Socrates claimed to act like a gadfly Chris. One lingers briefly on the hope that Gabbers might be easier on the eye than the greek- sandalled hemlock quaffer before realising sexism is crass and lookism a major fetish of history. There are times to rise to the bait and others in which solace can only be gleaned by flying on a beetle to the moon, in tense consideration of the porpoise of the universe. I suspect you have been stung mate, though as more than a three-time loser on the gently-vicious sex front, I fear I cannot give expert evidence. Ointments and unctions may give relief to those Chris- crossed on the crucifix of censorship or spiked on the kebab. Let's dream up an Iron Man hippy-cull and test the ultimate out of body ethical question of our age - whether it should be legal to take the stash off a dead hippy (Cartman for the defence) whilst doing a Flying Harrington stoned on that non-coffee corn burnings the Mormons use in conversion rights. I'm telling you man, this is good stuff!
On 26 Mar, 15:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > That I would do what again, ban you? I wasn't the one who banned you the > first time, Donna, nor do I know the history behind it, although I might > guess it had something to do with abstract posts of an inflammatory nature. > In your history here, you've been known to inject emails which seemengly had > nothing to do with the topic at hand, including one notable thread where you > accused the Mind's Eye Icon of being racist because the eye was blue. > > As opposed to simply dismissing you out of sorts, since you don't seem to > actually display any sort of maliciousness, I'm simply trying to understand > what it is you are trying to say. Is there a point to your posts, or are you > the Robin Goodfellow of the Eye, determined to inject mischief where you see > fit? I have seen thoughtful participation from you, articulate conversation > on complex topics. I know that this isn't a language barrier issue. I don't > really think you are trying to martyr yourself on the cross of "Chris is a > horrid censor", which is a load of bollocks anyways. So, fess up, Gabs. Does > it crack you up endlessly to constantly have us on so? > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:gabbydott <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:37:16 -0700 > (PDT)Local:Thurs 26 Mar 2009 10:37Subject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of Out of > Body Experiences... > > Tense mistake. The question always goes : what is the porpoise. > Now I would say that I found out that you would do it again. > > On 26 Mrz., 00:03, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would rather you explain the purpose behind making a baseless and > > inflammatory post. Nothing in your statement carries a true correlation to > > what I actually wrote...it bore only the most surface resemblance to the > > topic, and as noted, used loaded language of an insulting nature. If you're > > not trolling, what was the purpose? > > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:gabbydott <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Datum:Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:25:54 -0700 > > (PDT)Lokal:Mi 25 Mrz. 2009 23:25Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of Out of > > Body Experiences... > > > No, I'm not. Do you want to ban me nevertheless - again? > > > On 25 Mrz., 15:14, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Gabby, that's a nice turn of phrase, but completely discounts everything > > > I posted, and uses loaded language which seems intended to insult. Being > > > the fan of Wittgenstein that you are, I've wondered if your recent bouts > > > of cantankerousness (with Orn and Slip) were intended to spark ire, while > > > your twinkling eyes watched with a giggle. > > > > Are you trolling, Gabs? > > > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:gabbydott <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds > > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Datum:Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:30:11 -0700 > > > (PDT)Lokal:Mi 25 Mrz. 2009 12:30Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of Out > > > of Body Experiences... > > > > Speak about your own pains that make you a prostitute for delusional > > > substances instead of ideas, Chris. Kierke set his understanding > > > parameters to overstand, which is fair enough. > > > > On 24 Mrz., 20:20, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ah, so you do enjoy a bit of novacaine when having molars extracted > > > > then...and admit that you're only being pedantic and pedagogical when > > > > making such broad condemnations across a vast portion of the > > > > population. > > > > > In your defense, the "Mormons' Struggle" is part of your ideology. > > > > Combined with the "Salt of the Earth" hard working farmers' lifestyle, > > > > I would expect a hard edged outlook. However, even farmers like a good > > > > pint of beer and a couple of Advil after plowing the north 40. It's > > > > all about gradients. > > > > > Winston Churchill turned to the attractive woman next to him and > > > > asked, "Madam, would you be convinced to sleep with me for a million > > > > pounds?" > > > > > "A million pounds? Why, of course!" she replied. > > > > > "Well then, how about ten pounds?" he asked. > > > > > "Mr. Churchill! What kind of woman do you think I am?" she responded > > > > angrily. > > > > > "We've already established that," he replied. "Now we're negotiating > > > > the price." > > > > > When there are exceptions to the rule, then we have validated the fact > > > > that the rule is not absolute, and what constitutes an exception > > > > varies according to the perception of the person granting the > > > > exception. You may find it weak that my best friend, who has an > > > > advanced degenerative case of MS needs both Merinol and smoked > > > > Marijuana to ease the muscle spasticity and other symptoms to be able > > > > to function as a normal human, but I assure you, his struggles to > > > > continue functioning as a tax paying citizen and good father to three > > > > children are as challenging some mornings as an Olympian struggling to > > > > shave another 3/100ths of a second off their track time. You mean no > > > > disrespect to him, you don't know him, and yet you flippantly dismiss > > > > his pain and suffering as weakness, without ever having witnessed or > > > > considered his life. > > > > > You think that the pain is good for his soul; yet, what good comes of > > > > his complete inability to walk or pick up his child? This is what his > > > > life is like without marijuana. Is that good for his soul, to be > > > > locked in a claw fisted position on the couch? > > > > > You, like many others, make judgements about a movement that you know > > > > little about. You discount the medical marijuana movement because you > > > > assume that medical marijuana patients are malingerers looking for an > > > > excuse to get high. Until you can get past your narrow perspective > > > > which automatically associates marijuana with burnout stoner hippie, > > > > you'll never be able to judge the issue fairly on its merits, or see > > > > medical marijuana patients with a truly sympathetic eye. That doesn't > > > > bode well for your defense attorney work... ;) > > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > What I say and what I do are almost always two different things. :) > > > > > But just because I don't practice what I preach doesn't mean that what > > > > > I preach is wrong. So I wouldn't call myself a stoic, but a defender > > > > > of stoicism. > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:10 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Congratulations, you're a stoic. You're in good company...Marcus > > > > >> Aurelius would agree with you completely. And yes, if someone saws > > > > >> your leg off without anesthetic, you will most certainly see God. > > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Kierkecraig > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > Get rid of it all. We're all a bunch of pansies. We need to go > > > > >> > back > > > > >> > to the days when they pulled teeth with pliars. Thats when men > > > > >> > were > > > > >> > MEN. :) > > > > > >> > On Mar 23, 7:22 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> What about anesthesia for dental procedures, or surgery? > > > > > >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Kierkecraig > > > > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > Chris, > > > > >> >> > I'm very unsympathetic to the marijuana apologists arguments. > > > > >> >> > Their > > > > >> >> > arguments always appeal to weakness. I'm of the philosophy > > > > >> >> > that the > > > > >> >> > only good arguments are the arguments that appeal to a position > > > > >> >> > of > > > > >> >> > strength. If you want a spiritual experience, why do it the > > > > >> >> > easy > > > > >> >> > way? Its good for the soul to have to work for something like > > > > >> >> > that. > > > > >> >> > And why would you want drugs to relieve you from pain? Pain is > > > > >> >> > good > > > > >> >> > for the soul as well. And if you don't stand in the position of > > > > >> >> > defending drugs