| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2022.1 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | New bugs for old! | Tue Jan 03 1995 05:46 | 4 |
| Er, if this knowledge is forbidden, how come it is in a book on sale to
the public?
Jamie.
|
| 2022.2 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Jan 03 1995 12:55 | 11 |
| Jamie,
Tsk, tsk. The knowledge *was* forbidden, but the author has cunningly
winkled it out, perhaps by reading secondary and tertiary sources,
but definitely by spending some time, effort, and money. Those
interested may do the same.
(I am assuming that this book is vaguely parallel to Barbara Walker's
_The_Woman's_Encyclopedia_of_Myths_and_Secrets_.)
Ann B.
|
| 2022.3 | just a new perspective on the sciences | ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL | | Tue Jan 03 1995 13:58 | 27 |
| re: -1
I've not looked at Barbara Walker's book so I'm not certain of any
similarities. I can tell you this book is very interesting and
provides a rather unbiased view.
It did concentrate quite a bit on astrology and the signs and how to do
your own and it gave some basic information on symbol interpretation
when crystal gazing.
It talked about meditation and talked about science versus the
supernatural and how many of the people we consider fathers of science,
such as Sir Isaac Newton, were actually avid believers in the
supernatural and astrology.
It didn't talk about ghosts or hauntings, but more about Kaabalism
(sp?) and the different sciences and how they've developed over the
years.
Just a new and rather interesting perspective.
And Jamie, I agree with -1...it *was* forbidden but now it's available.
Kind of like the Black bible...wasn't that forbidden for a long time?
Now you can go into a bookstore and pick up a copy of it and the
Necrem(sp?) you know what I mean...
|
| 2022.4 | knowledge----------------- | OFOSS1::RAGUCCI | | Tue Jan 03 1995 20:16 | 4 |
|
either way they're both interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
|
| 2022.5 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | New bugs for old! | Wed Jan 04 1995 04:18 | 3 |
| So it would be more correctly titled, "Formerly Forbidden".
Jamie.
|
| 2022.6 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Jan 04 1995 13:11 | 3 |
| Yeah, but that ain't got no esthetics.
Ann B.
|
| 2022.7 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | New bugs for old! | Thu Jan 05 1995 03:37 | 4 |
| Be that as it may, at least it conforms to the "Truth in advertising"
standards.
Jamie.
|
| 2022.8 | Truth in Advertising? | ROMEOS::TREBILCOT_EL | | Thu Jan 05 1995 12:32 | 6 |
| How do you figure that Jamie? Truth in Advertising? I'm curious to
your take on this...
you always have such refreshing comebacks...
|
| 2022.9 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | New bugs for old! | Fri Jan 06 1995 05:01 | 7 |
| Oh a while back in the UK they passed the Trades Description Act.
Basically if you advertise a product it must live up to your claims.
Interestingly enough one thing that is specifically excluded from the
act is political parties pre-election promises.
Jamie.
|