Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0

    I think that that is called, "The question of life" and I believe the
    answer is 42.

    Jamie.

    re: .0 (Gina?)
    
         I don't understand your question, (and Jamie's answer left
    something to be desired...;-) ) but maybe it's helpful to understand
    that consciousnesses exist...and some become physical and some
    (probably most) don't.  Those that becomes physical are simply
    manifesting a dream of density.  A dream, that is, that has them
    living a life, leaving a life, then likely living another life.
    Those dreams all exist simultaneously, but with this neat little
    concept of time, are given the illusion of serial continuity.
    The spirit is the same in each...that is, the consciousness is the
    same.  The dream changes.  And, to make the game more interesting,
    memory is "lost" (though it remains within the unconscious mind.)
        Bodies don't just hang out until some spirit invades...some
    sort of zombie until a walk-in spirit happens along...they don't 
    even exist until some spirit manifests its dream.  
    
    Frederick
    

    Life is just a passing phase, you grow out of it eventually. And what
    follows? Well that you must wait and see. Many claim to know but as
    they tell wildly differing tales it looks like most of them are just
    guessing. Anyway it gives us all something to look forwards to.

    Jamie.

>    Life is just a passing phase, you grow out of it eventually.
	
	This explains a lot of things (for me).
	
	Jay

    Well so far we seem to have a 100% death rate. It would appear that
    this life is a transitory state in which we spend some time.

    Jamie.

  
  Re .0

> Could it be that there is no reincarnation of spirits, just  
> memories that are passed down thru the ages, from generation 
> to generation in the genes ?

  I've often wondered about how much is genetically inherited from our
  ancestors along with certain physiological traits.  There is a lot of
  "uncharted space" with regard to the possible information encoded in our
  genes and I believe [ = IMHO = not currently provable ] that a number of
  behavioural characteristics *are* inherited.  I suspect that there is an
  element of "memory" also inherited but at a very low level (ie., very much
  hidden from everyday recognition).  My view of it is that this inherited
  memory is always in the background but the home-grown memories - patterns
  and associations that we build up during our lives - overlay and mask the
  genetically received ones.  Certain of the "new" memories & behaviours may
  in turn be passed down to any descendants, adding to the pattern that is
  inherited. 

  One question that the above raises is whether there is a finite area of
  the genetic message that is dedicated to behaviour, one dedicated to memory,
  or whether there is a more generic space that is filled with the composite
  of characteristics that, in total, show how "he's the image of his father",
  ie., not a collection of discrete points but a single pattern that, although
  still individual, create the impression of similarity due to the common
  details within.

  A second question is whether this space extends or is in fact finite. If the
  latter then there will be a trade-off between the depth of information from
  the most recent imprint and the number of previous impressions - a (strong)
  characteristic from the preceding generation will overwrite the (weaker)
  ones from two or three generations ago.  If the former case [extensible]
  then later generations will benefit from inherited knowledge (albeit in a
  subliminal manner most of the time).
  
  Frank
  

  One minor brainstorm later - that's what comes of taking a few days off -
  we have another analogy ! Like most computers, we are composite creatures :

  o There is an element of ROM corresponding to the DNA building blocks that
    cannot be excised although the information within is often too slow or
    too low-level to be accessed readily for everyday use.

  o A large part of "life" is written to disk [or blasted into PROM ?] by
    means of our experiences, our direct memories, our habits.  These grow
    as we grow, can be learned, revised or modified by the application of
    suitable stimuli.  They can even be deleted or overwritten if desired
    [ but never completely erased except by total destruction of the media.
    If you have the correct tools, you can read the underlying layers even
    after you think the data has gone for good ].

  o For speed and convenience, commonly used 'routines' are copied into
    shadow RAM and allow a degree of change/flexibility without disturbing
    the original copy of the behaviour.

  o The majority of conscious operations take place in RAM but in the case
    of humans, there seems to be a mixture of volatile and non-volatile
    sections : some everyday things are easily retained, others are easily
    forgotten (but with the appropriate training, a degree of order can be
    forced upon the data organisation to make the above mixture a little more
    controllable and usable).

  Does a chip know that it is part of a distributed satellite control system ?
  Does a PC know which parts of the ROM were in the previous version ?
  
> Wouldn't this explain DEJAVU.   

  If you mean the conference, I doubt anything could explain it !! :-)

    
    Re.6
    
    And some people's programming gets stuck in infinite loops.
    
    Cindy

>>    And some people's programming gets stuck in infinite loops.
    
	ewww, Cindy - GOOD ONE!  

	8-)....Mikki

Re: .9

"1 life, 3 deaths" 

Where does this come from.  As a Christian, I have never heard this, just the 
1 life, 1 death, with life continueing after the death of the body, but on
another plane (eventually heaven or hell).  And if personal experience means
anything, someone got the number of deaths wrong (aware of 4, and hoping #5
is some way off in time yet ;-).

Beth

Re .12

It is by no means clear that the Bible even mentions reincarnation.
    
The passage from John, so far from teaching reincarnation, dismisses the idea 
as unimportant:

	Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler 
	of the Jews; this man came to him [Jesus] by night and said
	to him, "Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher;
	for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
	   Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
	unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
	   Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old?
	He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born,
	can he?"
	   Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is
	born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
	of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
	is born of the spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you,
	`You must be born again.'  The wind blows were it wishes and you
	hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and
	where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the spirit."

						John 3:1-8

It is clear that Jesus is talking about a spiritual rebirth; "that which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." 

As for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, that doctrine nowhere 
specifies that each soul gets exactly the same atoms it died with.  Even in 
this present life, our bodies are always changing their atomic inventory.  The 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body does not even exclude the possibility 
of new matter for those bodies being created from nothing; it does not discuss 
these details at all.

Even if the passage from Matthew about John the Baptist does refer to 
a reincarnation, it hardly shows that reincarnation is the typical fate of the 
average soul.

However, the traditional interpretation is that John the Baptist inherited the
office and spirit of Elijah ("Elias").  This is not as arbitrary as it might
seem, since Elijah's disciple Elisha inherited from him "a double portion of
his spirit" (2 Kings 2:9-15).  This inheritance of spirit is clearly not
reincarnation, since Elisha was a grown man when he acquired it. 

Earl Wajenberg

  Re .13 (Earl)

> It is clear that Jesus is talking about a spiritual rebirth; "that which is 
> born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit."

  Yes, a spiritual rebirth : the spirit reborn in a different body.
  ie., you don't get the same body as flesh is not reusable but the spirit
  is not limited by such trappings.

> ... but do not know where it comes from and   
> where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the spirit."   

  ie., it happens but you don't have much [any] control over the details.
  This doesn't agree with the belief of Karma but it's just as valid as a
  hypothesis.

> ... since Elijah's disciple Elisha inherited from him "a double portion of
> his spirit" (2 Kings 2:9-15).  This inheritance of spirit is clearly not    
> reincarnation, since Elisha was a grown man when he acquired it.            

