Conference hydra::dejavu

   Isn't that the one by Arthur C. Clarke?  If it is, it's a good read.


   							Terza

    Please tell me that it isn't 30 years since it came out, I'm not really
    that old.

    As far as I remember a group of aliens come to the earth to help the
    human race evolve in to its next stage. It was a very good read indeed
    but I don't think parts of it would go down too well with serious
    religious types. I'll see if I still have my copy at home.

    But 30 years...

    Jamie.

    Sorry Jamie, I'd say its been at least 30 years.  It was already a SF
    "classic" when it provided part of the inspiration for "2001", which
    was what, about 1967?

    I'm not sure that it is currently in print, by the way, but it *is* a
    classic.  If your local library doesn't have it they should be able
    to get it on interlibrary loan for you.  Just ask at the circulation
    desk.

					Topher

He wrote a sequel to the book as well, Childhood *something*, don't quite
remember....

I agree with Jamie - 30 years!!!!!

Mary

    Just to make sure we get title and author together in one note, it's
    "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke.  The plot is incompatible with 
    some religions, but other religions might view it as very compatible. 
    I think I have seen it for sale recently.  
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    No, .6, _Childhood's_End_ isn't involved with that sort of thing.
    
    							Ann B.

    It seems that you are right, the book is missing from my collection and
    may have been lost in the great Prague clean out of my library which
    happened in the mid 60s.

    But we digress the ISBN of the book is 0345347951. Currently it is not
    in stock in either of the two English language bookshops in Amsterdam
    but one offered to order it for me so it must still be in print.

    In actual fact I stole a quote from it and used in in here just a few
    days ago, anyone know what it was?

    Jamie.

	Re .8:
    
>    In actual fact I stole a quote from it and used in in here just a few
>    days ago, anyone know what it was?
    
    My guess is.....
    
    Note 1603.3                   Predictive Astrology                      

        If Astrology could predict the outcome of races then the Bookmakers
        would be broke and the astrologers rich. However a quick look at
        real life reveals the opposite.
    
    Sounds like something Clarke might say.
    
    Meanwhile, I thought it was rather curious that Clarke used the device
    of a high-tech Ouija board in that novel to give what turns out to be
    the correct answer to a question that no one in attendence (except for
    the Overlord) could possibly know the answer to.
    
    Helluva novel, that.  One of my all-time favorite SF novels.
    
                                                           Mike

    No it was in a discussion on UFOs.

    One of the aliens who arrives to guide mankind through the process has
    a hobby of reading about encounters with aliens and uses the phrase
    something like; "According to these accounts here the Earth is the cross
    roads of the universe."   

    Jamie.

Um, I think the remark was supposed to be sarcastic.

If you mean to say that you think the Earth is a crossroads to the
universe, then I think the quotation was intended to suggest that such
a thought is, er, a bit arrogant. And perhaps that's true. Now we
wouldn't want to be arrogant, would we? It's bad for the karma.

    It's only arrogant in retrospect if it turns out to be false,
    Mike.   If it's true, it's just good vision.  :*)
    
    							t

    In the book it was a sarcastic comment on those who believe in UFOs.
    And, as I remember, it pointed out that until then Earth, being in an
    out of the way part of the galaxy, was of little interest to other
    races, however out of our arrogance of our importance in the scheme of
    things we assumed that all other races were tripping over each other to
    get here.

    Re .16

    >Well, if there are multiple universes and we just happen to be
    >physically located at the nexus then it's probably more geography than
    >it is arrogance.
    
    If there are multiple universes is a very large "if". Couple to that
    the amazing coincidence that we just happen to be located at the nexus
    is another highly improbable one. 

    However history gives us many examples of man's supreme arrogance.
    Remember that not to long ago people thought that the Earth was the
    centre of the universe and everything rotated round us.

    So the geographical solution to this looks highly unlikely and the
    arrogance by far the most probable.

    Jamie.

If one had *certain knowledge* that Earth was at the center of cosmic
activity, then their belief would simply be knowledge of facts. And if
one had such certain knowledge, one would be discussing other things.
On the other hand, if one is merely convinced or hopeful or
entertaining the possibility (and yes, it's possible), then the belief
is, at best, a self-centered wish.

Saying "it's possible; *maybe* it's geographically true" is the trigger
which should tell you to examine this belief and try to learn *why* one
would hope that it's true. It ultimately doesn't matter if it's true or
not!! What matters is that the person who believes it but fails to
examine why is blocked from progress on the Path. This is a tragedy,
and a waste of divine/human potential.

