (ref. the ABC
    town meeting with Gorby and Yeltsin), this sure seems like a lot of
    work for nothing.  It would appear that disarmament is continuing along
    on the course that has been started in the last 2 years.  People the
    world over are choosing peace of their own free will.  It's a pattern
    that doesn't need any assistance.

TEAM01::TEAM10::SCHNEIDER                            
    
-< Peace  has its own way of happening... >-

    How do you know that this is not it's way?

>    It sure seems a lot easier to kick back for 10 years or so and let the
>    unveiling peace take its course.  Considering that the Soviet nuclear
>    power will be back in the hands of the Supreme Soviet and that it takes
>    codes from a group of over 14 people to launch them now (ref. the ABC
>    town meeting with Gorby and Yeltsin), this sure seems like a lot of
>    work for nothing.  
    
    Well it certainly seems easier to me and under these circumstances
    there would be no need to act.  Jamie's fear would be unfounded.
    
    >It would appear that disarmament is continuing along
>    on the course that has been started in the last 2 years.  People the
>    world over are choosing peace of their own free will.  It's a pattern
>    that doesn't need any assistance.
    
    How do you know that?  How do you know where the pattern sprang from
    or why it continues?  How do you know that someone somewhere didn't
    try to alter the pattern by the Russian right-wing coup?   How do
    you know that someone else.. somewhere else... didn't step in and
    reverse it?
    Do any of us really have any concept of the true nature of the reality
    that carries us?
    
    You guys take so much for granted... so much.

    I take ABSOLUTELY nothing for granted.

    ... then don't assume that 'events' simply happen of their own accord.
    They don't... not always... not all the time.  ... the signs are
    everywhere...
    

Slipping unhappily into moderator mode:

Re last few --

A gentle suggestion that perhaps the exchanges here are verging on something
that can be construed as "unmutual," to borrow a phrase from a famous TV
show of yore.

Suggest very strongly that we all review the section on etiquette.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I was just leaving anyway.
    
    This is as good a time as any to announce my retirement from this
    kind of activity, I suppose.  You guys are right.... things can take 
    care of themselves.
    
    Adios,
    
    Mary

    Re.37
    
    Jamie,
    
    DENSA::RAMBO_BLOWS_AWAY_THE_BADDIES didn't work either...
    
    Signed,
    
    Another Dutch person
         

    I'm beginning to think I might be seriously out of sync with reality;
    or is it them?
    
    Oh sod it, I'd better get the bumps felt anyway...
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    Gee, all this good stuff and there I was last week,
    on "vacation"...
    
    Joel
    

    .63
    
    We may be on the same planet, but we sure can't be the same species...
    

    re: .61 & .65 (Mary)
    
    Short retirement?
    
    Joel
    

    No Joel... The Pope of Fools deletes her notebook today.

    I'd think that someone who claims to be able to influence minds an
    ocean or two away could...
    
    karl

    Re the late Mary.

    A couple of points of interest. First your prediction that Yugoslavia
    would listen to the voice of reason of the U.N. seems way off base as
    the fighting continues and the U.N. shows no interest.

    Second your rather modest claim to be one of the uncorrupted guardians.
    How can we be sure that you are not , unknown to you, being manipulated
    by others? They could have your powers and misuse them.

    Third you point out that, "At least if I trigger a nuke it will be an
    accident that happened while trying to prevent a nuclear holocaust"

    I feel sure that all of those who die from your accident will go to
    their graves content in the knowledge that your intentions were good.

    Jamie.
                                                           

    
    	If you could highlight all the things in a persons mind that is
    dear to them and then show them what could possibly happen if they
    don't act, I'm quite sure that they, themselves, would be inspired 
    through their own actions and thoughts to do what they can to prevent
    such an occurance from happening.
    
    	You can look at the mind as being a book with many chapters of 
    stories, experiences and knowledge... What's wrong with highlighting
    areas of importance that one has forgotten? Let them think it over...
    let them take action...
    
    Michelle

    Michelle,
    
    I like your suggestion as a modification to Mary's "plan"; this is
    communication to persuade, not forcing behavior.
    
    Others out there, I know my quote is inaccurate, but isn't it more
    like:
    
    An ye harm known, do what thou wilt
    
    Forcing someone to action they did not choose is harm, whether done
    with mental manipulation, or verbal/emotional, etc.  
    
    
    As for the crisis at hand (Joel, I too was on vacation last week), I'm
    not sure we really have all the information.  There is a rumor that it
    was a power ploy by Gorby himself.  The reports that seem to indicate a
    lessening of the tyranny may not be accurate.  I do wish there was a
    truly reliable way to get information about foreign events.
    
    Beth

    
DSSDEV::GRIFFIN 
    
    >Forcing someone to action they did not choose is harm, whether done
    >with mental manipulation, or verbal/emotional, etc.  
    
    Not necessarily.  
    
    We force our children to attend school, often against their will.  We
    do not do it to harm them but to aid them.

    
    Mary,
    
    I perceive a big difference in the two examples you are talking about.
    
    Last week I was at Kripalu, and was reading the biography of the yogi,
    Amrit Desai, who founded the center.  In there he performed a mind
    control attempt and was successful.  He had prevented a snake charmer
    from playing his flute.  Later on he told his guru about it, and his
    guru's reply was, "NEVER do that again!"  From that day on, he didn't.
    
    'Forcing' children to go to school is quite another matter.  When one
    sees the larger picture (after all, what 8 year-old can truly see from
    the perspective of an adult to know enough what will and won't affect
    the rest of their life, since most children live only in the present). 
    It does matter that parents listen to the children, so forcing them to
    go to a negative environment is quite another thing.  I look back at my
    parents and if they had said "OK" if I had expressed a desire not to go
    to school anymore, then I would have considered them to be completely
    irresponsible, in hindsight.
    
    There is a difference.
    
    Cindy

    Note 1511.74
    CGVAX2::PAINTER 
    
    
>        -< Mental manipulation is a misqualification of energy >-
    
Not necessarily...

>    Last week I was at Kripalu, and was reading the biography of the yogi,
>    Amrit Desai, who founded the center.  In there he performed a mind
>    control attempt and was successful.  He had prevented a snake charmer
>    from playing his flute.  Later on he told his guru about it, and his
>    guru's reply was, "NEVER do that again!"  From that day on, he didn't.
 
    Cindy,  preventing a snake charmer from playing a flute is a
    meaningless exercise of power.... disarming nuclear weapons is not.
    Perhaps it's a matter of perspective... or maybe it's a matter of
    opinion.  One has no point... no "intent"... the other benefits the
    whole.  
    
    Mary

Re .75 (Mary?  Dave?):   

    >Cindy,  preventing a snake charmer from playing a flute is a
    >meaningless exercise of power.... 

Not if the charmer is trying to control a hooded cobra. (Note: snakes are
effectively deaf, but whether it's the swaying of the charmer or not,
something affects the snake.)  A poisinous snake can be as deadly to a
single individual bas a nuclear weapon can be to that same individual.
It might be that the nuke can take out more folk at once, but to a nuked
snake charmer, it would make little difference if that person was killed
by snake or bomb.

    > ................................disarming nuclear weapons is not.

Why isn't it?  Unless you disarm _all_ nuclear weapons at once, then
you're just creating an imbalance; and the side(s) whose nuclear
weapons are suddenly disarmed could perceive it as an attack, and launch some
other military action, in fear of otherwise being a sitting target.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  An old saw, relatively; as
Bonewits pointed out, most folk thing they're the good guys and the others
are the bad guys, when he was exdplaining his perspective on whether specific
magic was black or white (his conclusion: none is either; something I'd
take issue with).

There are technological ways of disarming nuclear weapons, but at least some 
have rather nasty side effects.

    >Perhaps it's a matter of perspective... or maybe it's a matter of
    >opinion.  One has no point... no "intent"... the other benefits the
    >whole.  
 
"Done for the greater good" is the last rationalization of any action short
of "the end justifies the means"; to which it's a close cousin.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re.76
    
    Hi Steve,
    
    Fortunately the yogi knew that the poison had been removed in advance,
    as he mentioned that in the book as well.
    
    However, the point is well taken - it might not have been.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.75
    
    Mary,
    
    We differ greatly on this issue.
    
    Cindy

    I'm disappointed that you would think that I would tamper with 
    your mind, Cindy ... obviously I'm not explaining well.
    
    It isn't Dave, Steve... it's me.  Don't rebuke Joel... he is right to
    jeer.... I shouldn't be here.
    
    What I'm trying to say is...
    when the whole chooses to act on It's own behalf through the focus of 
    a single individual, then it isn't the individual that is choosing... 
    it's the Whole Itself.... the choice is made to benefit the Whole and
    the benefit encompasses ALL.  

re: .79 
VERGA::STANLEY 

>    when the whole chooses to act on It's own behalf through the focus of 
>    a single individual, then it isn't the individual that is choosing... 
>    it's the Whole Itself.... the choice is made to benefit the Whole and
>    the benefit encompasses ALL.  

	One might argue that Adolph Hitler's rise to power in the 30's
	is exactly the same kind of experience: the spirit of the time
	and place, the zeitgeist, expressing itself through a single,
	very astute megalomaniac.  And of course, Hitler was convinced
	that he had a mandate from the heavens to do what he did; he
	was no less certain than you are of the rightness of his actions.

	It's easy to claim divine right to sanction one's will to power...

	-Art

    Hitler acted on his own behalf...  One who chooses for the Whole does
    not act on his or her own personal behalf... 
    
    Hitler wanted to be a ruler... one who acts for the Whole has no 
    personal ambitions nor personal political aspirations.
    
    When power comes from the Whole, it is not rightfully used for personal     
    gain or benefit... it is used to benefit the Whole.
    
    The Whole wishes to survive, not to conquer.... It aspires to be the
    best It can be as It manages to perceive Itself...  How can It conquer
    Itself?  ... it would be as if one's immune system went mad and
    tried to destroy one's self... 
    
    Can't you see the difference?

    ... and Art... 
    
>	It's easy to claim divine right to sanction one's will to power...

    It's not easy at all..  a claim must be sanctioned  .. it cannot be
    bought, bribed, cajoled, nor taken by force...  

Re .81 (Mary):

    >Hitler acted on his own behalf...  One who chooses for the Whole does
    >not act on his or her own personal behalf... 
    >
    >Hitler wanted to be a ruler... one who acts for the Whole has no 
    >personal ambitions nor personal political aspirations.