  "Filled with the Holy Spirit" ? Possession ? Channelling ? Two souls in
  one body ? Hereditary schizophrenia ?

  Re .12 (Marcos)

> The world would benefit greatly if the law of incarnation were widely
> accepted because man would understand that the planet which he is currently
> devastating will probably be the same devastated planet on which he'll have
> to live his future incarnations.

  Would that your view was more widely received ...

  Frank

Re .14 & .15:

Consider the following passage from John 3:

	   Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is
	born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
	of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
	is born of the spirit is spirit."

This makes it clear that the whole subject of the conversation with Nicodemus
is "birth"/entry into the kingdom of God, not a repeated physical birth.  This
being born of "water and spirit" (a clear reference to baptism) is a birth
into a spiritual life, since "that which is born of the spirit is spirit." 

Of course, if you are determined to put a reincarnationist interpretation on 
John 3, nothing can stop you.

Re .15

	Do you speak for all Christian movements?

Not for every last sect, but I am familiar with mainstream Christain theology, 
Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, and with a fair number of variants.  In 
none of these is the resurrection of the body explicitly declared to be a 
matter of reclaiming all the atoms the body had at the moment of death.  In 
most of them, the body of the resurrection is identified with the spiritual 
body mentioned by St. Paul and contrasted by him with the physical body.

	First of all I would appreciate your explanation of what 
	"inheritance of a double portion of his spirit" means. IMHO spirit 
	in this case has more to do with personality than soul.

Let us first look at the context.  Elijah is about to go away.  He is not even 
going to die in any normal sense; he is about to be caught up to heaven in a
firey chariot.  His chief disciple, Elisha, asks "for a double portion of your
spirit."  Elijah grants this and is soon thereafter caught away.  Next, Elisha
begins working miracles in the manner that Elijah used to do, and on-lookers
proclaim that Elijah's spirit has fallen on Elisha. 

Details are lacking, but the general suggestion is that "spirit" in this 
context does not mean identity or personality, but rather miraculous and 
prophetic power and authority.

Earl Wajenberg

re .21:

>> "bible says that "whosoever divorces his wife and takes another, commits
>>  adultery", 
>    
>I don't carry a Bible to quote the exact words but I am pretty sure those are
>NOT the words. The word "divorce" is certainly never used. Also the quote is 
>incomplete. I think it's also shown the conditions on which "leaving a wife" 
>is considered adultery.

"And in the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter. [Divorce.]
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
comitteth adultery against her.
"And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she comit-
etth adultery." -- Mark 10:10-12.

That's pretty specific.  However, in the same context, Jesus said, "What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."  [Mark 10:9] 
This implies very strongly that if the marriage is annuled through God, that's 
okay.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .23 (M):

>What's pretty specific? Divorce was a word *inserted* by you.
>I think the *matter* is putting away one's wife and not divorce as we currently
>understand it .

Actually, the whole passage is:

"And the Pharisees came unto him and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to
put away his wife? tempting him.
"And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to
put her away.
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart
he wrote you this precept.
"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to
his wife;
"And they the twain shall be one flesh: so they are no more twain, but one
flesh.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
"And in the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another,
committeth adultery against her.
"And if a woman shall put away her husband and marry another, she committeth
adultery."  -- Mark 10:2-12

I had hoped to save time and disk space by indicating that "put away" in
context meant "divorce," as per His exchange with the Pharisees.  

Obviously, I shouldn't have tried to simplify matters.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
	[ Obligatory disclaimer:

	[ For those who need it, the following are not my own words,
	[ they are being quoted from a book.  In my "humble" opinion,
	[ I believe this to be the truth.  I believe I am old,
	[ mature and responsible enough to make my own decisions,
	[ without interference from anyone.

	One of the most commonly questions is: If I have been
	alive in a past incarnation, why can't I remember it ?.

	First of all, note the fact that in our present life,
	we have forgotten more than we can remember.  "Many" people
	cannot remember learning to read, yet the fact that they
	can read proves that they went through the process of
	learning how to read.

	Incidents from our childhood and youth have faded from
	our memory, yet they have left traces on our character.
	A fall in babyhood may have been forgotten, yet the 
	victim nevertheless has been crippled by it, although
	the person still occupies the same body in which the
	forgotten events were experienced.

	Those events, however, are not entirely lost to us,
	if a person is put under the influence of hypnotism,
	the events in question may be drawn out from the depths
	of memory; they are submerged, not destroyed.  Fever
	patients in delirium have been known to speak a foreign
	language which was known in childhood, and forgotten in
	maturity.  Much of our subconscious consists of these
	submerged experiences, memories thrown into the background, 
	but nevertheless recoverable.

	If such is true of the experiences encountered in the
	present physical body, how much more must it be true
	of experiences encountered in former bodies, which
	died and decayed many centuries ago ?.  Our present
	body and brain have had no share in those far-off
	happenings; how should memory assert itself through
	them ?.

	Our permanent body, which remains with us throughout
	the cycle of reincarnation is the spiritual body; the
	lower bodies (garments) fall away and return to their
	elements from which they were formed, and so we can
	become reincarnated.

	The new mental, astral and physical matter in which
	we are re-clothed for a new life on earth receives
	the spiritual intelligence; garbed only in the spiritual
	body, not the experiences of the past, but the qualities,
	tendencies and capacities which have been made out of
	those experiences.  

	Our conscience, our instinctive response to emotional
	and intellectual appeals, or recognition of the force
	of a logical argument, our assent to fundamental
	principles of right and wrong, these are the traces 
	of past experiences.  A person of low intellectual
	type cannot "see" a logical or mathematical proof,
	a person of low moral type cannot "feel" the compelling
	force of a high moral ideal.

	When we feel intimate with a stranger on first meeting,
	memory is there, the spirit's recognition of a friend
	of ages past; when we shrink back with a strong repulsion
	from another stranger, memory is there, the spirit's
	recognition of an ancient foe.

	These affinities, these warnings, come from the undying
	spiritual intelligence which is our true self; we remember,
	though we cannot directly remember through our physical
	memory.  The mind-body, the brain, are new; the spirit
	furnishes the mind with the results of the past, not with
	the memory of its events.  

	It can be likened to a business person closing the year's 
	ledger and opening a new one, he doesn't enter in the new 
	ledger all of the items of the old ledger, but only its 
	balance; in the same way, does the spirit hand on to the 
	new brain its judgments on the experiences of life that 
	is closed, the conclusions to which he has come, the 
	decicions of which he has arrived. This is the stock 
	handed down on to the new life, the mental furniture 
	for the new dwelling -a real memory.
	
	No brain could store the memory of the events of numerous
	lives, but when they are concentrated into mental and
	moral judgments, they are there, available for our use.
	Hundreds of murders have led up to the decision "I must
	not kill"; the memory of each murder would be a useless
	burden, but the judgment based on their results, the 
	instinct of the sanctity of human life, is the effective
	memory of them in the civilized person.