        Well, if I'm following this correctly, my take on this is as
    follows:  what good would it do any of us to discover that
    Alpha Centauri (or whatever) is the center of the cosmos?  None
    of us is likely to get there in this lifetime, so does that mean
    we're doomed or inadequate or that we may as well give up since
    we missed the head marketplace of "reality?"  Most of us would
    get pretty depressed if we found out this grand party was taking
    place somewhere and we weren't invited...don't you think?
        Nah, I'd rather believe (foolishly, from your perspective,
    maybe, but foolish any other way from *my* perspective) that
    whatever is going on with ME is what is of consequence.  The
    only real significance to me is what is happening to me.  If
    *I* am not of consequence to myself, who am I to be a consequence
    for?  If I'm not of consequence at all, then why bother living?
    The center of my reality is me.  The totality of my reality is
    everything of which I can be a part of.  Is this arrogant?  I don't
    think so.  I don't think that there's any other reasonable way to
    look at it.  Throwing the word arrogance into this may simply be 
    a smokescreen to try to avoid facing the greater truth.
    
    Frederick
    

> what good would it do any of us to discover that
> Alpha Centauri (or whatever) is the center of the cosmos?

While it could potentionally be of some interest, I think you have the
right attitude: it's irrelevant with respect to one's spiritual
progress. So when a person finds him/herself attracted to the idea that
they are at or near the center of the cosmos, this should be a signal
to them that they need to examine their motives. Regardless of whether
this turned out to be true.

Re "Crossroads of the universe(s):

1) What is a crossroad?  Actually, it's nothing more than where a couple of 
roads intersect.  In any U. S. county, there are literally many hundred cross-
roads; in any city, each city block is generally bounded by four.  So big deal
on crossroads: the only significance they have is that they enable traffic
to change direction.

2) If we presume that we can extend the concept "outward," then a figurative
crossroad has no more (nor less) significance than a terrestial one.  A
crossroad of the universe" has no more significance than "Routes 27 and 62:
crossroadsd of Maynard" does.

3) The cosmos appear to be some sort of hypergeometrical figure.  If the space
is positively curved, then the center of the hypersolid would be outside it
and _no_ point would represent its center.  For a hypersphere, even "epicenter
of the universe" wouldn't have any meaning.

4)  If space is negatively curved, it would be possible to find _the_ center
within it.  But then what?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

> socially acceptable crap..
> Who gives a flying fig anyway.

This sort of reaction indicates that you have a wonderful opportunity
to learn! What is it that bothers you about the assertion that this
belief must be self-centered? Truly, when we are upset with what others
have said or done, the ultimate source of the disturbance is within ourselves.

An example: my kids often misbehave at dinner. I get angry. Sometimes I
say something nasty, and one of them will cry. Why do I get angry? Why
do I react that way, rather than taking some other action which will be
constructive (and help them to modify their bad behavior)? By asking
myself these questions, maybe I can learn something (or maybe not).

Re .34 (Mary):

    >In a universe so vast... how does one explain the proliferation
    >and diversity of life on this one planet... a planet that seems to
    >regulate itself.. it's own systems.. in order to maintain an
    >environment conducive to the continuation of life?  

Two ways.  One, life in various forms might be quite common throughout the
cosmos, and there are hints of that (spectra of comets, for instance, show
traces of amino acids in some cases, which can be thought of as the building
blocks of organic [as in "living"] molecules).  If that turns out to be the 
case, then the myriaform organisms we're familiar with will be but a drop
in the bucket by comparison with all the alternatives.  Also, between
evolutionary forces and available resources, life forms will develop to fit
available niches, which in turn suggest many life-form variants; hence, there
will be both proliferation and diversity.

Neither requires uniqueness.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re life and all that stuff:

Life forms may not even be recognizable as such to us.  To a fruit fly, with an
extremely short life span, a Sequoia tree probably doesn't seem alive, but it
nevertheless is.  My view is that life is a natural consequence of the existence
of a cosmos, so it ought to be all over the place.

And not just in this "universe"; anyone at all familiar with n-dimensional
geometry has to appreciate that there is a clear possibility of multiple 
"universes," all parallel to each other in tyhe hyperdimension.  If that is
indeed the case, equivalent levels of life seem likely in all of them.

Additionally, we're talking now of what I'll call the "base plane," meaning the 
mundane world.  Life, or its equivalent, could also exist in the so-called
"higher planes"; these could best be explained by thinking of frequency 
domains in a full spectrum.  This would hold for each of the "universes" I've
been discussing.

Like crossroads, everywhere you look, you might find some.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Mary is somewhat inconsistent in her rambling thought processes. 
    
    She first proposes the extremely complicated idea that there in a
    multi-universe system with Earth at the nexus to dismiss the simple
    theory that it is caused by mankind's arrogance. Then a few notes later
    she is pointing out Occam's razor to Marcos saying that the simpler
    solution is the more likely. Do you ever apply Occam's razor to your
    theories, Mary?

    It is pointless trying to have a conversation with you Mary as you
    never seem to have an opinion for more than two minutes. But as you
    pointed out you don't give a fig.
                   
    Jamie.