Yeah, but ....

Hitler _Claimed_ he was what he was not because of a desire for personal power,
but to help the German people after the disasterous times following World
War I.

It's hard for folk nowadays to appreciate it, but Germany was devastated 
economically as few countries ever had been.  Inflation was so out of sight
that even holding onto money for a day substantially reduced its spending power
(bank accounts, as a reasult, were a joke).

Some of this was due to the Treaty of Versailles.  _From the standpoint of a
German citizen of the time_, what Hitler did (at least at first) was dynamic,
vivifying, and good.  In a few short years, Germany went from an effectively
ruined nation to the most powerful country on continental Europe, and second
only to the U.K. in extended Europe.

So it isn't as clearcut as it might seem with half a century of historical
perspective to help....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: (Mary)
    
    Who's jeering?  Well, maybe a little teasing...
    
    But you're a good pot stirrer and I like to see your notes
    around!
    
    Joel
    

5848::KALLIS 
    

>Yeah, but ....
>Hitler _Claimed_ he was what he was not because of a desire for personal power,
>but to help the German people after the disasterous times following World
>War I.

    Talk is cheap... actions speak louder than words... 'by their works,
    shall thee know them'
    
    
>It's hard for folk nowadays to appreciate it, but Germany was devastated 
>economically as few countries ever had been.  Inflation was so out of sight
>that even holding onto money for a day substantially reduced its spending power
>(bank accounts, as a reasult, were a joke).

    Apparently what was good for Germany wasn't good for humanity... it
    doesn't always happen that way ...
    
>Some of this was due to the Treaty of Versailles.  _From the standpoint of a
>German citizen of the time_, what Hitler did (at least at first) was dynamic,
>vivifying, and good.  In a few short years, Germany went from an effectively
>ruined nation to the most powerful country on continental Europe, and second
>only to the U.K. in extended Europe.

    Steve... am I not explaining well?  When I speak of the Whole.. I don't
    necessarily refer to citizens of a specific country unless a situation
    arises wherein that country will have a beneficial effect on the Whole.
    
>So it isn't as clearcut as it might seem with half a century of historical
>perspective to help....

    I'm sorry but I don't get the correlation at all.  Let me try again
    this way... in human affairs, the Whole seeks long term benefits to
    it's consciousness as reflected in human nature... thereby it would
    extend beyond the immediate needs of a particular country and look
    towards the effect that the specific country would have on the Whole
    Itself long term.  

    Re .85

    >Talk is cheap... actions speak louder than words... 'by their works,
    >shall thee know them'
    
    My sentiments exactly Mary. Now if you could just reach out and force
    the minds of the guards and make them destroy the nuclear weapons we
    would know you by your works.

    Jamie.

    
    What is a safe way to "destroy" nuclear weapons?
    How could they do that without harming themselves?
    
    And just for the record... I don't care if you "know me", as a matter
    of fact... I really prefer that you didn't.

    Find a safe way to do it, Jamie.

    Mary,
    
    It was *you*, not Jamie, who made claims about this possibility.
    Therefore, it is you who has the responsibility to follow through.
    
    						Ann B.

    It isn't a question of follow through, Ann.  It's a matter of knowing
    how to do it safely.  I'm not a scientist.. I have no training in
    military types of weapons nor nuclear kinds of things.  I can't even
    multiply.  I don't know *how* to go about doing it.. I don't know the 
    "way".  We have to find the 'way' together ... pool our collective 
    knowledge and experience... and then I'll try to do my thing.  
    I'm asking him to tell him how it *could* be done ... then I'll try to 
    do it.

    But Mary as you will not be the person physically doing it is it
    necessary for you to know. You simply tell the guard to remove the
    detonator as he will have the technical knowledge to complete the task. 

    Or are you now sitting out on a limb, having made a claim that you are
    incapable of fulfilling?

    Jamie.

On "destroying" nuclear weapons:

1) Detonate them.  This is "unsafe"; however, for tactical weapons, it is
   "less unsafe" to detonate them in a desert than over a populated area.

2) Expose them to a thermal neutron flux.  This will cause sufficient fission
   to prevent them reaching critical if someone attempts to detonate them.
   it is not safe to the circumambient environment, but will prevent them
   from being used.

3) Vaporize them.

   a) With laser power.  Requires a huge laser and that they be nonreflective.
   b) With plasma.  Requires development and deployment of a large plasma
      generator.

   Either way, the weapons are easier brought to the vaporizer than vice versa.

   Degree of "safety" depends upon dispersal of vaporized fissionable material.

4) Disassemble them.  With proper precaution, this is "safe"; however, unless
   the parts are disposed of, they could be reassembled.

5) Deactivate/eremove detonators.  This is "safe" as long as nobody replaces
   the detonators.

6) Remove the means of transport (missile, artillery shell, etc).  They still
   can go off, but nobody would want to except a suicidal type.

All of the above would "solve the problem," but none is much of a solution.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

> 4) Disassemble them.  With proper precaution, this is "safe"; however, unless
    
    I have a 'Phillips' out in the car ...
    
    							todd

Note 1511.91         
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    But Mary as you will not be the person physically doing it is it
>    necessary for you to know. You simply tell the guard to remove the
>    detonator as he will have the technical knowledge to complete the task. 

    Well, it's necessary for me to know that the guard has the technical
    knowledge to complete the task anyway... do they really?   I thought
    that perhaps country's would prefer that the people guarding their
    nuclear weapons did not have the technical knowledge to remove
    detonators.  Are you sure that they do, Jamie?  If you are wrong and
    they try anyway... could they trigger them?
    
>    Or are you now sitting out on a limb, having made a claim that you are
>    incapable of fulfilling?

    It's entirely possible.  
    
    Chances are that we will never know whether I fulfill this particular 
    claim or not, as any results would probably be classified anyway by 
    the various countries involved and word would never reach the press.  
    What difference does it make anyway?  Who cares?  Just go on the
    assumption that I'm a reject from the local institution and don't take
    me seriously.  You'll be in good company, a lot of people think that.
    
    Failure doesn't bother me ... not trying bothers me...
    especially if there is a chance of success.... and especially if the
    work is important enough.
    
    So tell me the truth, Jamie.... do you know for sure that those guards
    can safely remove those detonators?  If you do, then I'll at least try.
    ... I can't guarantee I'll succeed, I don't know if I can do it because
    I've never tried it before... but I'll give it a shot if it's really
    safe.
    
    Mary

    What a beautiful and elegant cop out Mary. I was interested in how you
    would deal with not being able to do something that you claimed was so
    easy. I particularly liked the "classified" bit, all good stuff. But I
    fear that you have now convinced us that you do not have any special
    abilities at all.

    BTW I should think that the guards are well versed in disabling nuclear
    weapons as the last thing that a government wants is nuclear weapons
    falling into the hands of the enemy or terrorists.

    Jamie.
        

	Assuming, Mary, that you could somehow influence guards to disable
	nuclear weapons, how many installations could you do this at?  How
	many more weapons would there be around the world?  How many more
	*waiting* to be built by groups or countries that haven't any yet?

	Wouldn't it be more productive to influence the minds of those who
	could choose to use those weapons?  And, if it were possible to do
	*that*, let's all pray to whatever power that those who do the
	influencing are not the warmongers.

	Delia
	

Note 1511.97         
AZUR::HALDANE 
    
>	Assuming, Mary, that you could somehow influence guards to disable
>	nuclear weapons, how many installations could you do this at?  
    
        I don't know.  I've never tried it before.
    
    >How many more weapons would there be around the world?  
    
    I don't know... thats one of the reasons I've never tried it before.
    
    >How many more *waiting* to be built by groups or countries that haven't 
    >any yet?

    I don't know that either.... another good reason not to try it.  No one
    wants Saddam Heussein to be the only nuclear power.
    
>	Wouldn't it be more productive to influence the minds of those who
>	could choose to use those weapons?  
    
    Possibly...  if one knew all of the players... it would be the little
    third world players that one would worry most about.
    
    >   And, if it were possible to do
    >	*that*, let's all pray to whatever power that those who do the
    >	influencing are not the warmongers.

	 Well, Delia... in my own opinion, warmongers have physical
    influence ... political influence... the financial influence of the
    weapons peddlers... the power of physical force... 
    I believe that what we have offsets that in order to maintain balance
    and equilibrium within reality.  
    
    Although there are some wild talents that are and what they do reflects
    their source of course... one can see it everywhere in history and in
    world affairs.	

    Excuses, excuses, excuses.

    Mary you are all hot air.

    Jamie.

    Mary,
    
    I must confess I'm having some difficulty coming to terms with this.
    You seem to be saying that you have a special gift which enables you to
    remotely control peoples' actions. To be precise, that you have the
    ability to actually make a guard "defuse" a nuclear weapon, if a safe
    way exists.
    
    To be frank, I am extremely sceptical about this, but I'm more than
    happy to give you the opportunity to disprove my belief. I propose that
    you send me a mail containing a key-word, a time (Central European
    office hours), and nothing else. You then direct Jamie to mail me said
    key-word at the stated time.
    
    I promise faithfully that I will be 100% honest about the results.
    
    Can you do that?
    
    Laurie.

    I'd rather blow up his car.

  
  <-- Whatever happened to the "objective demonstration" ? :-)
  

    One seeks out pleasure whereever one can find it in this sterile 
    age, Frank. :-)  There is so little fun available these days, ...
    and boredom abounds... why contribute to it?

    You're probably right, Cliff.  ... many people that I respect have said
    the same to me within the last few days...  there are many other 
    interesting aspects of reality to explore.

    RE: -1
    
    So you won't do it then?
    
    Laurie.

Re .104 (Mary):

    >One seeks out pleasure whereever one can find it in this sterile 
    >age, Frank. :-)  There is so little fun available these days, ...
    >and boredom abounds... why contribute to it?

What makes this age so sterile?  I, for one, find it vibrant and alive.  And
gathering knowledge is something I, for one, find to be a lot of fun.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .106 (Laurie):

    >So you won't do it then?

Do what?  :-P

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Some silly thing with numbers... 
    
    No, I won't do it.  
    
    There are other, more important experiments to focus upon.. more
    constructive.. more creative... 
    
    Besides... the Grateful Dead are in town... what could be more
    interesting than that?

    re: .109 (mary)
    
         What could be more interesting than the Grateful Dead?
    