	Memory of past events, however, is sometimes found,
	children have occasionally remembered fleeting glimpses
	of past lives, triggered by some event of the present.
	An English boy who had been a sculptor in a previous life,
	recalled the fact when he first saw some statues.

	An Indian child recognized a stream of water in which 
	he had drowned as a little child in a preceeding life,
	and the mother of that earlier body.  Many cases are on
	record of such memory of past events.

	Moreover, such memories can be gained, but such gaining
	requires a matter of steady effort, of prolonged meditation,
	whereby the restless mind, ever running outwards, may be
	controlled and rendered quiet, so that it may be sensitive
	and responsive to the Spirit, and receive from it the 
	memory of the past.  

	When we can hear the still small voice of the Spirit, 
	may the story of the past be unrolled, for the Spirit 
	alone can remember all that has taken place in the past.
	Under such conditions, memory is possible, links of the
	past are seen, old friends recognized, old scenes recalled,
	and a subtle strength and calm grows out of the practical
	experience of immortality.
 

>	[ Obligatory disclaimer:
>	[ For those who need it, the following are not my own words,
>	[ they are being quoted from a book.  In my "humble" opinion,
    
    One solution to the problem addressed by the disclaimer, would be
    to include footnotes, or general references.   If the sources are
    worthwhile, it makes it easier for people to get to them.  If they
    aren't, it at least moves responsibility for errors onto someone else.
    :-)
    
    							todd

	
>	a person of low moral type cannot "feel" the compelling
>	force of a high moral ideal.

I don't follow this sentence. Could you elaborate?

How do we know that these memories of past lives are, in fact, of past lives?

Dougie

                 
    Juan,
    
    Please do provide sources.  It is customary to do so when 
    quoting from the work of another.
    
    Cindy

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 1592.30         Reincarnation/Spirits/Memories/Dejavu??            30 of 30
WARNUT::NISBETD "[email protected]"          9 lines  10-NOV-1992 12:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	
>	a person of low moral type cannot "feel" the compelling
>	force of a high moral ideal.

>>I don't follow this sentence. Could you elaborate?

	Doug,

	It simply means that a person who has not sufficiently 
	developed his sense or morality cannot understand other
	people's high moral ideals.  Take a cannibal, a savage,
	for example, he has not developed sufficiently to 
	understand why he should not kill and eat other humans.
	That was an example going to the extreme.  There are
	a lot of in between situations where the differences are
	not so drastic.  For example, there are some who cannot
	understand why our less unfortunate homeless brothers
	and sisters should be helped, they might say: that's
	their fate, it isn't my duty to help them, while others
	like Sister Maria, who has dedicated her life to help the
	poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless, feel that it
	is her high moral ideal to dedicate her life to help them.  

	A similar quote from the Bible states: "Don't throw your
	pearls to the swine".  Does that mean that someone is
	calling you a swine ?.  Not at all, it is simply a simile
	which really means that swines don't have the ability to
	appreciate the beauty of a pearl, they're only interested
	in food.  By the same token, if someone hasn't developed
	the sense of morality enough, they can't understand why
	others have such high moral ideals.

>>How do we know that these memories of past lives are, in fact, of past lives?

	One way you can tell would be by the surroundings of your
	"vision" from your Higher Self, if you see people dressed
	like they did way back in the 1700's, or by the machinery 
	and buildings of the time, you might even get to see printed
	media like newspapers where you can read the date, those are 
	just a few examples of how you can tell.  If you mean "how
    	can I tell that they are my past lives, and not someone's else,
    	you will know in no uncertain terms that it was you and not
    	someone else's.  You will just "feel" (know)  it.

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 1592.29         Reincarnation/Spirits/Memories/Dejavu??            29 of 32
DWOVAX::STARK "TV, cathode ray nipple"               11 lines  10-NOV-1992 11:59
                  -< Probably a librarian in a past life ... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	[ Obligatory disclaimer:
>	[ For those who need it, the following are not my own words,
>	[ they are being quoted from a book.  In my "humble" opinion,
    
    >>One solution to the problem addressed by the disclaimer, would be
    >>to include footnotes, or general references.   If the sources are
    >>worthwhile, it makes it easier for people to get to them.  If they
    >>aren't, it at least moves responsibility for errors onto someone else.
    >>:-)
       
    							todd
    
		Since you asked, they were quoted from:
    
    		The Riddle of Life by Annie Besant, page. 34.
    

    re: .33, Thanks, Juan.  I do appreciate it.  
    
    					todd

    
	[ Disclaimer:
	[ This note and the ones that follow, are intended
	[ for those who require no proof of what is being
	[ presented and may benefit from them.  Read at
	[ your own risk, accept, reject or ignore as you
	[ you wish, there is no validation or proof about
	[ anything that is presented.  
	[ Genuine questions from those who are really interested 
	[ about the material are welcome, and will be answered,
	[ if I know them.  This material was gathered from books, 
	[ references are available upon request.

	The place of birth for the ordinary ego is usually
	determined by the combination of 3 forces.  First,
	comes the Law of Evolution, which causes the ego
	to be born under conditions which will give him
	an opportunity of developing exactly those qualities
	of which he needs the most.

	But the action of that force is limited by a second
	factor, the Law of Karma.  The ego may not have earned 
	the best possible opportunity, and so he has to put up 
	with the second or third best.  He may not even have 
	earned any great opportunity at all, and so a tumultuous 
	life of small progress may be his fate.

	A third factor comes into play, the force of any
	personal ties of love or hate that the ego may have
	previously formed.  This may modify the action of the
	first and second forces, for by it a man may sometimes
	be drawn into a position which he cannot be said to
	have earned in any other way other than by the strong
	personal love which he has felt for some one higher in
	evolution than himself.

	A person who has worked much beyond the ordinary -a man
	who has already entered the Path which leads to adepship-
	may be able to exercise a certain amount of choice as
	to the country and family of his birth; but such a one
	will be the first to put aside entirely any wish of his
	own in the matter, and resign himself absolutely into
	the hands of the great eternal law, confident that
	whatever it brings to him must be by far better than
	any selection of his own.

	Parents cannot choose the soul which will inhabit the
	body to which they give birth, but by so living as to
	offer an unusually good opportunity for the progress
	of an advanced ego, they can make it exceedingly
	probable that such an ego will come to them.

	The ego, awaiting reincarnation, is resting upon
	the higher part of the mental plane in his causal
	body, and has no body lower than that one.  Since the
	death of his last physical body, he has been drawing
	steadily inwards, first into his astral, and then
	into his mental vehicle, and at the end of the "heaven"
	life in the mental plane, he has cast off even the astral
	vehicle.

	He then rests for a certain period on his own plane,
	a period which varies, according to the stage of his
	development, from 2 to 3 days of unconsciousness in
	the case of ordinary undeveloped person, to a long
	period of years of conscious and glorious life in the
	case of exceptionally advanced people.