RE:   <<< Note 1610.38 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

�    Just consider it another arrogant, crackpot idea from the spiritually
�    crippled residents of the rubber room.
�    
�    Oh well... you can use a good laugh today anyway, I assume.
    
    Mary, you do seem somewhat bitter and twisted. Almost self-pitying
    actually. Not something I personally find funny. May I suggest you take
    a metaphorical deep breath and examine the notes you've entered in this
    topic, and try to see where this inconsistency is people are talking
    about. Rather than react with acrimony, you might see that they are
    actually right.
    
    Laurie.

    

Re .40, Jamie, as much as I might agree with your views on this
subject, I think your reply was unnecessarily hurtful. Is there any
point in insulting anyone that blatantly?

    Re .43

    I was keeping my reply in line with the tone of Mary's replies. But as
    she seldom seems to think what the effect on others her writing has,
    perhaps you are right and I should be more careful what I say.

    Jamie.

    RE: .46
    
    Mary,
    
    I fail to see what you feel you have achieved by that note. I find it
    offensive and distasteful. I was being concerned and kindly, there was
    not a hint of malice in it. I certainly never implied any of those
    things you chose to call yourself.
    
    You have illustrated the point I was making perfectly. What a terrible
    view to take on life, and those around you.
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. I already have three children, but thanks for your kind thoughts.

    
    
    I apologize to everyone.
    
    Good bye

    Re: .44+
    
    ...what has happened here? Something is terribly amiss...I thought as
    evolved spirits we should all know better than to have things end like
    this. Is it the media we're using?

> Is it the media we're using?

Actually, I think that's a large part of it. I've been studying
notesfile behavior for a little while, and it seems that people find it
easier to increase the level of insult, and react more strongly, as
well, in notesfiles and automobiles than in most other modes of
interaction. A feeling of anonymity has something to do with it, but
I'm not quite sure what's going on. Fortunately, bad behavior in a
notesfile can't directly result in a fatal accident.

    Besides the anonymity Mike mentions, notesfiles combine the
    disadvantages of spoken conversation and written correspondence.
    Like speech, notes are composed hastily, allowing clumsy phrasing and
    not allowing time to cool off from emotion.  Like writing, they lack
    voice tone, facial expression, and other cues that enhance meaning
    and warn off misunderstanding, hence the wide use of :-) :-( :-P :-D etc.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re: Mike & Earl
    
    ...any ideas on how we can make it better? Sometimes since we're
    talking about very sensitive ideas/beliefs it is not always remembered
    that nothing should be taken personnally. There must be some way to
    improve the process.
    
    I would like to share that in my experience I have found that many
    times interactions end like this when the group loses site of the
    importance of the process rather than the outcome. It is this aspect of
    sharing that I think has been lost.
    
    Are we talking about etiquette?

    Re .56: "...any ideas on how we can make it better?"
    
    I recommend giving yourself time to cool off before responding to a note
    you found inflamatory.  Save the note in a file and write replies to it
    there.  Then go away and do something else.  When you are less
    exercised over the note, go back and read your first-draft reply.  It
    will probably be rather excited in content and delivery.  Seriously 
    consider re-writing it more diplomatically, unless you feel you were 
    diplomatic the first time.  Repeat the cycle if necessary.
    
    This makes noting more like correspondence, with more time for careful
    consideration.  Spontaneous personalities may find this procedure
    frustrating.  They must decide which they dislike more, the
    frustration, or the blow-up in the conference.
    
    If you are not in a flaming mood, of course, you can still note ad lib.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I second Earl's suggestion and have further suggestions:

    Consider the option of sending the person email instead of making a
    public posting.  From the character cell notes interface you can do
    that simply by saying send/author while reading the note in question. 
    By keeping the dispute public, there is more face-saving needed before
    things can be resolved.

    And if you have made a mistake and offended someone, do what Mary did:
    admit your mistake, appologize, and make any amends which seem
    appropriate.  A mail appology as well as a public one may be in order.
    We all have off days or sometimes say something which is open to
    misinterpretation or which we just didn't know would offend someone.
    In the long run, people will think better of you for you taking
    responsibility for the consequences of your acts.

    Notice that you should (IMHO) appologize even if it is a matter of
    misinterpretation -- even what you consider unreasonable
    misinterpretation.  It is your job as a writer to make what you mean
    clear -- and your failure to do so is grounds for an appology.  This is
    so  even if you believe that the task was impossible given the
    unreasonablness of your audience (of course you do not state that
    belief).

    On the other hand, it is *also* the responsibility of the reader to do
    their best to understand the writer.  Give the writer any benefit of
    the doubt you can possibly justify to yourself -- and if you still
    have a question, ask politely in the conference or by email.  If it
    turns out that you have misinterpretted them and responded on the basis
    of that misinterpretation then appologize.  Once again, appologize even
    if you feel that there was no reasonable way that you could have
    avoided misunderstanding.