    Well, I could think of a lot of things, but then I'm not married...
    ;-)   8-)
    
    
    Frederick
    

    :-)

    Sorry Laurie, Mary will not demonstrate her fantastic claims. Because if
    she did so then she would find that she could not do as she claims.
    This would result in her having to face the fact that she lives largely
    in her fantasy world. In turn, this would be very traumatic for her.

    So Laurie you can ask her to prove it till you are blue in the face,
    she will never even attempt to do it. You will get a excuses and if
    these fail she will try to laugh it off. As a last resort she will
    come up with the "I can prove it to myself and you don't matter" line.

    Mary is all talk, you know it, I know it.

    Jamie.

RE:     <<< Note 1511.112 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "I despise the use of TLAs!" >>>

�    Mary is all talk, you know it, I know it.

    Reluctantly Jamie, I have no option but to believe you. Her claims, by
    almost any criteria, are outrageous, but it seemed obvious at the time
    that she believed them wholly, deeply, and truly. Therefore, if that's
    the case, I've been left with no option but to conclude that they are a
    delusion, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree with that.
    A delusion, for those who are unsure, is not the same as a mistaken
    belief. It is a belief taken contrary to all evidence, to suit the
    wishes of, and for the benefit of, the deluded person.
    
    However, along with people in other conferences, who have "mocked" this
    conference, in future I shall have to regard her notes in the light of
    their entertainment value only; since there cannot be a grain of truth
    in any of them. It is the presentation of such claims as real, that has
    cast both those of an open mind (often wrongly), and this conference,
    in the mould of "crackpot". The former throughout the centuries; the
    latter had a chance to avoid that, by refusing to fall into the trap of
    blind acceptance.
    
    How sad.
    
    Incidentally, this is by no means a personal attack. She has proved,
    in the light of my new realisation that she is making these things up,
    to be an entertaining and inventive writer. She should be openly
    encouraged, but I feel she should come clean and admit it was fiction.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie (.113),
    
  <<However, along with people in other conferences, who have "mocked" this
    conference, in future I shall have to regard her notes in the light of
    
    
  <<cast both those of an open mind (often wrongly), and this conference,
    in the mould of "crackpot". The former throughout the centuries; the
    latter had a chance to avoid that, by refusing to fall into the trap of
    blind acceptance.
    
    What a brave soul you are Laurie, venturing in here.  Aren't you
    afraid of being 'mocked' or worse thought of as a 'crackpot'.  Or
    perhaps you're on a mission to *save* us all from our delusions.
    
    Since you and Jamie share the same views, I suggest starting a conference
    of your own where you could sit in judgement on all the other
    notefiles.  Deciding who is sane, who is not...
    
    Ro 
    

    On the other hand, the *is* an open conference, and 1.0 invites
    comments from skeptics as well as believers.  If the skeptics have not
    been very mellow in their phrasing lately, neither have the believers. 
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I am beginning to wonder why Ro wants to silence any voice that holds
    an opinion that dissents. Censorship is a good way to hide the truth.
    
    Jamie.

Re .113 (Laurie):

    >However, along with people in other conferences, who have "mocked" this
    >conference,....

I guess I don't see those conferences.

There are a lot of serious students and investigators in this conference, but 
because of the controversial nature of many things discussed here, some may be
less than open-minded about it.

I can postulate three reasons for making fun of another's activities:

1) A feeling that it's all hogwash (and the derivitive feelings either of
   superiority or of a missionary zeal to educate the participants to a
   specific viewpoint).  [Those with a desire to educate would not make fun
   of what they perceive to bee misguided efforts; only those of an elitist
   bent would seem likely to, IMHO.]

2)  A feeling of unease or fear.  (Whistling in the dark is a sign of bravado;
    someone who's unsure about such things as past lives, lycanthropy, spirit
    possession, etc., might make fun of the activities because they don't
    want to accept the possibility that some or all of it might be real.)

3)  Lack of self esteem (the operating principle: "If I can make others look
    small, I'll look big.").

Re .114 (Ro):

    >Since you and Jamie share the same views, I suggest starting a conference
    >of your own where you could sit in judgement on all the other
    >notefiles.  Deciding who is sane, who is not...

I, for one, welcome a diversity of viewpoints.

Perspective: occcasionally, a newcomer will come in with an agenda (I'm 
not singling Laurie or anyone else out with this statement, BTW).  The
interchange can be educational for all parties, which tends to be good.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    How astute of you, Steve ... to pick up on the obvious fact that Laurie
    and Jamie are pursueing "an agenda".
    
    Hardly bored techies passing a little time in a notesfile, are they?

Re .118 (Mary):

    >How astute of you, Steve ... to pick up on the obvious fact that Laurie
    >and Jamie are pursueing "an agenda".

In .117, I noted:

>Perspective: occcasionally, a newcomer will come in with an agenda (I'm 
>not singling Laurie or anyone else out with this statement, BTW). 

I reespectfully request that noone read more into what I say than I put in 
there.

Everybody has a perspective; I did not and do not accure either Laurie or Jamie
of having an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Steve, Earl, Jamie, et al,
    
    Diversity is one thing, name calling is another.  People can have
    different points of view without attacking individuals.  I've learned a
    lot from the different points of view in this file.  Have long enjoyed
    views that differ from mine (for example Topher's, Earl's, and
    Steve's).  These views have helped me expand my consciousness. 
    However, none of you have called others names or tried to invalidate
    others perspectives.  But Laurie and Jamie go beyond expressing views,
    they make claims for others and harshly judge people (such as Mary and
    Frederick).  They use derogatory terms that I don't believe are
    necessary in a place where we are trying to honor differences.
    
    I'm sorry if I got defensive and sounded like I didn't want to hear
    various views.  I do, but can people try to cool it with the name
    calling!!!
    
    Peace...
    
    Ro
    
    

    Mary,
    
    I do not have an "agenda", whatever that may be in this context; nor am
    I a bored techie.
    
    Neither do I seek to advise or educate; I merely present views from a
    different perspective. There are aspects of this conference that I have
    read, and with which I have no qualms or unease. There are aspects of
    this conference in which I have no experience, but I can see that there
    is a possiblity that such things might happen. In such cases, in the
    absence of any hard evidence either way, I neither believe nor
    disbelieve; I'm merely curious and/or vaguely interested.
    
    I have responded negatively to both your claims and those of Fred
    because I believe them to be untrue, unsustainable, and imaginary.
    
    I "argue" my side of the issue, fluently and articulately, with no
    rancour, bitterness or aggression. If any is perceived, I assure you,
    it's in the eye of the beholder. Those of you who disagree with my
    statements, or logic are free to speak out, and if either you or Freddy
    care to demonstrate these powers you claim to have to me, I will
    approach the matter with an open mind.
    
    You can do as I asked, and cause Jamie to send me a key-word on a
    certain time, and Fred can predict the unexpected but happy outcome of
    a major event he intends to manipulate or influence. If he can do it
    twice on the trot, ie. more than once, with no misses in between, then
    I'll believe his gift.
    
    I do not, however, acceopt, that the utterance of a statement, followed
    by "I don't see why I should prove it because I know it to be true"
    makes it true. In fact, I believe it makes that statement and belief a
    delusion. Refusal to even attempt to prove said statement on such
    grounds merely adds weight to the fact that it is simply that; a
    delusion.
    
    There, the gauntlet has been cast down. Are either of you going to pick
    it up? Or will you, as Jamie predicted, going to shelter behind a wall
    of humbug, waffle and long words? The higher you pile them, the more
    damage you do your cause, and the more deep-seated your delusions
    appear.
    
    Laurie.

    I believe I have devined (you'll pardon the expression) Jamie's little
    secret joke.  He has been pretending to be a skeptic, but has left us
    plenty of indications that he is anything but.  Here is my evidence:

    1) He repeatedly asserts a certain and unqualified knowledge of the
    beliefs, feelings, motives, intent, etc. of others.  He takes a tiny
    bit of evidence -- open, due to the complexities of human thought
    processes, to multitudinous, diverse interpretations -- and unerringly
    picks out a single explanation.  By an odd coincidence this always
    seems to be the interpretation which gives him the greatest leaway to
    act superior.  CONCLUSION: Jamie is (or at least believes himself to
    be) a telepathesist of almost unheard of ability.

    2) Although acknowledging the essential tentativness of scientific
    knowledge, Jamie asserts all his beliefs -- scientific and otherwise --
    in absolute, uncompromising terms.  CONCLUSIONS: Jamie does not feel
    that his beliefs are subject to the limitations of the scientific
    processes.  His "knowledge" is derived from revelation or "direct
    perception" rather than from logical deductive/inductive processes.

    3) Jamie frequently uses such arguments as ad homina, ignoratio
    elenchi, non causa pro causa, etc.  Of course, real skeptics have too
    much respect for evidence to use such devices -- they feel that such
    devices are cheap, invalid non-arguments, and do nothing to advance any
    point but only reflect poorly on the person who argues them and the
    case he or she is trying to present.  Related to this is the apparent
    disrespect -- even contempt -- for the beliefs, opinions, thoughts,
    etc. of those he is discussing with.  CONCLUSION: Jamie's arguments
    seem desigend to vanquish those who believe other than he does rather
    than to further understanding of each other, to learn or to teach.  His
    actions are at variance with those of a skeptic -- he is therefore not
    a skeptic.

    CONCLUSION: Jamie is clearly playing a joke on us -- he pretends to be
    a skeptic, perhaps to lampoon that philosophy which is apparently so
    foreign to him.  In fact he is, I would guess, a dogmatic (in the
    literal, non- derogatory sense of the term) mystic.

					Topher

	re: .122 Topher
	
>                           -< His secret revealed. >-

	All  that    said,   and  not  one  smiley  face!    nor  even  a
	tongue-in-cheek. How do you keep a straight face Topher?  ;')
	
	Not to worry tho, I smiled plenty while reading it  :-)
	:-)
	Thanks.
	:-)
	Jay

RE: The last quite a few.

Hi,

	With all this talk of experimentation, we seem to have forgotten that
	Mary *did* offer to manifest a corn-circle design which was pre-chosen.