	Then he begins, once more, to turn his attention 
	downwards and outwards.  As in the course of his
	upward movement, he has withdrawn his attention from 
	the physical and the astral planes respectively,
	the permanent atoms have passed into a dormant condition,
	and have ceased the vigorous vibration which is their
	usual characteristic.

	The same thing happens to the mental unit at the end
	of the "heaven" life, and during his rest on his own
	plane, the ego has these 3 appendages within himself
	in dormant condition.  When he turns his attention
	once more to the mental plane, the mental unit immediately 
	resumes its activity, and because of that, it at once 
	gathers around it such matter as is required to express 
	that activity.

	Precisely the same thing happens when he turns his
	attention to the astral atom, and puts his will into
	that.  It attracts to itself material capable of providing
	him with an astral body of exactly the same type as that
	which he had at the end of his last astral life.

	It should be made clear that what he thus acquired,
	as he descends, is not a ready made astral body, but
	simply the material out of which he has to build an
	astral body in the course of the life in which is to
	follow.

    
	In the case of lower class monads with unusually strong 
	astral bodies who reincarnate after a very short interval,
	it sometimes happens that the shade of the shell left
	over from the last astral life still persists, and in
	that case, it is likely to be attracted to the new
	personality.  When that happens, it brings with it,
	strongly, the old habits and modes of though, and
	sometimes even the actual memory of that past life.

	The aura of the little baby is comparatively colorless, 
	and it is only as the qualities develop that the colors 
	begin to show.  This is the material which is given to 
	him out of which to fashion his astral vehicle, the 
	material which he has earned by the desires and emotions 
	which he allowed to play through him in his previous life; 
	but he is by no means compelled to utilize all this material
	in building for himself his new vehicle.

	If he is left entirely to himself, the automatic action
	of the permanent atom will tend to produce for him, from
	the materials given, an astral body precisely similar to
	that which he had in the las life; but there is no reason
	whatever why all these materials should be used, and if 
	the child is wisely treated and reasonably guided, he
	will be encouraged to develop to the fullest all the
	germs of good which he has brought over from his previous
	life, while the evil germs will be allowed to slumber.

	If that is done, these latter will gradually atrophy
	and drop away from him, and the ego will unfold within
	himself the opposite virtues, and then he will be free
	from all his future lives from the evil qualities which
	those germs indicated.  Parents and teachers may help
	him towards this desirable consummation, not so much
	by any definite facts which they may teach him, as by
	the encouragement which they give to him, by the rational
	and kindly treatment uniformly accorded to him, and above
	all, by the amount of affection lavished upon him.

	We must remember that while the higher vehicles, the
	mental and astral body, are expressions of the man at
	his present stage of evolution (as far as tha can be
	expressed in the matter of their respective planes),
	the physical is a vehicle of a limitation imposed upon
	him from without, and is therefore pre-eminently, the
	instrument of karma.

	The evolutionary force comes into play in the selection
	of its materials, but even in this, it is at every turn
	limited and hampered by the karma of the past.  The 
	parents have been chosen because they are fitted to give
	such a body, that which will be suitable for the development
	of the ego commited to them, but with every pair of parents,
	there are manifold possibilities.

	Each of them represents a long line of ancestry, and often
	a particular parent may be chosen, not for anything that
	he is or has in himself, but because of some quality
	which appeared to an unusual degree in one of his ancestors
	-becauses he possesses a power which he has not used, 
	though it is latent in his physical body because it is
	the physically descended from that ancestor.

	In that parent, and in many preceding generations, the
	faculty to express that quality may have slep entirely
	without effect, but when there comes into the line an
	ego which possesses the quality, the faculty to express
	it leaps out from the dormant into the active condition,
	and we have the case of which is called reversion of a
	remote type.

	In the formation of the physical body, there are three
	principal forces at work; first, the influence of the
	ego, who is intending to take up new form; secondly,
	the work of the building elemental formed by the Lords
	of Karma; and thirdly, the thought of the mother.  

	There is an elemental in charge of the development of
	the physical body, which was created by and in is under 
	the direction of the Lords of Karma, and its primary 
	business is to build the etheric mold into which the 
	physical particles of the new baby are to be built.  

	It is not possible for us, at our present level, to
	understand the working sof the Lords of Karma, so we can
	only chronicle the fact, without pretending to explain
	it.  If the person has earned the limitation of deformity
	in his physical body or of weakness in some of its organs
	-the heart, the lungs, the stomach-, it is through the
	elemental that his karma is adjusted.

	It is a well-known fact to students of embryology that
	in their earlier stages, the embryos of a fish, a dog
	and a man are practically indistinguishable.  They all
	grow in the same manner, but the difference between
	them is that one of them stops at one stage of that
	growth, while the others go on further.  The reason
	for this obvious fact is not clear to those who adopt
	the materialistic view.

	The obvious reason for that fact is that as soon as
	the entity becomes individualized, and therefore commences
	to make individual karma, this additional factor of the
	molding though form of the Lords of Karma comes into
	play, and takes possession of the growing embryo, even
	before the individual ego can grasp it.

	Some clairvoyants have seeing a doll-like little figure
	hovering about (and afterwards within) the body of the
	mother, and have sometimes mistaken it for the sould
	of the coming baby, but it is really the mold of the
	physical body.  When the fetus has grown to the size,
	shape and condition of the body as it ought to be, the
	elemental has completed its work, and leaves the body.
	All further growth of the body after the elemental
	has departed is under the control of the ego himself.

	The elemental takes charge of the body from the first,
	but some time before physical birth takes place, the ego
	comes into contact with his future habitation, and from
	that time onwards, the 2 forces are working side by side.
	Sometimes the characteristics which the elemental is
	directed to impose are but few in number, and consequently,
	it is able to retire at a comparatively early age, and to
	leave the ego in full control of the body.

	In other cases, where the limitations are of such a
	character that a good deal of time is necessary for their
	development, it may retain its position until the body
	is seven yrs. old.   Egos differ greatly in the interest
	which they take in their physical vehicles, for some of
	them, they hover over the physical vehicle anxiously waiting
	from the first, and take a good deal of trouble about their 
	future vehicles, while others are almost entirely careless 
	with regard to the whole matter.

	When a child is stillborn, there has "usually" been no
	ego behind it, and consequently, no elemental.  There 
	are vast hosts of souls seeking reincarnation, and many
	of them are still at so early a stage in their evolution
	that almost any ordinary surroundings would be equally
	suitable for them; they have so many lessons to learn
	that it matters little which one they begin, and almost
	any conceivable set of surroundings will teach them
	something which they solely need.

	Nevertheless, it does "sometimes" happens that there is
	not at any given time any ego able to take advantage of a
	particular opportunity, and in that case, though the
	body may be formed to a certain extent by the thought
	of the mother, as there is no ego to occupy it, it is
	never really alive.