				    Topher

    Re: Earl and Topher
    
    Wow, you two have some really good points, thanks for sharing them.
    Putting it that way helps us all learn from this past experience I
    think. To Earl's point, the medium is so easy to use, yet so clumsy, it
    is like you have to force yourself to take the time to respond
    diplomatically, or put your thoughts together in writing two or three
    times before responding to something you feel strongly about, but it is
    so easy to just go in and just ad-lib away. I think this is part of
    what makes this type of problem possible, so something which may be
    useful to bear in mind.
    
    Also, to Topher's point, yes, I agree too, that being careful of
    misunderstanding is both the responsibility of the writer as much as
    the reader. I would also agree that apologies in heated discussions
    should be included where there is *any* hint of a possible
    misunderstanding. After all, we are reaching for understanding by using
    this medium aren't we?
    
    One of the things I would like to add is the sense I get (that is, in
    my experience) that almost all the interaction in notes on sensitive
    issues comes about because of disagreement. If we continually focus on
    disagreement, then we get the result of frustration and eventual
    disconnectedness. However, if notes, replies, etc. are based more on
    focussing on finding our agreements, bringing out and expressing our
    commonalities, then I think we stand more of a chance to really learn
    something from each other, rather than creating a rift.
    
    With these thoughts in mind, may we bring this conference to a more
    evolved state, and use it to bring us all closer together. I get a real
    sense that this is happening already.
    
    Sergei

    Good thoughts.
    
    My idea is a technical innovation.  When you enter a Note, there
    should be an option to say 'this is a flame/reaction/something
    I'm letting off steam about,' which asks what note you're responding
    to, then delays the entering of the Note for a day.  The next day, the 
    interface asks you if you really want to send the previous days flamage.
    
    Then, when you say 'yes,' it just mails the original text to the mailing 
    address of the author, and posts "I responded in private with venemous
    force.  Have a nice day, y'all,"  so you still feel like people
    know you're miffed about something but they don't all have to
    get dragged into the details unless they want to.
    
    I gotta million more.  This note was an ad-lib.
    
    								todd

  There's another possibility, which some may find distasteful:
  bystanders (including moderators) should expect and tolerate some
  nastiness -- providing that the participants do. If two people choose
  to communicate by argueing and calling each other names in public,
  then maybe it's not really the position of third parties to take
  action (other than to perhaps comment). Perhaps we should adopt as a
  definition that an offense has occurred only when an offended party
  has lodged a complaint. Until that time, what may appear to be an
  insult should be allowed to stand. Am I wrong in believing that this
  is how Corporate Policy defines harrassment (i.e., in the mind of the
  harrassed)?

    I didn't invite Mary's vitriol, and I don't accept or tolerate
    nastiness. I will, however, defend myself when called upon to do so.
    
    I think Mary owes me a personal apology, not just expecting me to
    accept "everybody". I was, after all, a specific target of some
    particularly nasty comments.
    
    I note she has deleted the offending note(s).
    
    Laurie.

> Personally, I don't tolerate nastiness, never mind "expect" it.  If any two
> participants in this conference actually "expect and tolerate some nastiness"
> then you can count me out of any kind of participation at all.

I'm sorry, Cliff, but your opinion reflects a cultural bias, and if you
would impose this on me, you would be failing to value my culture's
propensity to argue as a way to communicate and release frustration.

Let me explain: in Eastern Europe (where my families are from), much of
Southern Europe, the Middle East, and many other parts of the world,
verbal argument is considered normal and healthy. The "don't rock the
boat" attitude is uniquely Northern European (and, consequently,
American), and is particularly strong in New England.

What this issue boils down to is: who is the victim, here? If Jamie and
I agree to verbally duke it out, neither of us is hurt by the argument,
even if it may seem otherwise to observers. Our opinion of an observer
who would complain to a moderator about "violating company policy"
would be, frankly, "mind your own business". On the other hand, *your*
cultural values cause you to be upset by seeing other people fight. For
example, my wife absolutely can't stand to be at one of my family
reunions, and gets physically ill watching people scream at each other,
even though she understands, intellectually, that nobody is actually
getting hurt, and that everything will be forgotten in two minutes.

This isn't a clear case of who's the victim. If you deny me the right
to argue, then you hurt me and devalue my culture. On the other hand,
if I subject you to highly unpleasant (to you) discussion, then I
ignore your sensibilities. I don't have a good proposal to solve this,
but I want you to see that your opinion stems from your cultural
background, and is not a universal value in all humans. It may be a
majority value in New England, but it's in a small minority in the
world at large.

	re. Last few


		Now, wait a minute... (I did - Todd....;')...)

	My wonderful Dad was born in 'the ole country' near Greece,
	and he never raised his voice nor raise his hand to me or my
	mother.  On the other hand... my mom who was born in New Jersey,
	and had traditional waspy parents (English, Irish, and Scottish)	
	yelled and hollered all the time.  My Dad would just walk out of
	the house and go for a walk.