	That experiment offer fizzled away due to the resolution of exactly
	what was to be produced and in what detail, and also in part due to
	lack of "acceptable to all" experiment ideas (no offense). Mary's
	confident she can do this, all experiments must start with the vague,
	the broad, the general, before we concentrate on specific detail - 
	so why not accept her offer to produce a pre-defined corn-picture?
	
	BTW - please, no derogatory replies in either direction as to why
	this did not come about, let's just give Mary a fair chance to do
	this.

	Views? Mary, Laurie, Ro, Steve, Frederick etc ...

								- JIM CAD*

Note 1511.121        
PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    There, the gauntlet has been cast down. Are either of you going to pick
>    it up? Or will you, as Jamie predicted, going to shelter behind a wall
>    of humbug, waffle and long words? The higher you pile them, the more
>    damage you do your cause, and the more deep-seated your delusions
>    appear.
    
     I don't have a "cause", Laurie.... consider me deluded.
    
    re .124 (Jim)
    
    All this has taken a decidedly nasty turn... lets just forget it ok?
    I'm starting a new project today and it looks as if it will be very 
    demanding upon my time so I'm probably not going to be able to note
    much for awhile anyway.  Maybe someone else would be interested in
    participating.  

Re .124 (Jim ):

Sounds fine to me.

How about my smiley/frowney face prpopsal?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE: .120
    
    Mega Ditto!!!
    
    Jim C.
    

    Just in time.  This topic caused the needle in my Silliness Meter to
    become bent, and the unit's gone to the shop for repair.
    
    karl
    
    p.s. I'd like to prove my Ascended Masterhood to you all, but I don't
    really care and goodness, look at the time !

    Topher, you were exactly correct on one minor point, however on all
    the rest you were exactly 180� out. I am a skeptic and I have no
    telepathic or other paranormal powers.

    Doubtlessly if you reread your note you will dig out the single grain
    of truth from all the chaff that accompanies it.

    Mary, how convenient, a project comes up just in time to save you from
    exposure. Tell us did you make it come up by mental effort alone?
                                                                     
    Jamie.

Jamie,

now that I have read the base note and all its replies.....:


I think it's all just a coincidence.


:-):-)

Arie

RE: .129 (Jamie)

    Could'a fooled me!  How come you don't act like it?

    I got it!  The "one minor point" I got right is that you are joking!
    Underneath it all you are a skeptic and you are only *acting* like
    those dogmatic, ad-hominim-slinging anti-skeptics who believe that they
    don't actually have to think or act in any particular fashion as long
    as they unwaveringly support the status quo, heap scorn on unorthodox
    ideas, and call themselves skeptics.  Sorry, I missed the humor -- it
    was too sublte for me -- your portrayal was just too acurate.

				    Topher

    Shucks.

    Are you walking yet, Jamie? :-)

    I have been since I was a toddler, Mary.

    Jamie.

    
    Life is a modern society is so chaotic, don't you think? :-) 
    
    ... so many random events just tumble together in a meaningless dance... 
    
    one never knows what may happen next....

    >Life is a modern society is so chaotic,

    It always has been and I suspect that it always will be.

    Jamie.

    Probably more so for some of us than for others. :-)

    Yes Mary the poor are always with us.
    
    Jamie.

    The "poor" are always with us?  What a strange statement that is,
    Jamie.  It suggests (to me) such strange things about the way you think.
    Do you think that money makes you immune to the workings of chaos?

    Of course, there are always the poor in spirit...
    
    /bruce

    indeed!

    re: .140 (Bruce)
    
        Touche'!!
    
    Frederick
    

    Re the last few.

    Yes you are a tad too materialistic Mary.

    Jamie.

    I don't think any of us should be too quick to judge
    the spiritual development of another...
    
    /bruce

    
    		Can we get back to the main topic....coincedences!
    
    		Dr.

    
    Here's one for your guys.....
    
    About two weeks ago, September 20 to be exact, my husband had a very
    strange feeling that someone was going to have a glass hit their head.
    He also felt this to be on some way connected to Danny. I should
    mention that Danny is our two-year old son. The feeling was so strong
    that he wrote the words "glass on head" on a piece of paper and dated
    it. Because he felt this was going to hurt our son he did not tell me
    at the time, so I would not be upset.
    
    For those of you who might not know, in English (I can't speak for
    Scotland or Ireland) working class towns/cities including Liverpool
    where my husband is from, it is a  common occurrence for Friday or
    Saturday nights in clubs or pubs with a fight in which someone or
    several people get hit in the face with glasses. 
    
    Last weekend, my husband and I went to the British pub we usually frequent
    here is LA, which caters mostly to british and found out that someone 
    had been glassed in the head the night before. The man who did the
    "glassing" had left the country that morning, since he was being looked
    for by the police for attempted murder (or so we heard). To my
    knowledge this has never happened in this place before, since they have
    a very efficient and big security staff. This is a restaurant as well
    as a pub. We did not know who the people involved were until the end of
    the night, when someone told us the attacker was a lad from Birmingham
    named "Danny".
    
    My husband was spooked to say the least and he could hardly wait to get
    home so he could show me the piece of paper on which he had written
    glass on head.
    
    I'm convinced.......... 

    re: .147
    	Don't tell the Bobbies about it, they'll have hubby up
    on charges of conspiracy to commit assault ... !  "How did you
    know, unless you were in on it, etc..."
    
    	Saw it once on a murder mystery ... :-)
    						todd

    
    
    Re. .148  (Todd)
    
    Funny you should say that! Actually, he goes to the pub some Saturdays,
    but this particular one his friends weren't going so he decided to stay
    home instead. Boy, am I glad he did!
    
    
    Marilyn

    
    Re .101,
    
->  I'd rather blow up his car.


  Good Gosh ! No !! This might lead to a Cosmic problem. To see this,
  visualize the following scenario -

     X decides to blow up Jamie's car. ( It is assumed that X knows
     that Jamie has a car, that it is legally his, that it is a single 
     owner car etc,. to simplify the situation.)

     Now, Jamie (we all know him), comes to know of this telepathically,
     and donates the car to a nun immediately after X has applied the
     required magic to blow the car. (The car is kept parked in the nun's
     garage most days, as a precautionary measure by Jamie.)

     X's magic works and the car gets blown to bits, and so does the 
     nun and part of her house.

     The Law of Karma gets into action. It is obviously much worse to 
     blow up a nun, a servant of God than blow up Jamie or his car. But
     the tricky part is really this - Jamie is only a tremendously 
     clever AI program as somebody said earlier. He does not have a soul,
     unlike skeptics(who have it even if they deny it), mystics(who have
     it even if others deny it),and other people (who don't know if they
     have it either because or in spite of others having or not having it).

     So who is going to bear this Karmic adjustment ? Obviously not X
     because everybody knows X did not 'intend' to blow up the nun. And
     Jamie is impossible, because he doesn't have a soul, and in any case
     is incapable of suffering anything. This throws a spanner into the
     whole cosmic works, and its ripples are entirely inconceivable.

     There are obviously variations possible to this scenario, but all
     of them can potentially lead to the same problem.

     Jana

    

    I fear that the consequences of blowing up my car would have
    detrimental effects to our company. As I tend to get into work early in
    the morning I can get a place it the covered carpark. Thus my car is
    parked under the main computer room of the Utrecht office.

    The computers in there run the rebilling program which converts all
    other currencies into dollars, which are used for all transactions
    internally within DEC. The loss of this could cause big problems which
    would extend well beyond the borders of the Netherlands.

    Jamie.

    
    Well, ... Jamie and I conducted this experiment in private and he has
    not notified me of any effect as per our agreement, so apparently it 
    didn't work.
    
    Consequently I'll stop wasting my time and will no longer be experimenting 
    with psychic stuff on the net.
    
    Mary

Re .152 (Mary):

   
    >Consequently I stop wasting my time and will no longer be experimenting 
    >with psychic stuff on the net.
 
... but there's your problem: Jamie's car probably isn't _on_ the net. ;-)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Jamie is in the US at the moment, and won't be back online for a few
    more weeks.
    
    I had the pleasure of meeting him too, at another Notes conference
    gathering in his honor.  He didn't know I was going to be there...
    I decided to surprise him.  (;^)  We all spent last Saturday aft. in
    Concord, roaming around the North Bridge area.  Nice day.   
    
    Cindy

    re:-1
    
    Ahh Cindy,
    
    So you had a history lesson too... ;^) Fancy, a Brit (not Jamie)
    educating the Americans on their own history....
    
    Mary,
    
    What was the nature of this experiment?
    
    Laurie.

    Gee, Cindy.  I thought you said the lunch meeting was only going to
    last abuot a half hour, so I shouldn't bother to come...
    
    Mary :-)

    Re.155
    
    Laurie,
    
    >So you had a history lesson too... ;^)
    
    Well, OK, if you say so.  However from my perspective, the only new
    things I learned that day were to dress far more warmly than I did, and
    how to get to the North Bridge from Concord Center, since I'd never
    approached it from that direction.
    
    Mary M. - it was quite an impromptu choice to head over to the Bridge. 
    We were standing outside of the restaurant, and somebody said, "Hey,
    why don't we head over to the North Bridge!"  So we did.  
    
    Cindy

PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    What was the nature of this experiment?
    
    What difference does it make?  I failed.  I am unable to do the things
    I formerly thought I might be able to do... and I will make no further 
    attempts at trying.. thats what matters.

    Mary,
    
        Do I sense a certain negativity here?  Belief systems take a long
    time to build and decide on....wouldn't wanna "throw the baby out with
    the bath water", would ya?
    
                                                           Capt. Scott

RAVEN1::PINION 
    
    Gee Captain,
    
    Who'se trying to build and decide on a belief system?  
    
    It's more like finding a path through quick sand.... you probe for 
    solid ground and if you find it, you take a step in that direction.
    
    It's all murky here, Captain... I'm turning around and heading in
    another direction... looking for solid ground.
    
    Mary    

re: 1511.158 
VERGA::STANLEY 
    
>    What difference does it make?  I failed.  I am unable to do the things
>    I formerly thought I might be able to do... 

	Maybe some unfriendly entity cast a binding spell on
	you and damped out your powers.  A nice cup of hen-bane
	tea might set you right.   ;-}

	-Art

    Mary S.
    