	In building the form, the elemental takes the etheric
	matter which it needs from that which it finds readily
	within the body of the mother.  This is one reason for
	the necessity of the greatest care on the part of that
	mother during the time the child's body is being formed.
	If she supplies nothing but the best and purest materials,
	the elemental will find itself compelled to choose from
	those.

    
	Another factor which has an exceedingly powerful influence
	is the thought of the mother during this period, for
	that also molds the shape which is slowly growing within
	her.  Again, this shows us why the mother's thoughts must
	be, at that time, be specially pure and high, she must
	be kept away altogether from all coarse and agitating
	influences, why only the most beautiful forms and colors
	should surround her, and the most harmonious conditions
	should prevail in her neighborhood.

	If the elemental's instructions do not include some
	special development in the way of features, such as
	unusual beauty or unusual ugliness, that part of the
	shaping of the new body will mostly be done by the thought
	of the mother -and by the thought forms which are constantly
	floating around her.  If she thinks often with devoted love
	of her husband, there is a strong probability that the 
	child will resemble its father; if, on the other hand,
	she looks often at her reflection in the mirror and thinks
	much about herself, it is probable that the child will bear
	considerable resemblance to her.

	Equally, if it happens that she is constantly thinking with
	devoted affection of admiration of some third person, the
	child is likely to resemble that person -always supposing
	that the elemental has no definite instructions in this
	matter.  When the children grow older, their physical
	bodies are influenced largely by their own thoughts, and
	as these differ from those of the mother, we often see
	that considerable changes in physical appearance take place,
	the child, in some cases growing more beautiful and in
	other cases less so as the years roll by.

	"As the person thinks so is he", is true on the physical
	plane as well as on the other planes; and if the thought
	is always calm and serene, the face will surely reflect it.
	To an advanced ego, all the early stages of childhood are
	naturally exceedingly wearisome.  Sometimes, a really
	advanced person decides to avoid all this by asking someone
	else to give him an adult body, a sacrifice which any of
	his disciples would always be delighted to make for him.

	But this method also has its drawbacks.  However wearisome
	it may be to pass through childhood, at least in that way,
	a man grows a body for himself, which is as nearly as may
	be an expression of him, and agrees with him with all his
	little peculiarities; but one who takes an adult body,
	finds it already full of peculiarities of its own, which
	have worn in it deep grooves of habit that cannot be
	easily be changed.  

	This cannot but be to some extent a misfit, and it takes
	takes a long time to make its vibrations synchronize with
	its own.  An ego coming into incarnation has always to
	adapt himself to a new set of conditions, but when he
	comes to birth in the ordinary way, this can at least 
	be done gradually, as the child grows up; but to one
	who takes an adult body, has instantly to adapt himself
	to all these new fresh surroundings, which is often a
	very difficult business.  

    
    Juan,
    
    Please post the references with every extract you enter, including
    book, author, and page number(s).
    
    Thank you,
    
    Cindy

er, forget your smiley, Cindy? :-)

    
    What does this have to do with the song "Lords of Karma" by
    Joe Satriani?  Is there a tie in?
    
    
    guy

Juan,

The only problem I have with your entries (as much of this information is 
familiar to me and I subscribe to some of it) is that you use
exclusive language (man, he, his etc.).   It would be more comfortable 
to read if you used language that was more inclusive.

Thanks,

Ro

    re .36
    
      >	In the case of lower class monads with unusually strong 
      >	astral bodies who reincarnate after a very short interval,
      >	it sometimes happens that ... 
    
                i.e. lower class monads soon grow gonads.
    
    karl

                         
    Re.40
    
    Mike,
    
    No smiley.  It's plagarism to quote from someone elses work without
    giving them credit.  
    
    Cindy

    re: .44,
    	Oh Cindy, I love it when you talk bibliotechnical and administer
    	literary rigor with moderation.  mmm mmm.   :-D
    
    						todd

    
	Well... since Cindy has put the Moderator hat on, 
	and commanded me to enter the book reference,
	I think I better comply, or I may get kicked out
	of this Conference.  I know what those "hats" can
	do to you, I remember what happened to me when 
	I put on the "skeptic" hat on.

	The book reference for Notes 1592.35 thru .38 were
	taken from 

		The Inner Life by Charles. W. Leadbeater
			fifth printing, 1992, ISBN 0-8356-0502-7
			pages 337-348

	Since I'm talking about references, might as well enter
	the references for the other notes which I entered
	previously related to Magic, Talismans, Mesmerism, Karma,
	Natural Disasters, the Aura, Thought Forms, and Clairvoyancy.
	Here they are:

		A textbook on Theosophy by C.W. Leadbeater

		The Hidden side of things by C.W. Leadbeater

		Invisible Helpers by C.W. Leadbeater

		Clairvoyance by C.W. Leadbeater

		The Riddle of Life by Annie Besant
		
		Karma, and A Study in Karma, both by Annie Besant

		The Seven Principles of Man by Annie Besant

		The Story of Creation by C.W. Preston

		Thought Forms by C.W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant
                	this whole book is dedicated to an exhaustive
			study of thought forms from a Clairvoyant's
			point of view, and it has many color plates
			of the different thought forms which show their 
			shape and color.  Remember the expression
			I was so angry that I was seeing red ?.  Well, 
			it turns out that the anger thought form is red.

>   <<< Note 1592.46 by STUDIO::GUTIERREZ "I'm on my break. Do you care..?" >>>
>                               -< References... >-
>
>    
>	Well... since Cindy has put the Moderator hat on, 
>	and commanded me to enter the book reference,
>	I think I better comply, or I may get kicked out
>	of this Conference.  I know what those "hats" can
>	do to you, I remember what happened to me when 
>	I put on the "skeptic" hat on.

Such a childish response to a reasonable request I have not seen in a long
time. Your paragraph's teneous relationship with the truth discourages me
from treating your other texts with an open mind.

Dougie

    I see that you sources seem to be restricted to two authors, and these
    two seem to co-author, not exactly a wide range of views, is it?
    I join Dougie in finding their views to be only vaguely connected with
    the truth. A sort of Orwellian connection to the truth in fact.

    Jamie.

    
    
    	Doug,
    
    		don't you recognize a joke when you see one ?,
    	I just forgot to put the :=} symbol, I'm sure
    	Cindy knows better than to take that seriously,
    	you can ask her and she will confirm this.
    

    FORGOT TO PUT IN A SMILEY?

    Wait till Topher gets his hands on you.

    Jamie.

    
    	RE: .48
    
    		Those references that I mentioned happen to
    	be authored by only 2 or 3 authors because those are
    	my favorite books, there are many other books by
    	many other authors which are in agreement with the
    	points of views expressed.
    
    	
        Cindy,
    		I was willing to send the references offline
    	to those people who were genuinely interested in the
    	subject because I knew that as soon as I posted them
    	in here they would be assaulted by those who have
    	already made up their minds that such topics are
    	nonsense, and would take the opportunity to attack
    	them, as has already been the case.  Now you see
    	why I was reluctant to post them here. 

    Guess the only voice to listen to these days is the one that you hear
    within yourself.

