Gee Lloyd I don't really describe myself or Jane Sherry or Woody as a
lurker. There is nowhere to hide and at a time when many boundaries are
dissolving why would we erect more only to have to erase them at some later
date with all the karmic consequences of that opening and closing?
One of the questions that we may all be asked when we move to the next plane
is "Why weren't you truly (personal name)?" So being true to our self, self,
self, selves holds much power. And the sooner we acknowledge and honour
those who hold the True Power rather than bleeding our energy off to
authority by way of fear and the like the sooner we will be able to
understand the meaning of vulnerability is the path to freedom.
And what might the Nature Spirits say of tucking away information that needs
to be available to all. The Archangels? God? Anyone able to do a channeling?
You can always sign Anon.
Allan, thought this website might be of use to you
www.rain.org/~jjgelles/economic-rights.htm
We at Aurora Farm would be happy to pay a small fee per month for the list .
Wouldn't you be able to "see" who you are dealing with here and not have to
go outside for employment?
Happy 2003 All. Looks like we promise to be dynamic this year.
May All Beings be Gone from Danger and Be Who They Truly Are,
Barbara

Aurora Farm. the only
unsubsidized, family-run seed farm
in North America offering garden seeds
grown using Rudolf Steiner's methods
of spiritual agriculture.  http://www.kootenay.com/~aurora


-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Personal Security vs National Security


>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:12 AM
>Subject: Re: Personal Security vs National Security
>
>
>Hi Allan
>             Have you noticed how the lurkers seem to be against your idea
>and most of the active posters in favour ? ('cept Frank of course)
>Lloyd Charles
>
>

Reply via email to