    There could be any number of factors for the cause of failure, not just
    that "you" failed.  Remember, Jamie's desire for failure may have been
    stronger for you desire for success.  Or, other things could have
    affected it.  I know that earlier, I think it was you, that stated the
    reality you would perceive would be purely what you desired/willed it
    to be.  Others, myself included, feel that the reality we perceive is
    the result of the interactions of the realities we all desire/will to
    be.  Examine all the steps you took, plus ANY feedback (not just
    Jamie's) to see if there are any indicators for a point of failure.  It
    may have been you, but it may have been a combination of things as
    well.
    
    Aside from my empathy, I have met failure (or lack of feedback, which
    may appear as failure) more often than not.  But, I haven't given up
    the belief, because I also believe that with practice, practice,
    practice (and still more practice), it will get easier and easier.  Who
    know, maybe some day I will do something that is tangible to the 5
    senses, but until then, I'll keep praying and dreaming and trying.

    why do you try?

    >why do you try?
    
    Uh, because it's there???  That's tough to explain.  Enough things HAVE
    happened, with feedback to confirm the existence of psi and other
    psychic things, that I feel that there must be a reason for having the
    abilities.  So, although I don't have the time to devote to the
    practice like I want, I want to keep trying until I can control my
    abilities.  It took a long time to recognize, then control, empathy. 
    Even now, if someone has an extremely strong emotion (positive or
    negative) I am somewhat overwhelmed (kind of like getting hit with a
    loud sound) when in their presence.  So, now that I finally have some
    control on that part, I've moved on to the next ("seeing").  And, as
    each becomes better controlled, I test out the next, and improve it.
    
    Remember, even learning about the "normal" senses and skills takes
    time.  Watching my son (4.5 months old) brings this home.  He still
    doesn't quite have depth perception down (he keeps trying to pick up
    the pictures printed on his bed sheets), but he can finally grasp
    something AND get it into his mouth without hitting his eye or nose
    first.  BUT, although it reaches his mouth, it isn't centered, maybe
    it's more on the upper or lower lip than actually in.  And all he does
    is learn more and more about his body.  This goes on for YEARS.  So,
    given the multitude of things we learn in our lives, and remembering
    that psi is NOT one of the things that is pointed out to us or helped
    with (usually) or required to survive, we don't start trying to learn
    until later in life.
    
    I am in a unique position where maybe I can change this.  I WANT to
    teach my son about the psychic realm, and help him "see" it, if he is
    able.  Maybe he will be one to convince all the skeptics one day (if I
    haven't beaten him to it ;-).  But as long as society (the consensus) 
    frowns upon psychic knowledge (considering people like me to be deluded 
    or insane), then humanity as a whole will never have much opportunety 
    to really find out the truth (even if it does turn out that we really are
    deluded).  I don't like having to omit odd topics from my discussions
    just because I don't want to be labeled, ostracized, or hounded.
    
    And, Mary, remember, even with "real" science, experiments don't always
    succeed the first time around (in fact, they usually fail).  Just
    revise the test a bit (not necessarily the end result, but how to
    achieve it), and try again.  This is what "real" science does;
    experimentation provides information even if the results aren't what
    you expected.  This information helps you to prepare better tests and
    hypotheses, so that, eventually, you find the "truth".  So, until my
    attempts provide me with evidence that it is completely bogus, then I
    will continue to try.  So far, evidence points to the contrary.  But
    this evidence is not presentable to others yet.  When it is, then I
    will change from saying it is a belief or opinion to saying it is fact
    (there by covering my a**, if ya know what I mean ;-).
    
    Beth

    
VERGA::STANLEY
    
>    It's all murky here, Captain... I'm turning around and heading in
>    another direction... looking for solid ground.
    
     Mary,
    
         I wouldn't presume to try and persuade you on your path.  I hope
    by "turning around and heading another direction" doesn't mean you'll
    be leaving us (Deja-vu), but if it does, I'll miss you.  Good Luck 
    in any and everything. :-)
    
                                                             Peace,
    
                                                             Capt. Scott
                                                                      

RE: -1

	I concur, don't give up (mind you, that's not like you is it?),
	hang on in there and find the right way for yourself...

	Best regards...

								- JIM CAD*

    I'm concerned that knowledge gained through our experimentation could
    be misused.  I've felt uneasy about it for awhile now.  I see evidence
    of magickial working in the world and they appear to be part of a
    larger agenda.....the killings in Killeen, Texas for example.  Notes is
    a very public forum and we don't really know who watches or why or what
    they do with the data they have acquired.
    
    I'm very uneasy about it.

    Mary, 
    
    Are you referring to the recent gundown in the Texas restaraunt?  What
    about these killings make you think they were magickal?
    
    the other Mary :-)

    I think he was "influenced".... the signs are all there.

    What signs, Mary?
    
    Mary

    I think he was a "nut-case".... the signs are all there.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Re.171
    
    Laurie,
    
    "nut-case" - is that a psychological term?  I've never come across it
    in my readings.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    "nut-case" is colloquial English word for a lunatic. In this particular
    case, a psycho. The statement was intended to convey my belief that the
    man was mentally unstable to say the least, and the killings had
    nothing to do with any magic, only mental ill-health of a terrible and
    tragic nature.
    
    Laurie.

    We are all entitled to our opinions of course, Laurie.
    
    But magickians frequently use unstable people to carry out
    specific tasks.
    
    I won't identify 'signs' because I don't know who reads these files and
    don't want to assist the wrong people in correcting their mistakes.
    
    mary

    Yeah Laurie, who could possibly believe that a guy who has
    been strange and hostile for about twenty years, and who
    drives his truck into a crowded restaurant, and proceeds
    to murder 23 people and wound about as many - who could
    believe that this guy was a lunatic?
    
    Not a credible story.
    
    Joel
    

    Magickians are not the only group to commonly use unstable people to
    perform specific functions, Joel.... the intelligence community does too.

    
    Re -1
    >				.... the intelligence community does too.
    
    
    	Could you expand on that please?
    
    		Ian G

    re: .177,
    	I don't know what Mary was referring to, but there are some
    	interesting descriptions and discussions of psychological
    	experimentation by the CIA, et. al. in John Marks'
    	The_Search_For_The_Manchurian_Candidate, which documents
    	various projects where the limits of behavior control
    	were tested.  As the literary allusion in the title of the book 
    	implies, such experimentation is not likely to be 'for
    	entertainment purposes only.'  I would think it would be intended
    	for practical application to who_knows_what. However, Mr. Marks also 
    	concludes that the methods discovered by the experimentation he was
    	familiar with were overall highly unreliable, although they
    	did achieve an occasional spectacular success.
    
    							todd	

    Thats more or less what I ment too, Todd.
    Thank you.

    Thanks, Todd.
    
    I guess what I was wondering is what about the Texas case makes Mary
    think that it is not just another psychotic person.  But then, I can
    understand her reluctance to discuss it. 
    
    Mary2 

    Why is there this reluctance to discuss the previous statement???
    Why dangle the carrott if you are not willing to expand on what you 
    mean???
    	No offence meant just very curious as to why only half a story/
    explanation.
    
    Kevin

re: 1511.176 
VERGA::STANLEY 

>    Magickians are not the only group to commonly use unstable people to
>    perform specific functions, Joel.... the intelligence community does too.

	Yeah but the intelligence communitiy usually hires them, promotes
	them, and then makes them President or something...

	-Art

    re -1
    :-) ... not always...  it depends upon which intelligence agency is
    doing it and whether they are foreign or not.
    
    re -2
    My reluctance is due to the possibility that the perpetrators may be reading
    this file right along with you.  
    

    Hows about sending me a mail to explain things further???
    
    Still Very Curious
    
    Kevin

    Hang on, trouble again....
    
    Let me get this straight:
    
    Some unspecified dark forces "made" that bloke I assumed was simply a
    nutcase, drive his truck into the front of a fast-food joint, get out a
    semi-automatic pistol and kill and injure a load of people. These same
    forces are also reading this conference.
    
    Yes?
    
    Laurie.

    re: .185, (Laurie),
    
>    Some unspecified dark forces "made" that bloke I assumed was simply a
>    nutcase, drive his truck into the front of a fast-food joint, get out a
    
    I looked at what I read here previously a little differently.
    
    I thought that somwone was saying that they believed that external 
    influences were evident in the manipulation of someone who was already 
    suffering from some mental illness.  Did someone also suggest that
    a healthy person was controlled to do this tragic deed ?
    That I would find requiring very different evidence.   
    
    I checked in some of my references on behavior control last night,
    and found that many of the methods of (mundane) influence
    are less effective with people who are already mentally ill
    (Sargent, Battle_for_the_Mind, 1978) because they are less sensitive 
    to their environment and to other people, making them less 
    suggestible in general. However, if the controller finds the right 
    'lever,' ...
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Laurie, through innuendo I gather I am one of those "forces."
    You yourself might be one of us, come to think of it.
    
    In the present case, it seems, in the aftermath of this
    horrid tragedy, that a few Americans seem to believe the
    event was tied into a particular piece of gun control
    legislation imminently to be voted upon.  Their idea,
    roughly, is that voting on "the last three" gun control
    bills have been proximately preceded by episodes of mass
    gun murder.  Their theory is that this "couldn't" be
    a coincidence.
    
    Thus - fill in the blank - CIA, FBI, Handgun Control Inc.,
    the Andalusians, whomever - somehow recruited this lunatic
    to their cause as a way of helping to derail the gun bill.
    
    The gun bill passed so perhaps we now have another theory
    at work here.
    
    BTW - if you want to join me in The Secret Dark Organization
    (SDO) let me know.  We have uniforms, and for an extra fee
    you can even get brass buttons.  You get to carry a card, though
    it is cleverly disguised to appear as an ordinary driver's
    license.  We in the know can tell the secret signs!  Meetings
    are monthly, and you don't have to do any calisthenics, though
    no one will stop you if you wish to indulge.
    
    Best of all is the decoder ring and handshake.  And the knowledge
    that, by reading DEC notes conferences, you are doing your part
    to help ensure the universe remains free from the influence
    of the Pleidians, who have come here to force us to drink
    white wine, even if we prefer red.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .187,
    	Sarcasm is the favorite weapon of the Dark Forces
    	of Pleides.  You are undoubtedly their unwitting pawn. 
    	It's well known that humans not under their influence have
    	no sense of humor.   ;-)
    
    						todd

    Of course, Todd, we have your name in our files...   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

>    Of course, Todd, we have your name in our files...   ;^)
    
    Did you mean on your roster, or your enemies list ?   
    
    					todd

    re: .191, Art,
    
TS>    ...many of the methods of (mundane) influence
TS>    are less effective with people who are already mentally ill
TS>    (Sargent, Battle_for_the_Mind, 1978) because they are less sensitive 
TS>    to their environment and to other people...
    