    Or as Alice said "I give myself the very best advice, but I very seldom
    follow it".

Mary .54,

8^)


Todd .52,

I hadn't heard that about Leadbeater before, can you elaborate?  


Ro

     
    
    	Todd,
    
    	      I, also would be interested to see any evidence
    	you have about your claims on Leadbeater.
    
    

    
    
    	Todd,
    
    		Thank you for that clarification.

    I think so..

    
    
    	Todd,
    
    	I know nothing about Leadbeater's "infamous" reputation,
    	but if it was something of substance, and they would
    	turn out to be true, it would be important.  Of course,
    	if they are just unsubstantiated accusations, then I wouild 
    	ignore them and would treat them as just jealousy.
    

RE: .50 (Jamie)

    Me?  Hardly.  There is all the difference in the world between a
    typographical error and a deliberate policy of obfuscation.

					Topher ;-)

    
    What does this say about the Karma of young boys?
    
    
    ;-)
    
    
    

                            
    Thanks, Dougie.  Appreciated.  It's OK though...we know each other.  
    No offense taken.
    
    Juan, still, you have to put the references with each extract. 
    The words were written by someone, and if you don't say who it is, 
    then people automatically think it is you.  That's not right.
    I'm certain the authors can withstand any criticism leveled at 
    them in this conference. 
    
    Cindy

    Yes, Juan, when you start crediting writers for the work you are
    scanning into this conference, perhaps we'll be able to judge exactly
    how broad your reading and reference material actually is.
    
    Laurie.

    'Scanning' ?! Is THAT how he's doing it?
    
    I see Juan's header and think, oh God another 20 pager. And here was I
    thinking it was all your own work.
    
    Seriously (folks); I take Juan's notes less seriously than I did (it's
    possible!){_, since I cannot seperate quotation from interpretation
    from paraphrasing. And they are SOOOOOOO LOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG.
    
    Dougie
    
    
    

    Topher. I always eschew obfuscation.
    
    Jamie.

    This topic of Karmic debt, which supposedly follows us from life  to
    life was also the center of the Edgar Cayce readings which  took place
    in the 40s at Virginia Beach,Va. and of which an organization called
    ARE(Association of  Research and Enlightenment) exist today to  make 
    these readings public.
    

    Karmic Debt, is this a sort of reincarnational form of IRS?

    Jamie.

    
    
    		Let those who are perfect
    
    		cast the first stone.
    

	I have decided to stop entering Notes in this Conference,
	and to make them available only to those who have a genuine 
	interest in their content.  I have already received mail 
	from a few individuals who have expressed an interest in 
	receiving such Notes.

	I believe there are a few benefits to be realized by
	this decision, here they are:	

	Saves disk space
        	this is obvious, a lot of disk space will be
		saved by not entering such long notes, not to 
		mention the disk space taken up by the follow-up 
		discussions on the subject.

	Eliminates unwanted notes
		those who are not interested in such notes won't
		have to bother skipping over them or the subsequent
		follow up responses.  

	Eliminates source of controversy
		this is also obvious, less time will be spent 
		justifying, attacking, couter-attacking, criticizing,
		defending and so on.  
		
	Saves time
                this is also obvious, which naturally follows up
		from the last two, there will be less time spent
		by the Noters on controversial topics, not to
		mention the Moderator's time, since he has to 
		read all the Notes that get posted in order to
		make sure there are no violations of Digital's
		policy.

	So what I propose to do is to send future Notes to those
	who have already expressed an interest in reading such
	notes.	I know there other noters out there who are read-only
	noters, if any of them are interested in receiving my future
	notes, send me mail.  I intend to keep the names of those
	who are interested strictly confidential, and I will not make 
	them public or give them out to anyone.

	It is NOT my intention to discourage anyone from participating
	in the DEJAVU Conference, nor am I in any way recruiting 
	anyone into joining any club, organization, cult, religion,
	phylosophical group or whatever, and I am not discriminating
	against anyone intentionally or otherwise.  

	Let it be known that I think of everyone in the DEJAVU
	Conference as a brother or sister, and I wish you one and
	all the best that life can bring, and this is not meant
	to offend or upset anyone, but I think that my time and energy 
	will be better spent on those who have a real interest on the 
	subject and don't want to waste time scanning over Notes that 
	don't add anything of value to the topic under discussion.

	Those who send me mail will receive future notes, you can
	read them or ignore them, make up your own mind on the subject,
	I will NOT send any follow up notes to anyone unless you
	request them, or want to further clarify something, and if
	at any time you don't want to receive anymore notes, just
	send me a note saying so, no explanations or reasons are
	necessary, and I'll remove your name from the list.

	I will continue to access the DEJAVU conference, but mostly
	on a read-only basis, I may occasionally enter a note if 
	I deem it necessary, but for the most part, you will not
	see any more long notes.

    .75
    
    I'm sorry that you're not going to note here any longer.  I found
    your entries very interesting.  I wish you would re-consider as
    the material you enter will be available to others in the future.
    It's good stuff and from a perspective I may not have explored if 
    it wasn't for you.  
    
    Those individuals who find the material not to their likings can
    always do a "next unseen."  However, when problems arise, we can 
    all learn and explore together.  It's the areas that shake a 
    person that is often the area the person needs to build in.  Of 
    course, it's not necessary to answer a note if you don't wish.  
    
    I don't have any desire to pressure you on this or to lay a trip
    on you, you do what is best as you see it.  I just wanted to let
    you know that your notes have an impact on people in a positive
    way and they have been beneficial.  Your time and effort has not
    gone unappreciated.
    
    Thank you,
    Joanne   
    
    

    Ahhh DEJAVU! Donchaluvvit!
    
    Time after time people say they're not noting any more, but they never
    stick to it. Wassamatter Juan, don't like the critical reviews?
    
    Laurie.

    re: (.75) Juan
    
    You are being na�ve if you think that you can enter vast quantities of
    unsubstantiated material without receiving criticism. 
    
    To me the situation is simple. You want to enter long notes containing
    views which to many are controversial. If you are unwilling to accept
    criticism, don't enter them. 
    
    A crude analogy; If I was discussing Gun Control in W_F, EF or Soapbox,
    I could enter long opinionated and possibly unpleasant comments,
    rounding it off with a disclaimer similar to yours. i.e. Only people on
    my side need reply.
    
    If you can't stand the heat ...
    
    Dougie

    Well as Juan was always saying, "The truth will out." It should make
    its path much easier if it does not have to struggle through the mass
    of confused, vague verbiage that has of late been cluttering up this
    file.

    Jamie.

    re those really, really long notes (not that Juan is even in the top 5
    for this conference), I can't help recall that
    
    Truth is Shorter than Fiction
    
    or, see my personal_name.
    
    karl

>    Truth is Shorter than Fiction
    
    But Fiction sells more copies.

    But Romance is Short.
    
    karl

    Oh now... romance can last forever if you want it too.