	I really don't believe that you can use THAT 'excuse' to be verbally
	abusive in the  notesfile or anywhere.  I feel for your wife, I 
	certainly vowed I would  NOT take on my mother's saviorfaire.

	Jamie, TODD - I agree with you both.  I think we all should take
	responsibility for our replies and words to another.

	IMHO, 
	love and peace,
	
	Mikki

> I really don't believe that you can use THAT 'excuse' to be verbally
> abusive in the  notesfile or anywhere.

We agree. *Nothing* can be an excuse for verbal abuse of another --
when it's abuse *in the eyes of the abused*, not in the opinion of an observer.

Incidentally, I don't feel this way about sexual harrassment
(especially of women). It is, of course, a culturally accepted practise
in most of the world, but I believe a third party has a right (and an
obligation) to report harrassment, because the offended party is often
prevented (in many ways) from reporting it herself. Notesfile disputes
are usually not in the same league with sexual harrassment!

    
    I have personally apologized to Laurie.
    
    But I have to go on record as saying that I personally do not feel
    that Dejavu is what it used to be... a place where sensitives could
    gather to discuss their experiences and topics of interest to them
    and where others could come to talk with them.
    
    I don't know why others come here ... what their purpose is.. and I
    don't suppose it matters very much but I personally will no longer be 
    contributing to Dejavu.  Notes have changed and this file has changed
    but change is the nature of existence... so maybe this is a sign that
    it's time to move on (for me).
    
    Adios to all the good friends I've known through this file.
    
    Take care,
    
    mary

    re: Mary S.,
    
>    that Dejavu is what it used to be... a place where sensitives could
>    gather to discuss their experiences and topics of interest to them
>    and where others could come to talk with them.
>    
>    I don't know why others come here ... what their purpose is.. and I
>    don't suppose it matters very much but I personally will no longer be 
    
    	Two things come to mind in reading this.  One is that I suppose
    	some people don't think there is such a thing as a sensitive
    	in the sense you mean, and/or are superfically interested in
    	the topic as a curiosity.
    
    	The other is closer to my case, which
    	is that there is no special group of people that I'd care to
    	identify as sensitives, just some individuals who are more gifted
    	or talented in that area than others.   *And* I honestly care not
    	to try to tell them apart from a Notes conference, anymore than
    	I want to try to tell who the better fighters are in the
    	martial ::ARTS file by listening to people's claims of how many
    	boards they've broken or whatever.  
    
    	I think it's natural to form images in our minds of such things, 
    	but I think it's also worth fighting the natural instinct to rate 
    	people solely by their words.   You might get some picture of
    	their character over time from that, but not likely of their	
    	specific talents.
    
    	I guess I don't see the us and them line drawn as sharply between
    	sensitives and insensitives (:^)) ... as I enjoy studying magic(k)
    	and mysticism, including psychic phenomena, but I don't consider
    	any of it the exclusive province of specialized psychics or
    	mediums.   So, when someone establish themself as a practicing
    	authority on the subject, someone with my perspective or one
    	like it might not feel free to give them the deference they feel 
    	they deserve, and may at times even appear cynical toward things 
    	they hold dear.   In person, things might very well be different,
    	as deeper levels of meaning and indications of intention as well
    	as psychic talent become more clear.
    
    	I don't suppose that helps any.  Take care.
    
    						kind regards,
    								todd

    I have not seen that much change in DEJAVU over the years -- of course
    at times I've been the "bad guy" skeptic -- but there have been cycles,
    most notably of level of acrimony.  Perhaps one of the astrology types
    would like to look into the matter.

					Topher

    
    From "Where There Is Light", by Paramahansa Yogananda

    "When there is a fight, at least two parties are involved.  So there
    can be no fight with you if you refuse to participate.
    
    "If someone speaks to you in hurtful language, remain quiet; or say, "I
    am sorry if I have done something to offend you," and then remain
    silent.
    
    "The spiritual man [person] conquers wrath by calmness, stops quarrels 
    by keeping silence, dispels inharmony by being sweet of speech, and 
    shakes discourtesy by being thoughtful of others.
    
    "Most of the time, people talk and act from their own viewpoint.  They
    seldom see, or even try to see, the other person's side.  If, lacking
    understanding, you enter into a fight with someone, remember that each
    of you is as much to blame as the other, regardless of which one
    started the argument.  "Fools argue; wise men [people] discuss."
    
    "We should make ourselves attractive by wearing the fine garment of
    genuinely courteous language.  We should first of all be courteous to
    our immediate relatives.  When one can do that, he wil be habitually
    kind to all people.  Real family happiness has its foundation on the
    altar of understanding and kind words.  It is not necessary to agree on
    everything in order to show kindness.  Calm silence, sincerity, and
    courteous words, whether one is agreeing or disagreeing with others,
    mark the person who knows how to behave.
    