AB>	You mean, like people who make continuous appeals to disembodied 
AB>	aliens named QWERTYUIOP to draw smiley faces in the sand, even 
AB>	though no physical evidence of an effect is ever seen ?  Or do
AB>	you mean, maybe, people who concoct fantastic plots involving
AB>	monitoring of corporate networks by various intelligence agencies ?

    	Well, if QWERTYUIOP *does* exist somewhere, in some form, other
    	than on the keyboard, I'd say that
    	would make such a person *more* sensitive to their environment,
    	and not less so, as was the case in William Sargent's description
    	of mental illness in his hypothesis.   He was speaking about the 
    	nature of <suggestibility> as a part of 'normal' behavior, and that 
    	it typically indicates 	an 'abnormality' when it is not present to 
    	some degree.  That was the context for the kind of mental illness
    	he was describing.  I don't think he was intending to address
    	either apparent or real delusions.   He didn't even go as far as to 
    	try to either directly or indirectly relate suggestibility and 
    	intelligence, from what I recall.  He was simply describing the 
    	factors around mind control and conversion phenomena, and I think his 
    	work is a classic in the field of psychological conditioning (albeit
    	a dated classic).
    
    							kind regards,
    							todd

    Well, .... since all of you guys obviously know far more about mind 
    control and magick than I do, I'll defer to your obviously superior
    knowledge and judgement and won't mention the subject again.
    
    mary
    
    p.s. thanks, Joel

RE: .193 (mary)

    todd was speaking only of what is publically known about mundane (i.e.,
    non-psychic and non-magickal) mind control, Mary.  He was quite
    specific about that.

				    Topher

    re: (Todd - a few back)
    
    If you have to ask...
    
    re: .193 (Mary)
    
    Not sure what you're thanking me for... Particularly
    since, not only are you *on* our list, the list
    is called "The Mary Stanley File."  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    
    As well it should be... :-)
    
    I'm thanking you for giving me an excuse to stop talking about
    something that shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.
    ... my mistake...  
    
    And thanks again for the splash of cold water... :-)

re:     <<< Note 1511.195 by RIPPLE::GRANT_JO "crackling wrack and shells" >>>

>    is called "The Mary Stanley File."  ;^)

What did you call it before we got married?

		Dave

    We called it "The Dave Stanley File", of course!   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    At least I can say that I'm published now. :-)

    Actually, I kinda think of *this* as The Dave Stanley File.  (Dave if
    I've never thanked you for DEJAVU, I'm doing so now).

					Topher

	Actually, we called it the Mary Pare file!   ;')
	
	It could  just be coincidence but ... after dave and mary married,
	they had the same name.
	
	Ah, the Stanley file, for taking the ruff spots off psychic phenomena.
	At Stanley, we help you do things rite.
	I use your thermos all the time.
	
	Cheers,
	Jay

    But Jay, 
    
    Dave created DEJAVU long before he even knew me... it was destiny of
    course.  Maybe we could open a new line of Stanley Psychic Tools..
    .. where the screwdriver guesses what you want it to do. :-)

    Or, you think the holes and they drill themselves.  Although that might
    be from the zen psychic tool kit.
    
    Mary2 ;-)

    :-).. yea... good one, Mary.. 

RE .203 (Mary)

>    Or, you think the holes and they drill themselves. 

Nonono: *they* think the holes; you only imagine them.

:-)

Arie

    :-)

    Well as you see I'm back and running in catchup mode.

    For those of you who don't yet know what happened; Mary was set to cast
    a spell on my car which would cause someone to smash in the window
    (actually a common occurrence in Amsterdam) and then set the car on
    fire. (a fairly rare event)

    Before she started out I pointed out that on the following Friday I
    would be leaving for the USA for a period of 3 weeks. There was some
    joking between us as to whether I was taking the car with me.

    I then left for the USA on the Friday before the spell was to take
    
    Re  1511.162 

    >Remember, Jamie's desire for failure may have been stronger for you
    >desire for success.

    Actually I put only thought about it twice. Once when I met Cindy and
    discussed it with her, I was surprised to find that Mary had managed to
    forget that I was away for three weeks. The second time was during a
    discussion that I had with our hostess in Atlanta a week later. So I
    doubt that was my opposition had any effect. The fact that the act is
    impossible is a far more likely candidate than my mental opposition.

    Upon my return I was less than amazed to find my car intact and exactly
    as I left it. Earlier this week I mailed Mary with this news and once
    again found out that she had forgotten that I was off on holiday.

    Happen as well we didn't let her disarm all those Russian missiles,
    isn't it?

    Jamie.
                               

    I guess impossible things just can't happen, Jamie.  We might as 
    well just forget about it and go on to other things now.  Thats what 
    I'm going to do anyway.:-)  You've convinced me.
    
    mary

RE: .207 (Jamie)

>    Actually I put only thought about it twice. ... The second time was
>    during a discussion that I had with our hostess in Atlanta a week
>    later. So I doubt that was my opposition had any effect.

    Without discussing your conclusion one way or another, Jamie, whatever
    makes you think that you are justified in assuming that your
    *conscious* opposition is a relevant factor?

				    Topher

    Also, Jamie, you state that it is "in fact impossible," rather than
    possibly impossible.  You don't know (and, dare I say it, can't prove
    ;-) that it's impossible!
    
    Mary

    re: .209 (Topher)
    
          Actually, Topherism, I would say that he *could* prevent
    it.  He's creating his reality, too (whether he likes the idea or
    accepts it or not...;-)  .)  What would be the point of warding
    off energies, voodoo or otherwise, that you and others have 
    talked about, if that energy isn't refractable?  There is also
    the possibility of simultaneously opposed realities...one in 
    which Mary "wins" and Jamie also "wins," though each sees the
    other as the loser.  (After all, this is what I have come to
    see as the reality of Atlantis--Atlantis has sunk into the 
    ocean for all of us in my reality; however, in another reality,
    Atlantis is still thriving--me and the rest of my reality are
    what has "sunk into our own ocean of negativity" from their 
    perspective.)
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .211 (Frederick)

>          Actually, Topherism, I would say that he *could* prevent
>    it.

    Actually, Frederickets, that is what I said -- or at least I said that
    he couldn't logically assume that he couldn't, simply because he was
    not consciously thinking about it.

					Topher

    
    Sometimes Fred... we win by losing..  .. especially if the battle
    isn't worth fighting in the first place.
    
    Besides... what difference does it make?  ...it's just a game...
    who wants to be known as a Destroyer of Vehicles anyway.. it sounds
    lousy in an incantation. :-)

    re: .213 (Mary)
    
          "Destroyer of Vehicles"---isn't this:
    
    1.  Pacheco Highway--route 152
    
    2.  Sister Inez's kindergarten class
    
    3.  Union 76's new gasoline additive
    
    4.  another name for Evel Knevel
    
    5.  a Japanese blast furnace
    
    Frederick
    ;-)
    

    :-)

    Re .209

    >Without discussing your conclusion one way or another, Jamie, whatever
    >makes you think that you are justified in assuming that your
    >*conscious* opposition is a relevant factor?
    
    You misinterpret me Topher. Someone else suggested that a mental effort
    on my part could have stopped Mary. I merely pointed out that this
    could not be the case as I had only ever thought about the thing twice
    and both of these times were actually well after Mary was supposed to
    act.

    But the incident leaves intact Mary's 100% record of failing to prove
    her powers.

    Jamie.

    >But the incident leaves intact Jamie's 100% record of failing to
    >disprove her powers.

    Not exactly 100% I have had that one success, she proved that she could
    not do what she claimed. She said that she would torch my car and she
    didn't. I can only interpret that as failure.

    Let me see now. Every so often Mary makes some claim to be able to do
    something that is usually totally impossible for the ordinary person to
    do. Every time she is asked to do it she comes up with some excuse or
    other. Finally she decides to demonstrate her powers to me and fails
    completely.

    I cannot see that in anyway enhances her claims. I put it to you that
    Mary merely imagines that she can do these things. In actual fact she
    has no more powers that the average person.

    Jamie.

    re: .218
>    has no more powers that the average person.
    
    Might be hard to find an 'average' person in here.  :*)
    
    							todd

    I guess you must be right, Jamie.  
    
    And I'd hate to break my perfect record, so I will consider myself
    relieved of any further obligation to prove anything to anyone.
    
    Thanks Jamie... it's better this way... really... I think so anyway.
    
    mary

RE: .216 (Jamie)

>    >Without discussing your conclusion one way or another, Jamie, whatever
>    >makes you think that you are justified in assuming that your
>    >*conscious* opposition is a relevant factor?
>    
>    You misinterpret me Topher.

    I think not, Jamie.  Your explanation of what you really meant which I
    had, supposedly, misunderstood simply consisted of you repeating your
    logically unjustified assumption.  There is no reason that I know of
    (and certainly none that you have presented to us) to assume that the
    "mental effort" would have to be conscious on your part.  In fact their
    is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary -- that at best the role of
    any conscious effort on your part would be to reinforce a subconscious
    motivation to apply effort.  At worst, it might actively interfere with
    your ability to "get the job (protecting your car from Mary's malign
    :-) influence) done".

					Topher

RE: .218

>    Not exactly 100% I have had that one success, she proved that she could
>    not do what she claimed.

    No, Jamie, you had one more non-failure, which is not the same thing at
    all.  At best you have a miniscule amount of evidence for the
    proposition that Mary cannot do what she claims (say your record of
    failing to disprove her powers is at, at best, 99.9999999999%, and
    depending on what epistimology you subscribe to, simply 100% -- see
    discussions of the Paradox of the White Crow in any elementary
    philosophy of science book).

    If Mary had claimed that she could always accomplish her goals you
    would have an almost complete success (incomplete only in the question
    as to whether or not her stated goals were indeed her goals).  But she
    has never claimed infallibility.  That leaves you with showing that
    she sometimes does not accomplish that which was at one time her stated
    goal -- a thesis that I doubt that anyone, least of all Mary, would
    argue with.