    >But Fiction sells more copies.
    
    This no doubt explains why the Bible holds the record for number of
    copies sold.

    Jamie.

    Now we're getting confused by "Faction"	;^)

    Fair enough. Please don't hesitate to come in here and criticise,
    make accusations and wax long and loud on Juan's behalf any time you
    want.

    It seems that those who fully understand Juan's writings, like Juan,
    are fond of wide margins on their notes. I wonder if this is
    significant? 

    Jamie (A not the slightest disgusted read/write Noter.).

    Oh Topher you are a rotter. Actually I think that I was the one he
    accused of that. But we needn't let facts get in the way when all our
    read onlys come out of the wood work for a moan.

    Jamie.

Well, I just have to say that I think Topher is a great moderator and does a
lot t keep things flowing in here.

		Dave

I hesitate to enter any reply as I'm almost convinced the Read Only Noters
are on the wind-up. Well, I'll bite, as they say.

Dougie

I can understand the frustration of the read-only noters as I've had 
the same feelings myself.  I'd prefer to see Juan keeping posting his 
notes here and ignore the noise (although I have to say I've grown 
fond of Jamie's presence because I like his wit even though I don't 
agree with his points of view).

I too want to come to Topher's defense.  He is a great moderator and a 
fair and just person.  Plus I feel it is people with Topher's 
objectivity and openness that will bring credence to these subjects as 
his skepticism is healthy.

Ro

                     <<< Note 1592.86 by USIW03::COMNET >>>
                             -< Just my opinion. >-

>    	to do but to create a disruptive atmosphere by poking fun,
>    	criticizing and by making slandering accusations with no
>    	evidence to show for it, 

Where are the slanderous accusations? It's just that, if your comment is
directed at me, I object to it. To accuse fellow noters of slanderous
accusations is pretty strong stuff.

>        you don't offer any solutions to
>    	the problems and questions about life, at least someone

We wouldn't be in here if we weren't interested in questions about life and
solutions to problems. There are gems of information everywhere, even in
Dejavu. 

>    	like Juan takes the time and effort to enter a rational
>    	commonsense explanation in clear, common language that
>    	explains why things behave the way they do in our world,

Now I'm convinced this is a wind-up.
    
	C. (A disgusted READ_ONLY Noter.)
    
Ok ::COMNET, now you've suggested that some noters are making slanderous
accusations, would you care to say who you are? Or are you going to hide
behind an initial?

Another vote for Topher, even if he can't spell facetious.

Dougie

re: .88

Can I laugh? 

    Yes, it *was* Jamie I accused of obfuscation.  We were discussing the
    use of the "smilely face" (":-)").  I was saying that I had no
    criticism for those who (like Juan) forget to use it, that it was only
    people who, like Jamie, deliberately decline its use because it would
    make their intent clear -- who deliberately make their writing
    confusing and misleading. 

    I'm sorry that you don't like my prose style, but it is mine, and to
    try to write any other way would be -- for me -- false: an attempt to
    write in someone else's voice.

    (Thank's for the kind word Dave).

				    Topher

    ... and to the others who got in kind words while I was writing the
    previous note.

				    Topher

                        <<< Note 1592.90 by TIS::MMS >>>

>                                            I just had to come out of the
>    read only closet and express my opinion.
 
Fine. When are you going back in again?

Dougie

All this "Read Only" I just popped in to have a grumble before popping out
again stuff - Is this the Hit and Run noting of the future?

Dougie

People who use Smileys are the same people who use more than one
exclamation mark at the end of sentences.

Dougie McBigot

Is it my imagination, or do all of the recent notes from "read-only
noters" originate from nameless accounts, like "SPOC2", "COMNET",
"XYZ", etc? Looks like a notes raid from SOAPBOX, if you ask me. I'd
say it's time for a little moderator action on the SET NOTE/HIDDEN
command. Topher, what say you?

re: .102

Wot 'e said.

    Well as one of the many read only noters who only come in here for a
    moan I would like to say that I could not understand a word of the
    stuff Juan was writing. Topher can when he wants to write clearly, not
    quite as clear as Jamie, but few can. Well back into the woodwork for
    me.                               
    
    RHM.

    I suspect that all the notes that strangely manage to be read_only
    noters coming in from untraceable accounts are wind-ups and I refuse to
    take them seriously.

    Jamie.

I figured that's what Dougie meant by "wind-up", but wasn't sure.
Thanks for a colorful expression.

And to continue the wind-up, I should mention that Topher has
communicated to me by mail that the system managers of TIS and ISUW03
are now pursuing the, shall we say, unorthodox use of these accounts on
their systems. It seems that they had anticipated such problems, and
had implemented some fairly clever auditing facilities. So, to "SPOC2",
"MMS", and "COMNET", see ya on the unemployment line!

Well, I am a read/write noter and I think that a lot of the banter in here is
distintctly reminiscent of something I have seen or heard before. What could it
be? Have I been here before? A previous life, a previous decterm window, what
is it about this exchange that is so familiar? I know! It is the same sort of 
thing my children engage in on a daily basis. Their ages are 5, 7, and 9 and I
am quite afraid that after reading this string, I shall give up any hope of
them outgrowing this annoying habit. 

>am quite afraid that after reading this string, I shall give up any hope of
>them outgrowing this annoying habit. 
    
    It's catchy, though, isn't it ?  ;-)

    I love it when it gets chaotic in here. :-)

    And for the chap who hates smiley faces... a little gift... 
    
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

    It's probably time to formally articulate what has been the de facto
    standard on anonymous noting for some time.  Expect something to be
    posted to note 1. as soon as we get it written and the moderators agree
    to it.

    Otherwise read-only noters certainly have the right to come forward and
    express their opinions.  If they only do so because they feel annoyed
    -- rightly or wrongly (personally I feel that there has been a lot of
    mockery and personal attacks masquerading as "skepticism" of late, and
    I find it rather unpleasant) -- that is unfortunate, but not
    unreasonable.  Let's try not to discourage people from voicing their
    opinions even if we don't like them.

    "Common sense" generally refers to "along the lines I've been thinking"
    so I would not assume that because someone refers to something which
    is not "common sense" to you (or me) that it does not honestly seem
    like "common sense" to someone else.  Personally, I would prefer to
    take someone seriously who was, in fact joking, than vice versa.

    Please let's try to be a bit more civil.  Some mornings I feel like
    I've been out in the cow-pasture, if you get my drift.

					Topher

    
    
    	PLEASE, I said that I might enter a note if I felt
    	that it was necessary, and I think it is now, I ask
    	all readers here to NOT make any statements on my
    	account, I don't need it, if you feel that you have
    	been helped by my notes, please thank me personally, 
    	send me mail, but don't post it here, let's all try
    	to get along with each other, and please restrain
    	from making personal attacks against anyone.
    
    	Thank You
    

    I don't know whether this will help, but 
    I deleted whatever notes in this string that *I* wrote that 
    I thought might have contributed to the recent controversy.
    