    "Wrath and hatred accomplish nothing.  Love rewards.  You may cow down
    someone, but once that person has risen again, he will try to destroy
    you.  Then how have you conquered him?  You have not.  The only way to
    conquer is by love.  And where you cannot conquer, just be silent or
    get away, and pray for him.  That is the way you must love.  If you
    practice this in your life, you will have peace beyond understanding."

    Re: .-1
    
    ...very wise words, Cindy...thanks!

    Another related though occurred to me in line with some of what has
    been said. This is a very sensitive area, so if I seem to offend anyone,
    it is not intentional.
    
    A phenomenon I have experienced as coming up now and then in this notes
    conference (as opposed to often) is that some respondents come across
    (this is in my opinion) that they have found "The Way" or that one path
    is "The Best". This in itself I have my own opinions about, but aside
    from that, it is probably more likely than not that the responses
    written in this light repel more than attract, and have the tendency of
    alienating, not enlightening.
    
    To clarify, I am bringing this up because I found this to be a rather
    regular occurance in this conference, and although the respondents have
    good intentions, it may be taken as an oppression of their own ideas.
    Not that anyone is likely to respond if they are not sympathetic, but
    it does pose a bit of a communication problem.
    
    Although I do not have any solution, I would be interested in hearing
    others opinions about this. I would also be interested in hearing what
    the moderators have to say about the last few pertinent notes on this
    topic.
    
    Sergei

Re .73 (Sergei):

There is a principle in Digital called "Valuing Differences," which, should
everybody follow, would minimize rancor.  It has been my belief that whenever
possible, the more civil one remains, the less one is likely to get into a
name-calling, ad hominem, argument.  Basically, when one reaches a certain
impasse, the best thing to do is to "agree to disagree" and let it go.
There's enough positive stuff to discuss without arguing about where there may
be no commonality.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re: .74 (Steve)
    
    I agree with you Steve. I would also point out that Cindy's note 1619.0
    has some excellent pertinent philosphies which I think are appropriate
    to what we are talking about. There is another alternative however, and
    that is a "members only" conference. It would be interesting to know if
    there are any out there pertaining to the topic of this notes
    conference.
    
    Sergei

    Re .75

    I am a member of a special interest members only conference and I can
    assure you that this in no way whatsoever stops acrimonious fights
    breaking out.

    Re "The True and only way"

    I noticed in my childhood that every religion considered its "path" to
    be the only one. Some of those paths lead in more or less the same
    direction, others ran at tangents and some were diametrically opposed.
    However each follower had to believe that his was the only path.
    Later in life I discovered that there were other beliefs, which while
    not qualifying as religions, followed other "True Paths".

    Now each of these groups has leaders who profess to being wiser,
    knowing more about life and what God wants, yet all sing different
    tunes. Also I notice that hard facts are conspicuous mainly by their
    absence in these matters. Thus over the years I have reached the
    conclusion that only one can be true and that one will be able to prove
    its claims beyond any possible doubt. 

    When this one comes along I will become its most ardent fan.

    On other matters, I see that Mary has, yet again, left the conference
    for good. Could any of our participants who possess precognition and
    know when she is scheduled to return please contact me by mail to let
    me know. I have a fancy to opening a book on the matter and would like
    to set the odds in my favour.

    Jamie.
                     

  
  Re .75 (Sergei)
  
  Although I too would like to know if there is a members-only conference
  [or *any* other conference] on similar subjects,  I would think that it
  would be somewhat self-defeating as by concealing/restricting itself in
  such a manner it would tend to stifle the flow of ideas and discussion.
  
  I'd prefer to keep everything in this conference and try to maintain some
  form of balance between correspondents [ and yes, this is an ideal that I
  don't always keep to either ... but making the effort still seems to be a
  worthwhile task (to me) ].
  
  Frank

    Does anyone know which planet influences the outbreak self-righteous 
    indignation ?   It must be aligned with the moon this week or
    something.  :-p  :-(
    
    							todd

>>  Thus over the years I have reached the
>>    conclusion that only one can be true and that one will be able to prove
>>    its claims beyond any possible doubt. 

>>    When this one comes along I will become its most ardent fan.

	I like that, Jamie..

Its come along for 'some' of us.. &^).....it truly has..

	have a wonderful day,

	Mikki                     

    re: .79 (Todd)
    
         Yeah, I've noticed a bit more of this lately...must be 
    Uranus again.
    
    
    re: .78 (Marcos)
    
         Odd, isn't it, how people will wait for someone's "collapse"
    before attacking...
         That's some strength you have there.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .81

    >         Odd, isn't it, how people will wait for someone's "collapse"
    >before attacking...
    >     That's some strength you have there.
     
    Oh be fair Frederick, he was at her throat long before she departed.

    Jamie.

Re .79 (Todd):

    >Does anyone know which planet influences the outbreak self-righteous 
    >indignation ?  .... 