    Its worth noting that Mary, once it became a "real" challenge to some
    extent, showed ambivalence towards this task, for several apparent
    reasons.  As a parapsychologist, I would never have designed this as a
    task.  No one except a sociopath could help but feel ambivalence about
    this task, and I do not believe that Mary, however annoying she can be
    when she wants to be, is a sociopath.

    If this were a game or a contest, than I would say that Mary had made a
    "bad move" when she set herself this task.  It was a "bad move" for
    everyone interested in learning (e.g., any scientific rationalist)
    rather than "being proven right" since for them its not a contest, and
    either everyone wins or everyone loses.

    Your prior beliefs have been neither rationally strenghthened nor
    weakened significantly by this incident.  Your contrary claims are
    not logically supported.

    What's the score?  Mary has 0 logical points -- she has made no claims
    to logical support -- she has been alogical.  Jamie has some negative
    number of logical points -- he has made invalid logical claims -- he
    has been illogical.  However true or false their respective prior
    beliefs are, Mary has been more logical than Jamie.

				    Topher

    It was a good move if you want to be left alone by the likes of Jamie
    though. :-) ... I personally consider it a win.

    I think I begin to see the system now. Anyone can come along and make
    any wild claim. They have no need to prove this wild claim in any way
    shape or form. It is then the job of the less talented to prove that
    these claims have no basis in reality.

    I am sorry Topher. Mary decided to prove her powers. Mary got to pick
    her form of this demonstration, its location and time of the
    demonstration. Mary failed totally. This can in no way be seen as a
    demonstration that Mary has any powers. I admit that this single
    incident on its own does not prove that Mary has no power but taken in
    conjunction with her past record that she has never managed to prove
    that she has powers, except to herself, I think that the most likely
    conclusion is that she has none.

    Of course you can slip off into endless theoretical argument that she
    "may' have some powers but there is no evidence whatsoever to say that
    she definitely has any. We only have her word for it.

    Jamie.

RE: .225 (Jamie)

>    I think I begin to see the system now. Anyone can come along and make
>    any wild claim. They have no need to prove this wild claim in any way
>    shape or form. It is then the job of the less talented to prove that
>    these claims have no basis in reality.

    Not quite, Jamie.  Anyone *can* come along and make any wild claim.
    People can believe them or not as they see fit.  Whether or not the
    claimant "needs" to prove their claims depends on their goals.  Some
    people, perhaps, will be predisposed to believe their claims without
    any evidence.  In this conference many people will be predisposed to
    believe that "thats the way (s)he wants to look at her relationship to
    the world, that's fine, it has no impact on me."  Many will be
    predisposed to disbelieve their claim (whether that claim is the
    ability to explode cars remotely or is the curvature of space-time). If
    the claimant feel a "need" to change the minds of those in the second
    or third categories, then they will "need" to produce some kind of
    evidence -- or at least some reason for believing their claims.

    It is not the "job" of the "less talented" to prove that these claims
    have no basis in reality, unless they choose to make it their job.  If
    they *do* choose to make it their jobs, and furthermore wish to have
    others accept their "proof" as logical/rational/scientific (as opposed
    to, e.g., scriptural or emotional) then there are certain rules of
    evidence that have to be followed.  And they have to also be aware that
    those rules are such that very frequently no valid evidence can be
    found.

    You can't just say that since the rules of logic do not allow you to
    prove the "rationally correct" results that an exception should be made
    and the rules suspended for a bit.  If Mary has failed in supporting
    her claim once then you are 1) Justified in concluding that sometimes
    Mary does not do what she says she can and will do, and 2) Justified in
    maintaining your prior belief that Mary cannot do things of this kind.
    You are simply not logically justified, however much you would like to
    be, in concluding that this proves or even gives substantial *support*
    to your prior belief.

>   This can in no way be seen as a demonstration that Mary has any
>   powers.

    No one has claimed that it should be.

>    I admit that this single incident on its own does not prove that Mary
>    has no power but taken in conjunction with her past record that she has
>    never managed to prove that she has powers, except to herself,

    "Lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of lack."  Pretty
    elementary stuff.  As you yourself summarized, this is the first time
    that anything approaching a test has actually come up.

>   I think that the most likely conclusion is that she has none.

    Of course you do.  That was, as you made very evident, your strong
    prior belief.  This incident is consistent with that belief and so
    should not rationally change your belief.  The rational conclusion is
    then the same as the antecedent.  But the incident is also every bit as
    consistent with beliefs contrary to yours.  Those with those prior
    beliefs are every bit as rationally justified in maintaining their
    beliefs.  You're declaring a "victory" because you weren't defeated --
    that's fine for politians, but not for people who are claiming to be
    logical and rational.

				    Topher

    You're right, Jamie... You've proved that for sure.. as far as I'm
    concerned anyway.  If I ever had any kind of psi talent.. it's gone
    now.
    
    Now I'm just like everyone else .... dare I say it? ... normal!
    
    Nah... too freaky to be normal but average anyway.
    
    
    Can we stop talking about this now?
    
    mary

    Well using your rules Topher we would still be unsure that it was not a
    geocentric universe or if the earth was flat.

    If someone makes a claim that cannot ever be proved, or an experiment
    that no one can duplicate, it is usually concluded that they are wrong.

    Now there is a possibility that they are right, but until they come up
    with some proof of their, claim then it is only a personal opinion and
    not a proven fact.

    Jamie.
                 

> Well using your rules Topher we would still be unsure that it was not a
> geocentric universe or if the earth was flat.

Correctly deduced, Jamie! Topher's rules are correct. Your deduction is
correct (in a way). What does this mean?! It means that sciences proves
nothing! Science gathers evidence to support or refute hypotheses. The
more evidence supporting a given hypothesis, the more confident we are
in that hypothesis, and the more comfortable we feel basing our
behavior on it. Proof and certainty that the universe "really is as
described by a theory" are not part of science. Proof is part of
mathematics, and certainty is part of faith.

Topher described the scientific method as applied to hypotheses such as
"telekinesis exists". Scientific method is based on provable logic, but
it proves nothing. It merely gathers evidence and consensus. This may
seem subtle, but it's really crucial. No matter how sure you are that
the earth is not flat, it has not been proven. However, the evidence is
so powerful that only a fool would deny it. The situation discussed in
this topic has much less evidence of any kind, so, at present,
reasonable people can choose to favor any hypothesis they wish, or none at all.

There are quite a few fascinating books and essays on this subject
(i.e., that science proves nothing). If I can remember any of them,
I'll enter some titles.

	Mike,

	Are you saying that nothing is provable unless it can be expressed
	in mathematical terms?

	Are we back to creating our own realities here?

	In my reality, I consider it proved that the earth is spherical.
	In my reality, I consider that proof can be accomplished through
	logic as well as through mathematics, but I don't know where the
	division is between the two.

	Can mathematics include fuzzy logic?  If not, why not?

	Regards,

	Delia (who can offer no proof of her existence!)

Actually, my reply wasn't very rigorous. Here's the point:

"The earth is approximately a sphere" is a hypothesis, not a theorem.
Only theorems can be proved. A proof consists of a series of steps,
which must follow certain rules, from a set of axioms to a final
statement (the theorem to be proved).

A hypothesis can have evidence (usually in the form of observations
such as experimental results) which supports or refutes it. If the
evidence is highly consistent and has been directly acquired by many
people, it becomes extremely persuasive. The hypothesis becomes
accepted *by consensus* as fact. It has never been proved (and can't
be) by a set of formal steps from a set of axioms.

Now in the case of the shape of the earth, there's an enormous body of
evidence, including reports of observation by astronauts, that it's
(approximately) a sphere. There's only a little evidence to refute this
(just look outside!). This does not constitute proof that the earth is
a sphere, but it's *plenty good enough* to base one's behavior on. At
least most people agree on this -- it's a consensus fact.

Other hypotheses have considerably less supporting evidence. Consider
the hypothesis that the relationship between velocity, time, and
position describing the motion of an object in a vacuum is s=v*t. This
hypothesis acquired a considerable body of evidence, and became
accepted as fact: people believed that the universe really worked this
way. But late in the 19th century, another hypothesis was proposed (by
Lorentz) and subsequently incorporated into Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity. It asserts a more complex relation in which the speed of
light plays a role. According to that hypothesis, s=v*t is only
*approximately* the way things work, and is an excellent approximation
when v<<c (meaning that the velocity in question is much less than the
speed of light). But most (all?) physicists now believe that s=v*t does
*not* describe the way the universe works, as unlikely as that would
have seemed at the beginning of the 19th century.

Neither hypothesis was proved. Each acquired a large body of supporting
evidence and was, ultimately, accepted (or rejected) by a majority of
people who care about such things.

Science doesn't prove hypotheses or theories. It collects observations
by carefully designed experiments. Observations, in turn, are
interpreted according to carefully followed rules of logic (described
by Topher) into evidence which supports or refutes hypotheses.

The world could yet turn out to be flat. But I'm not going to worry
about that possibility until I have to. Mary could yet turn out to have
some special talent. The amount of evidence which either supports or
refutes that hypothesis is pretty slim. Hardly enough to form a
consensus on. And not enough to change prior beliefs either way.

Perhaps Topher can make this business of the impossibility of proof of
hypotheses clearer. I'm just not very good at this. As I said, it's subtle.

    
    
    re231
    
    
    	Great reply.   Thanks.
    
    
    	Craig
    
    

RE: .231 (Mike)

    I think you did quite well without my help, Mike.  I have some addenda
    but these are only intended to extend what you said, not correct or
    restate it.

    The word "proof" covers a variety of shades of meaning.  There is a
    certain sense of absoluteness to proof which is what Mike refers to
    when he says that proof does not occur in science.  In mathematics, for
    example, a proof is supposed to be an irrefutable demonstration of the
    "truth" of a theorem within a set of rules about what corresponds to
    "truth" in the particular system.  (In practice, the probability of
    an error in a supposed proof of any non-trivial theorem is distinctly
    non-zero, though most such errors are inconsequential.  For example,
    Euclid's proof of his very first theorem is flawed.  So even in
    mathematics "proof" is not as pure as its customary to pretend).

    In science, there is no ultimate answers -- all knowledge is tentative.
    The sense of proof as irrefutable demonstration is therefore alien to
    scientific knowledge.  The term *is* used, however, as a shorthand 
    for "shown to be true to an extent differing from absolute too small to
    be of practical consequence."  Note that "too small to be of practical
    consequence" depends on the context: Newtonian mechanics may be
    considered either proven or disproven depending on the context.