    Got no wish to ruin anyone's day.  
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    
    
    	That's a great idea, Todd, thank you, I encourage 
    	the rest of the readers to do the same, especially 
    	those who entered notes on my behalf.
    

    Re .111

    >I love it when it gets chaotic in here. 
     
    Oh Mary your just an anarchist.

    Re .113

    >Some mornings I feel like I've been out in the cow-pasture, if you get
    >my drift.

    Do I detect the whiff of a bit of obfuscation on your part here, Topher?

    Jamie.

	I am addressing this note to those who posted notes on my behalf.  
	To those who expressed their opinions that they were helped by,
	and liked my Notes, I appreciate it, many have done so already
	off-line, and that is the method I prefer, but to those who made 
	personal attacks, you all know that I don't agree with them, 
	so I am asking them to please respect my wishes and don't do it 
	again.  Let's try to control our emotions and let us all have a 
	little peace and harmony even if we don't agree with one another.  

	Some of you who may have known me from previous dealings may have 
	thought that it was necessary to come to my help, but I assure you 
	that I can defend myself if I want to do so.  Let's put the past
	behind us and let us not waste time on things that are not relevant	
	to the topic under discussion.

	While I am on the subject, I must say that I have nothing but respect 
	for Topher, even though I never met him personally, he sent me mail 
	and offered to help me set up my own conference, but it is incidents 
	like this which discourage me from doing so.  Some may have thought
	that Topher was too intelectual, and they couldn't follow his train
	of thought, but it is NOT Topher's fault, it is the fault of the
	individual for not being educated enough; of course, that's just
	my opinion, and it is NOT meant as a criticism against anyone.
		

    Re .118

    That was the subtlest method that anyone has called me ignorant in many
    a long year. What amazes me Juan is how you manage to seem to irritate
    even more people than me in this conference.

    Jamie.

    Re .118  .119
    
    Jamie hit the nail on the head - there is something I find very
    irritating about .118 even though I have only been an observer of this
    l-o-o-o-n-g dialogue.  Heck, if you don't want to be criticised, why
    open your mouth?
    
    Brian

	>like this which discourage me from doing so.  Some may have thought
	>that Topher was too intelectual, and they couldn't follow his train
	>of thought, but it is NOT Topher's fault, it is the fault of the
	>individual for not being educated enough; of course, that's just
	>my opinion, and it is NOT meant as a criticism against anyone.
	

	I'll go the extra mile just to avoid a misunderstanding,
	when I entered the above, I was referring to one of the
	read only noters who entered a note on my behalf, and was 
	specifically complaining about Topher writing fancy words 
	that were hard to understand.   Again, it is NOT meant
	as a criticism against anyone, and no offense should be
	taken because none was intended and it was so specified,
	so PLEASE stop looking for things that aren't there.
	I hope that is clear enough.  

    
    
    
    From a 95% Read-only member (I've entered a few notes on occasion)
    
    
    Juan,
    
    Referring back to .75 where you "claimed" that you would not be noting
    in here anymore - what happened? 
    
    Obviously there were going to be comments made regarding your
    departure, both good and bad, but aren't these the same type that
    you've been receiving all along? It was YOUR decision not to continue,
    no one forced you into it, however, you seem reluctant to "let go". 
    
    Personally, I find myself agreeing with Jaime over your response in
    .118. Though you may have not meant anything by it - the choice of
    words could have been better. You did state it was a personal opinion,
    but don't call folks uneducated and not expect a barrage!
    
    My suggestion is to continue to forward your insights to the folks who
    enjoy them. Personal distribution lists are easily created and it won't
    expose you to the attacks that you so dislike. Again, YOU decided not 
    to note here, so why be upset about what people are "saying" in this
    file - simply press NEXT UNSEEN like many of us.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    Heidi

	
        Heidi,

		your point is well taken, but if you take a look
	at .75 again, you will find this at the end of it...

	>I will continue to access the DEJAVU conference, but mostly
	>on a read-only basis, I may occasionally enter a note if 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	>I deem it necessary, but for the most part, you will not
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
	>see any more long notes.
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

		I deemed it necessary for me to enter some notes
	because some noters entered notes on my behalf which caused
	a lot of bad feelings, understandibly so, so I decided to put 
	a stop to it and try to bring some harmony back into the 
	Notesfile.

		I agree that my choice of words could have been better,
	there is always room for improvement, but I didn't mention any 
	names, and like I said, I wasn't referring to any of the regular 
	Noters; I can understand how it could have been misunderstood, 
	that's why I entered my last clarification.  You said "don't 
	call folks uneducated and not expect a barrage!", please check 
	what I said, and you will find that I said "not educated enough", 
	which is not the same thing.  Don't you agree it's not the same thing ?.

		My own education is limited, so I consider myself
	not educated enough also, and at times I find it hard to follow
	what some noters enter; it that's the case, I can't blame them
	for my lack of understanding, I have to educate myself, and
	I can do that by looking up words in the dictionary, or by
	doing some reading on the subject which is not familiar to me.
	This is just common sense to me, but it may not be to others,
	in which case some may assume that it was meant for them, 
	even though I specifically said that I wasn't meant that way.

		I hope this is clear enough, as I hate bickering and 
	disharmony, and by the way, I don't consider your note bickering
	or disharmonious in any way, it was well presented, and I thank 
	you for entering it.

Juan,

If you are interested in my opinion, I feel you are analysing this whole
discussion to death. From your notes the reader might be forgiven for
thinking you were a victim of some personal vendetta in here. This is not
the case.

The majority of the notes responding to yours are not personal attacks.
They're might be a bit of teasing/sarcasm/cynicism, but I don't think there
is any real vindictiveness behind it all.

pip pip

dougie

    
    
    	Dougie,
    
    		thank you for your note, you're probably right,
    	the fault is with myself, and I apologize for over reacting,
    .

    Oh my! What fun it's been in here...
    
    Juan, get a thicker skin.
    
    Laurie.
    

  Any chance of meandering back to the original topic please ?

    As a Ratholer of no mean ability a must take my hat off to Juan.
    Regardless of the original subject, he is in there like a flash with a
    couple of hundred lines of Karma. If anyone complains then the rathole
    disappears off in the direction of abuse, veiled behind the "I don't
    mean this as an insult" ploy. Which when you analyze it is not really
    that much different from those who try to hide their insults behind
    smilies.

    Jamie.

   <<< Note 1592.129 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Exploring the limits of taste." >>>

>                                 Which when you analyze it is not really
>    that much different from those who try to hide their insults behind
>    smilies.
    
That's an interesting one. While not being in your league Jamie when it
comes to anti-smileyism, they can be more of a problem than an aid.

I've been involved in a 'disagreement' on CIX - and a few of the noters
there have a smiley as part of their signature. A bit like me signing
myself  :Dougie-)) or some such.

This gives the noter all the fun of being abusive, while hiding behind a
mask of 'it was all a joke, honest!'

Dougie