The planet is called Priggia.  It has a highly eccentric and slanted orbit.
Its albedo is very low, and it has little substance.  Those who perceive it
show that it actually creates almost no perturbations in the normal course
of other planets in their orbits.  :-D

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

Re .77 (Frank Bell):

> I'd prefer to keep everything in this conference and try to maintain some
> form of balance between correspondents [ and yes, this is an ideal that I
> don't always keep to either ... but making the effort still seems to be a
> worthwhile task (to me) ].

I agree. In my opinion, this is the only way humans will ever get past
this sort of difficulty. Personally, I think the conference moderators
do a passable job of helping maintain balance.

    Re: .76 (Jamie)
    
    It is possible that you may be missing something, that all ways
    considered "true" are paths to the same place. However, I respect that
    this is your opinion but was not in the context I was referring to. To
    clarify, I was referring to this because when this type of behavior is
    displayed in this notes conference, it does not promote discussion,
    only alienation (to those who are not sympathetic), and probably has no
    positive value to be here.
    
    .77 (Frank)
    
    Regarding "members-only" conferences, yes I agree there is a good
    possibility of their being self defeating, however, there could be a
    means of controlling openly negative behavior. The only alternatives in
    a public conference is to delete or set a note hidden (or something to
    that effect) but the offending noter can certainly come back for more.
    I'm not supporting one or the other, just weighing out their
    differences. It is a double-edged sword.
    
    .78 (M.)
    
    In my opinion, at this point, it is not necessary (i.e. has no
    pertinent value) to tell us who you think Mary is, but your persistence
    implies a great deal of insecurity. I have alo seen that
    "teaching-tone" from others. We can all learn from humility.

>>The planet is called Priggia.  It has a highly eccentric and slanted orbit.
>>Its albedo is very low, and it has little substance.  Those who perceive it
>>show that it actually creates almost no perturbations in the normal course
>>of other planets in their orbits.  :-D

	Wheph, I sure am glad it's not Uranus.. that's MY planet..

	;').. thanks Steve.   Some humor is very nice - right here.

	%^>	Mik

    (Please note that the following is posted as a member of the conference
    not in my role as moderator).

    Ill behavior on the part of others makes ill behavior in response
    understandable but it doesn't make it either right or useful.

    I basically reject the concept that "if they don't complain it must be
    OK with them and its therefore OK".

    First off because for one reason or another they may feel (perhaps been
    made to feel) that they can't complain -- you can't see the tears in
    someones eyes when your contact with them is through the network.  They
    may feel that complaining would only encourage more of the same, they
    may feel that complaining means that "they can't take it" and are
    "wimpy", they may feel that complaining will be equated to whining, or
    not being able to take a "joke",  or they may feel that they "deserved"
    to be mistreated (battered wife syndrome is a *human* syndrome, its not
    only about women and their relationship to their boyfriend/husband).

    Second, because this is a communal medium.  An insult directed at one
    person may "score" against another who agrees with that person or
    otherwise feels a sense of community with them.  Any insult here is
    intrinsically fired with scatter-shot.

    Third, because this is a public "meeting place".  We all have to live
    here, rude behavior makes this an unpleasant place.  It sets a tone
    which I shouldn't have to put up with as a "resident".  You should not
    be allowed to dump toxic wastes in the middle of a public park.

    Fourth, because DEC quite explitly does not make this medium available
    to us to insult each other.  If we abuse the privledge that DEC has
    granted (which it certainly did not have to do) then we risk the
    priledge being taken away.

    If you choose to be insulting to someone, then you have the option to
    do so privately by Email and leave the rest of us out of it (DEC may
    not be pleased with that use of its equipment, but that's between you
    and DEC).  When you post your insults here, you make us a party to them
    and it *is* our business.

    I do not buy the "its our culture" argument.  Murder is an accepted
    means of settling arguments in some cultures/sub-cultures, but that is
    not a justification in court -- nor should it be.

    Straddling the fence a bit and talking about my actions as a moderator:
    I'm fairly liberal about not taking action on what I judge to be
    borderline cases until someone complains, though some postings I
    consider too much and will hide without anyone explicitly complaining.
    I will hide a note if *anyone* complains whether or not they are the
    "recipient" of the insult.  Its OK to make people a bit uncomfortable
    and if an idea which isn't about some person or group offends someone
    I would need a lot of convincing before stepping in.  But if someone
    is offended not by an idea but by an attack on someone, then I feel
    that the "offensive" material doesn't belong (yes we could argue
    definitions into the ground -- but we all know where the line I'm
    drawing is).

    I do not claim consistency: I quite openly act in a context dependent
    way.  If I think the general tenor of the discussion or of the
    conference as a whole is one of escalating hostility, I'm much more
    likely to act as a moderator.  By the way, it was me who chose to hide
    Jamie's note, pretty much on that basis.  With Mary's note (which I
    missed) it might have seemed a retort.  With Mary's note deleted it
    came across as a direct insult.  It no longer belonged here (which does
    not say whether or not it ever did).  Jamie was welcome to appeal my
    decision -- either to me or to one of the other moderators.