    In modern philosophy of science, actually, science is viewed not as
    attempting to *prove* hypotheses/theories but to *disprove* them.
    (This view was most strongly and unambiguously stated by Karl Popper.
    His version of it is generally believed by philosophers of science to
    be too simplistic, unrealistic and incomplete -- which doesn't stop pop
    philosophers of science from quoting Popper as if he were a holy
    prophet.)  Thus Aristotelian mechanics (to force it into a mold not
    wholly suited to it) stated essentially that V = F/m (velocity is
    proportional to how much push you've applied and inversely proportional
    to how "heavy" the thing being pushed is).  Galileo essentially
    disproved this by showing that it was inconsistant with controlled
    observations.  Newton proposed instead that a = F/m (the rate at which
    something changes its velocity is proportional to how hard you push it
    and inversely proportional to how "heavy" it is).  Since this withstood
    many varied attempts to disprove it over a period which eventually
    became centuries, it became to be accepted as "proven", i.e., the
    chance that it would be found to be wrong in any circumstance of
    practical significance was too small to be considered.  Then Einstein
    showed that some unexplained results of Michelson and Morley were
    inconsistent with a = F/m and required a more elaborate formula, and
    thus disproved (or "falsified") Newtonian mathematics.  Newton could
    still be considered "correct" or even "proven" for many circumstances
    but experimental and observational technology had advanced to a point
    where those circumstances could not be considered all "practical"
    circumstances.

				    Topher

RE: .228 (Jamie)

>    Well using your rules Topher we would still be unsure that it was not a
>    geocentric universe or if the earth was flat.

    On the contrary, Jamie, to the extent (quite large) that we *are* sure
    of these things it is precisely by following "my" rules (of course,
    they predate me by a few years -- the we were talking about before we
    got into the nature of scientific proof, i.e., the rules of logic, were
    codified at or before the time of Aristotle).

    At one point "rational" was defined to be whatever Aristotle, combined
    with biblical interpretation, said in his physical theories
    (you have to distinguish Aristotlean physics from Aristotlean logic).
    If Aristotle/the-Bible said (or seemed to say) that the Earth was flat
    then any other belief was considered superstition (at best).

    Here is an example of an observation which by "my" rules would be
    considered evidence that the Earth is not flat:

	-- A ship sailing out on the ocean disappears from view from the
	   bottom up.

    This is evidence for a curved Earth because it is consitant with a
    curved Earth and inconsitant with a flat one.

    Here is an example of a (obvious hypothetical) observation which by "my"
    rules would be considered evidence against a "round" Earth:

	-- If you go to the Western edge of Greenland, you will find a
	   "chasm" which extends across as far as can be observed, down
	   as far as can be observed and in either direction as far as
	   can be observed.

    This is evidence against a "round" Earth, because it is consitant with
    a non-round Earth and consistant with a "round" one only by adding a
    lot of otherwise unjustified assumptions.

    Here is a few of examples of things which, by "my" rules, are not
    evidence for either competing hypothesis:

	-- Wherever you go on the Earth's surface, you don't fall off --
	   down is down.

	-- Look out and the Earth looks flat.

	-- Columbus failed to reach "the East" by traveling West.

    These are not, by my rules evidence *for* either alternative because
    they are, given some minor additional assumptions (i.e., the Earth is
    big and down is towards its center rather than an absolute direction),
    consistant with them both.  By *your* rules, however, they (especially
    the last) constitute strong evidence that the Earth is flat -- since
    they are consistant with the "rational" view (that the Earth is flat)
    they support that view and, therefore, they constitute evidence
    *against* a round Earth.  Case shut, why waste further thought on such
    disproven superstition.

>    If someone makes a claim that cannot ever be proved, or an experiment
>    that no one can duplicate, it is usually concluded that they are
>    wrong.

    Two different cases here, Jamie, neither of which is applicable to this
    situation.  If someone makes a claim that cannot ever be proved it is
    not considered wrong (anyone remember which well-known 20th century
    physicists said of an hypothesis that it "was so far off that it isn't
    even wrong", or words to that effect?), it is considered to not be
    a fruitful theory -- or as Popper said (one of the cases of his being
    to simplistic) it is not a "scientific" theory.  Actually, its theories
    that can never be disproven, which are of disintrest, since no theory
    can ever be proven.

    An experiment which cannot be duplicated is not considered wrong either
    (whatever that would mean -- an experiment simply is, it is neither
    "right" nor "wrong).  It is considered that the results depend on a
    factor which was not recorded as part of the experimental design.  It
    cannot then be interpreted as supporting or refuting one or more
    hypotheses until that factor is identified.

    But in this case we are not considering a theory which "cannot ever be
    proved" (tested).  We are considering two competing theories (that
    their exist individuals with extraordinary paranormal abilities and
    that such individuals do not exist) neither of which *has* been tested
    but either of which can, in principle, be tested.

    We are also not considering an "experiment" which cannot be duplicated
    -- unless you are throwing in the towel, Jamie, and claiming that you
    feel sure that if the "experiment" were repeated the outcome would be
    different.

>    Now there is a possibility that they are right, but until they come up
>    with some proof of their, claim then it is only a personal opinion and
>    not a proven fact.

    No one is saying anything else.  You are the one setting up the irrational
    dichotomy which equates a lack of proof of the contrary claim to
    evidence for yours.  You are once again simply arguing that the
    incident does not give you any logical reason to change your opinion
    and somehow concluding from that, that it should therefore give others
    reason to change their opinion to yours (that's what evidence means
    of course -- rational reasons to change ones opinions).

    The question is not "whose opinion is correct?".  The question is "Does
    this incident provide evidence for anyones opinions?".  The answer is,
    no it doesn't.

				    Topher

The "not even wrong" quote was attributed to Martin Gardner (for many
years author of Scientific American's Mathematical Games column) by
someone who posted an article to the sci.math usenet newsgroup. I don't
know if Gardner was the originator.

The context of the statement was a discussion on crackpot scientific or
mathematical papers submitted to journals by naive folks. Stuff like
methods for squaring the circle, trisecting an angle, etc. Stuff which
any educated mathematician or scientist knows is impossible because it
has been *proved* (irrefutably!) to be impossible. These papers contain
so many statements which can't be verified or disproved that they're
impossible to refute. When you can refute a hypothesis, you can claim
that it's wrong. Hence this stuff is "not even wrong".

The poor, rejected author then appeals to the average man's sense of
fairness, claiming that he's been rejected by a "high priesthood of
closed-minded pedagogues" or some such, citing examples like the
initial resistance to Einstein's work as "proof" that such a priesthood exists.

True enough, there are less-than-sterling members of the scientific
community -- people who are, indeed, closed-minded and who lose
objectivity in their own work. People who, in Richard Feynman's words
from _Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman_, don't "bend over backward" to
prove themselves wrong before believing their own hypotheses. And there
are some outright frauds, who are sadly motivated by a misguided
competitive spirit, or whatever.

But this is not a defect of Science, it's a defect of humans. The fact
that a nasty person may be a scientist and make a true statement
doesn't make the statement untrue, nor does it invalidate the
scientific method. The fact that there are closed-minded "high priests"
doesn't invalidate the irrefutable proof that an angle can't be
trisected with compass and straightedge.

RE: .235 (Mike)

    Gardner (an excellent example, of the type of person you spoke of --
    though he is not a scientist) may well have quoted the remark in the
    context you speak of, but he did not originate it and this is not
    the sense in which it was meant originally.

    A person who claims to have a valid general angle trisection *is*
    simply wrong.  Obviously wrong without any need to look at the supposed
    claim to anyone who knows about the impossibility proof, but still
    simply wrong.

    The original statement came from a scientist commenting on a theory
    that he believed was badly conceived so that it was impossible in
    principle to make a physical determination as to whether the theory
    is correct or not.  It therefore was not even "wrong" (i.e., an
    incorrect description of reality) since it did not (in his opinion)
    provide a (testable, and therefore usable) description of reality.
    The scientist, as I remember, is a well known one -- probably a
    physicist -- but I can't remember who it is.

				    Topher

    I think it was Bohr whom Gardner was quoting - I might be
    able to check. 
    
    Really, this discussion has turned interesting, just about the
    time it is starting to calm down...
    
    Joel
    

    I checked it out - the Bohr-ing quote I had in mind was
    along the lines of: [talking of some odd new QM twist] "We
    all agree his idea is crazy.  The question is whether or
    not it is crazy enough!"
    
    Joel
    

    An odd coincidence last Thursday.

    As it was Ascension day it was a public holiday in the Netherlands.
    Some of the small towns round us have a open-air street market, usually
    in aid of the local church. As they are not "professional" stall
    holders you can often pick up bargains.

    So with Harry safely off to Church, Barbi and I were about to set off
    bargain hunting. As it was an open-air affair, and there was a bit of a
    cutting wind, I decided to put my heavy jacket on. Needless to say it
    was on the back seat of Harry's car. Not to worry I found an old jacket
    that I have not worn in years and put it on.

    When we got to the market I let Barbi out and drove off to the carpark.
    As I was walking back to the market I felt something in the jacket
    pocket and discovered it was my old ID badge from the now defunct
    Fokker aircraft company. I looked at the photo, taken in 1986, before
    the heart transplant, and considered just how much my face had changed.
    Cyclosporine and corticosteroids may be wonderful at the job of keeping
    me alive but they have taken their toll on my looks.

    When I got to the market I discovered that it was not open yet and
    wandered round checking out what would be for sale in a few minutes.

    A man's voice suddenly said, "My God, you have changed!"

    I looked up and saw one of the programmers that I used to work with at
    Fokker. I grinned, pulled out the ID and showed it to him saying, "Yes
    this is what I used to look like!"

    Odd that I should run across an ID and a person connected with it in
    such a short space of time after all those years.  

    Jamie.                        

    
    Wow!  That's a good one!   
    
    Cindy

    Jamie, I enjoyed your story and am now wishing I were back in Europe
    where the life is so completely different from New England (laid-back
    and fun-loving compared to up-tight and conservative in my opinion).
    
      *Stella*

    We have our times of stress too; but that's being negative! 
    
    On a positive note, I'm happy to be living again in the UK.
    
    I recently saw a photograph of myself, taken just before leaving 
    the UK - not a pretty sight. ;-)
    
    Martin.