from the argument of absence from pain, or > > > > >> >> > abundance > > > > >> >> > of pleasure, then what argument do you have? > > > > >> >> > So in sum, I disagree with the aims of drug use. (i.e. > > > > >> >> > avoidance of > > > > >> >> > pain, excess of pleasure) And even if I agreed with the aims, > > > > >> >> > drugs > > > > >> >> > don't sufficiently accomplish those aims. They end up doing > > > > >> >> > more harm > > > > >> >> > than good. > > > > > >> >> > On Mar 23, 1:50 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> I understand. I thought you were making a judgement of the > > > > >> >> >> tribe itself. The New Age movement is particularly American, > > > > >> >> >> and for the most part, abstains from the chemical roots of the > > > > >> >> >> religions that it borrows many of its philosophies from. It's > > > > >> >> >> an interesting contradiction to your accurate observation. > > > > > >> >> >> [ Attached Message ]From:Kierkecraig > > > > >> >> >> <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > > > >> >> >> <[email protected]>Date:Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:13:11 > > > > >> >> >> -0700 (PDT)Local:Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:13 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] > > > > >> >> >> Re: Speaking of Out of Body Experiences... > > > > > >> >> >> Chris, > > > > >> >> >> What I meant by perfect fit for modern america is that we are > > > > >> >> >> always > > > > >> >> >> looking for a quick fix. We Americans don't like to put forth > > > > >> >> >> effort. I did not mean that physchodelic drugs are not > > > > >> >> >> ancient. > > > > > >> >> >> On Mar 22, 9:43 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > >> >> >> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> > Ayahuasca tea, along with the ritual use of amanita > > > > >> >> >> > muscaria, is not a > > > > >> >> >> > modern american ritual at all. These are South American > > > > >> >> >> > immigrants, > > > > >> >> >> > Craig. Did you not read the article? This is a religion that > > > > >> >> >> > has > > > > >> >> >> > archaeological evidence dating it at least as old as > > > > >> >> >> > Christianity, > > > > >> >> >> > perhaps two to three times as old as that. > > > > > >> >> >> > Nothing modern at all about the use of psycho-actives. If > > > > >> >> >> > anything, > > > > >> >> >> > it's a modern idea that you can achieve a "spiritual state" > > > > >> >> >> > without > > > > >> >> >> > them. > > > > > >> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Kierkecraig > > > > >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> > > Maybe if you aren't willing to put forth the effort, then > > > > >> >> >> > > you don't > > > > >> >> >> > > deserve the experience. Sounds like these hallucinogens > > > > >> >> >> > > are a > > > > >> >> >> > > spiritual experience for the lazy. A perfect fit for > > > > >> >> >> > > modern america I > > > > >> >> >> > > guess. > > > > > >> >> >> > > On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, Chris Jenkins > > > > >> >> >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > >> I would posit that there are few people anymore who > > > > >> >> >> > >> practice the rituals to the degree necessary to self > > > > >> >> >> > >> manufacture the amounts of DMT necessary to have the > > > > >> >> >> > >> "religious experience". Buddhist monks, perhaps, and some > > > > >> >> >> > >> extreme branches of Catholicism who still practice > > > > >> >> >> > >> flagellation. For the rest of us, a legitimately altered > > > > >> >> >> > >> state of reality is not likely to occur without > > > > >> >> >> > >> assistance. > > > > > >> >> >> > >> [ Attached Message ]From:Slip Disc > > > > >> >> >> > >> <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > > > >> >> >> > >> <[email protected]>Date:Sun, 22 Mar 2009 > > > > >> >> >> > >> 16:07:12 -0700 (PDT)Local:Sun, Mar 22 2009 > > > > >> >> >> > >> 5:07 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of Out of Body > > > > >> >> >> > >> Experiences... > > > > > >> >> >> > >> I guess I'm going to have to take another look at the DMT > > > > >> >> >> > >> you tossed > > > > >> >> >> > >> at me on another occasion, you see Chris, I didn't forget! > > > > > >> >> >> > >> I'm glad that people can have the liberty to practice > > > > >> >> >> > >> their faith in > > > > >> >> >> > >> the way they see fit without interference from big > > > > >> >> >> > >> brother. > > > > > >> >> >> > >> The question is, though, why do religions need to use > > > > >> >> >> > >> hallucinogens if > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