					Topher

    re: .83, Steve, (re: planet Priggia)
    
    Thank you very much.  Your technical depth as always amazes me.
    Some have remarked that my mental ephemeris may be missing a few 
    pages, and now I have some validation for that.  ;-)
    
    								todd

Re Topher, I accept that genuine hurt is not to be condoned, but I
reject the idea that totally placid discussion is even desirable, much
less possible. I know you never said this, but I also know that many
would prefer to live in a "have a nice day" world.

There will be fights, and many of them will be constructive.
Fortunately, as you said yourself, you will execise moderator authority
according to the context, meaning that you will put a stop to genuine
hurt, but permit other argument which you judge to be constructive or harmless.

RE: .89 (Mike)

    You just changed the subject.  I wasn't talking about arguments or
    "fights" I was talking about insults.  Disagreements, even heated and
    vehement disagreements can take place without insults, speculations
    about motives, and other ad homina.  Then there is no question of
    action being reqired from "third parties" whatever the context.  *No*
    personal insults belong in here -- not a single one.  But the cost
    of eliminating all of them is greater than the cost of the heavy
    handed tactics which would be needed to eliminate more than the most
    egregious.

    I'm not pointing any fingers, mind you: its natural to make mistakes
    and say something unconsidered or in anger.  I have crossed the line
    myself on many occasions.

				    Topher

    Your safe from the Ayatollah Khomeini, Marcos, he's dead.

    Jamie.

    re: .91 (Marcos)
    
          Yeah, well, I've thought about that, too, since I am not only
    not fond of Islam but not fond of *any* religion...they are all almost
    equally misinformed, as far as I am concerned.  The way I see it, 
    however, is that I'm probably too insignificant or too "harmless"
    (i.e., harmlessly crazy  ;-)  ) to be much of a target.   When we're
    speaking about hundreds of thousands of devotees or even millions of
    followers, etc., the impact *I* have with a few hundred is hardly
    much of a threat, no?
         I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, Marcos.  Stick to
    your principles and live life with dignity...not out of fear.  Just
    remember to make room for those who don't agree and you'll likely 
    be okay, don't you think?
         My note had nothing to do with your copious entry...it had more to
    do with the verbal attack on Mary.  I didn't think the attack was fair.
    I wasn't interested in that big, "scary" note, didn't read it, and
    didn't associate it with this note.  I prefer motivation out of
    positivity, not out of negativity.  Gain through pleasure seems more
    desirable than "no pain, no gain."
         Anyway, get past it...
    
    Frederick
    

    Hi Marcos,
    
    While visiting the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach on vacation last week, a
    book in their bookstore caught my eye and I felt called to purchase it.
    Although I am interested in the UFO phenomenom, I have not be led to
    buy books on the subject before.  However, this one entitled WE, THE
    ARCTURIANS was one I couldn't ignore (not even clear why that is).
    
    Anyhow, it is a fasinating story of messages received by a doctor in
    New Mexico through her computer from fifth dimensional Beings who say
    they are from the planet Arcturus.  She goes into a semi-trance state,
    allowing the source to communicate through her via a microcomputer. 
    She receives the messages telepahtically as fast as they speak to her,
    or through her.
    
    From the preface:
    
    'This book is about change and the possiblity of a new door opening to
    the future for planet Earth.  It contains information on Beings from
    another section of the universe: their characteristics, the Starship on
    which they ride, a description of their home planet, their mission,
    their mode of functioning, and explanations of dimensions of space and
    time that ony a few scientists on our planet, such as Einstein,
    appeared to undesrtand.  It is about a new way of behaving and about
    the future of humanity."
    
    Ro
    

> 1980 and 1981 witnessed a Native American exodus to  the
> lush  green  hills  of Canton Zurich.

Are you referring to the countryside surrounding Zurich, Switzerland?
If so, I can understand a mini-exodus -- they make some real fine
chocolate in those parts :-).

In any case, the idea that ETs have intervened on this planet in the
distant (and maybe not-so-distant) past seems not so radical. In fact,
I might ask: So what? What's the big deal?

Or, to be more precise: Fascinating, yes, but what, exactly, is one
supposed to do about it, if true?

It seems, to me, at least, that one has a few options. One can adopt
any of a variety of unconventional, non-conformist approaches, or one
can just hang in there, waiting, reading, talking, and wondering, to
see what's gonna happen next. Either way, if/when anything happens, I'm
sure it will be a real blast for all concerned. And if there's any
manner of preparation which will make a difference, I supposed that
being a genuinely kind human being will help, regardless of whether one
adopts a conventional or unorthodox philosophy about it all.