Dear Christianne,
Speak up loud and clear whenever you want to.
James
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
>
> Seems to me that the i
Merla and martha,
I like wooden boats more,too, but won more races in
fiberglass (literally).
Put in Chris Shade and you will see our conversations
of the last few days (and no, in advance, I am not the
Chief of the canadian Indian tribe, the Bloods).
I could be mediation, body guard, and occu
Jane, I have had it with your BD piety. If you had half of
the wisdom you you think you have, you would see that
not everybody involved in social change is running
around as an activist waving signs and telling people
they should use preps and become enlightened. Change
happens on may levels, and
fear, seems to go against
> all the other spiritual
> principles espoused on this list.
> Respectfully,
> Jane
>
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:15:01 -0500 (EST)
> > To: <[EMAIL
> On another note does anyone have a copy of Lili Kolisko's Agriculture...or
> know where one is available? I would very much like to hear some talk of
her
> work on the list. And some comments on Greg's posts.
Barbara
I have a photo copy version of agriculture of tomorrow - I
poste
iritual agriculture. http://www.kootenay.com/~aurora
-Original Message-
From: James Hedley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
>Dear Lloyd,
>This mail was not person
- Original Message -
From: James Hedley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
> Dear Lloyd,
> This mail was not personally aimed at you. It derived from a sense of
> frustrati
for what we do neither.
Regards
James
- Original Message -
From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
>
> > because I do not contribute in
> >
Essie said:
I don't know how to balance it all, actually. I don't have any
issue with those who want to be more private, I guess - but I don't
think that going underground keeps anyone safe, and I do think that
going underground inhibits the effort and keeps the numbers of the
faithful small
Jane -
I really do not understand why my discomfort and the discomfort of
others with the way the archives are set up currently is not enough
for you.
I've chosen to be responsible for the welfare of many. There are 5
other mouths at my table, Jane.
Compassion, please.
Let me know, ok?
Than
Allan and others -
It seems to me that as a public we are inundated, force fed with bad works.
People who only have the media-driven force feeding for a diet don't know
that they have choices, but it is my experience that many people are
remarkable when supported, respected and given real inform
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:05:21 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
>
>> Whatever that means.
>>
>>> From: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Whatever that means.
From: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:45:42 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
Me thinks, Jane, per chance you have no idea what the rest of us go t
Seems to me that the issue could only be resolved by a vote and I do not
know how that could be implemented.
I think that the preference for either protecting the archives or leaving
them in the public domain comes down to one's personal value system. There
are many idealists among bd-people, fo
D]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:16:13 -0800 (PST)
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security /
> Insecurity
> >
> > Allan,
> >
> >> The original reason 'lurking
- Original Message Jane Sherry
Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
> Is it possible that if potential employers would hold your personal
beliefs
> and interests/hobbies against you that perhaps you wouldn't want to work
for
> such people? And if they would use
Thank you for writing more eloquently what I felt about this thread, Essie!
Blessings,
Jane
> From: Essie Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:02:51 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security /
Whatever that means.
> From: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:45:42 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LURKING was Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
>
> Me thinks, Jane, per chance you have no
> I realize this discussion morphed somewhat, but I'm sad to see that
> it has taken a turn that has disturbed some people. I'd like to get
> the discussion back on it's original focus.
>
> The original reason 'lurking' was brought up under the 'personal
> security' topic is because there are many
Listen, also, however, to those who have made the choice to speak
out, or to step forward, and respect them for their choices.
Essie - How do you suggest BD NOW! could provide for the above while
respecting the wishes of those who would like to do their good works
outside of the public eye?
Wo
Sometimes two cents wont pay the bills.
Most people hold certain jobs because they have to, not because they want
to. In an ideal world everyone would have a fulfilling job they enjoy. But
this is not an ideal world (yet). Perfect jobs are hard to find, perfect
employers even more so. It would
Allan -
Silence is complicity, as the saying goes.
You present your views as though they are views that everyone should share
and that, if someone doesn't share them, they either just don't understand
(as in what you said below to Jane), or they are just plain
unenlightened. It is fine that y
Is it possible that if potential employers would hold your personal beliefs
and interests/hobbies against you that perhaps you wouldn't want to work for
such people? And if they would use such measures as checking you out in a
search engine and then judging you on such information instead of your
m
Just to chime in, that is an issue for me. I don't
like that people (say prospective employers) can
search the web for my name and find my posts to BDNOW.
I hate to have to deny my interests, but I am a
scientist right now so BD is not my professional
public face.
There is a saying in some circ
your
merits as a scientist, then perhaps they would not be a good employer?
Just my two cents,
Jane S.
> From: Chris Shade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:16:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LURKING
Allan,
> The original reason 'lurking' was brought up under
> the 'personal
> security' topic is because there are many people who
> lurk on bd now
> because they do not want their posts to be preserved
> forever in
> public arhives.
Just to chime in, that is an issue for me. I don't
like th
> To categorise a list member on the basis of how much they contribute and
what they say demeans the value of any contribution to the list.
James, Lloyd, et al --
I realize this discussion morphed somewhat, but I'm sad to see that
it has taken a turn that has disturbed some people. I'd lik
> because I do not contribute in
> the same amount as say Steve Storch or Lloyd Charles or whoever makes me a
> lurker and not as worthwhile a contributor as someone else?. Is Hugh Lovel
> regared as a lurker because he conducts a watching brief on what is going
on
> through the list. Would you cl
rsday, January 16, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
> Allan Balliett wrote:
>
> >> As you know, we are postulating a spiritual science here that
> >> operates beyond the perceptions of orthodox science. It is very very
> >> difficult to
Allan Balliett wrote:
As you know, we are postulating a spiritual science here that
operates beyond the perceptions of orthodox science. It is very very
difficult to create a proof of our system within a lesser system.
Having experienced the power of biodynamics in food and in soil, I
have no
***
I have reviewed my contributions to this list over the last year. Counting
my last post but not this one, I have made 76 posts to BDNOW!, most of which
have been of a technical nature.
Nonetheless I am considered a 'lurker' by the list owner. Interesting, isn't
it?
Frank, Frank
Roger Pye wrote:
>
> The fact is that the freedom of speech enjoyed in some countries is
> either completely missing in others or being degraded. Ditto Abraham
> Lincoln type democracy.
Hi Roger,
In the rest of your post you point out what I think is the key
fact---whatever you write and send ou
Frank Teuton wrote:
"Get up, Stand up! Stand up for your rights! Get up, Stand up! Don't give up
the fight!"
or close the shop and
slink away. Really there is little point holding an internet discussion and
keeping it secret, what the heck are you thinking?
Frank Teuton--hopes he didn't make a
33 matches
Mail list logo
