socks

That's cool jardinero. That sounds like a great way to spend an evening. I'll look around for that DVD, any idea if it's sold online?

I wanted to add I have in the past referred to the Way Intell Nationals Board of Trustees as "hamsters, gerbils and weasals" at different times. This isn't a lie in and of itself, I don't think. My case: Hamsters - gerbils - that's the same thing, different words. Used as a metaphor it fits. Hamsters look cute but and bite the crap out of your finger if they're hungry. And they're always hungry, eating to the point they retain a fair amount of body fat. So, they're fat little animals that may take a nip at your finger if you look like food. Plus they're not really all that motivated. Give them a wheel and they'll run on it for hours. While they appear to be stupid because of this they're really not, they're just perfectly happy to expend energy going nowhere. In these ways I would submit the comparison of the BOT's to hamsters is accurate. Weasals? Well, weasals are relatives of skunks, same animal family. I rest my case on this one.

I'd love to see them with an orchestra Hope. The sound must be awesome. Green Day, seen them a few times locally. Good band, pretty simple stuff. Loud. Real loud. Loud loud. :D--> Right up there with The Who and Pearl Jam. Wacky, if you see them again I'd love to hear about it!

Is something a lie simply because it does not equal absolute truth? No. Isn't it be possible to be mistaken? Yes. Isn't it possible to misinterpret events or motivations? Yes. Isn't it possible to be just plain stupid? Yes. To "lie" by definition deals with the quality of something being incorrect, me knowing it's incorrect and the intent of my using it as correct. Some definitions- 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive. So I could be wrong about something and it wouldn't be a lie unless I knew I was wrong and presented it as being true. "socks is really dumb". That would be a lie if I knew socks wasn't dumb, but I said he was anyway. Which gets to opinion, I think Oaks. "socks is dumb" could be an opinion, be contrary to fact, but still be an opinion. If I knew socks was smart but held an opinion contrary to the facts it would be a lie to say so. Some would argue otherwise, "that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it". True. And that might fall to your last question, isn't it possible to just be plain stupid? Sure, if I hold an opinion that contradicts the facts it could qualify as being stupid. So I might say "socks screwed me over big time, he's dishonest". That would be true if that was the case. But to say socks is dumb could be a lie in an of itself. One thing doesn't mean the other necessarily. Yeah, I'd agree, telling someone that has an opinion about something "that's a lie!" is strong language, and probably incorrect. *just saw your last post up Oaks, I'd agree.

No, Ray Thomas wasn't there. Couple years ago I expected to see him in the lineup but they had the same group then as last night - 2 female players, one who played flute and acoustic/electric guitar, she did all the flute parts. Maybe he doesn't tour with them or...? Dunno. They were definitely on something there for a few albums. :)--> I tried to follow the Lost Chord album a little at the time and couldn't, in a direct way. "Om" seemed like kind of a weak way to end it although it seemed to leave it in the hands of the listener to define the whole business of the 'lost chord' syndrome. There's a whole mystical side to it, that may be a bad word. Transcendant? Another bad one for some. My conclusion on the process they described was a synthesis, where different elements form to make a new result out of the music. There's a whole schmatzy 'magic in music' lost chord thing I've read about but in the end I think they've hit on it although maybe not in the ways they've explored in the past. You can see it in their concerts. The net result of the experience you walk away with is more than the performance, although that's a part of it. It's more than the songs, although they're a part too. On their own they're just pieces of music performed. When they're infused with the emotions, thoughts and memories of the people involved there's a final result that's internal and intangible but it's there and that is about as lost a chord as it gets. What the participants invest in it determines what comes back out to them. I think because the Moody Blues music and lyrics build a situation where that can occur it's more powerful. The lyrics aren't about gettin' booty. Get Booty songs lend themselves toward Booty Gettin', a unique pursuit in it's own right. If you talk about life, searching, meaning, love, things like that, and the participants invest in that it's like a good conversation - stimulating, educational, comforting, inspiring, all kinds of things. You walk away thinking "that was great!" But the conversation is more than the people and the chairs and the coffee, it's what happened between the people. That's the 'magic' of the lost chord deal, to me. You get the impression that's why they're still doing it all these years later, they like that they can create and produce that result between people by adding what they do to the mix. Musically though they do some very nice things. Like that song "Somewhere", it's a got a classic killer rock hook that kicks, you could do it in 10 different styles, it's universal basic stuff. But there's a wonderful little counter melody that runs behind the lyric melody that's so simple it's perfect. You could play a 100 different ideas for that chorus, hear that one and say "that's it". And around that are a couple of piano sprinkles the brighten it up even more. Everytime they hit that chorus the audience responded. Some wafting transient, floating along lightly to it, others pumping their arms and getting' down. Right there I could feel it, the result of a great musical performance anytime anywhere - an entire audience involved, each in their own way. The "chord" was the whole room. Rockin' :)-->

I wouldn't be surprised dmiller. Their lyrics and music always had that "deep" thing going without sounding pretentious. If you get a chance to, see them. It's completely worth it. The basic rhythm section of bass, guitar and drums really holds it together (the second drummer definitely does the 'hard' stuff like on 'Singer in a Rock and Roll band he plays for about 5 minutes doing hard snare and high hat 1/4 note hits full force like a rock marching band), with an added acoustic guitar here and there. I had to admire Justin Hayward, he's not just wearing his guitar and whacking out a tweezey guitar squank here and there and being Mr. Moody, he's doing the music, playing the parts, hitting the beat every song. Figure, synthesizers have come a LONG way since the Moog, but the density of the early sounds is really strong with new technology. It's a very full sound they're getting. And I'm amazed - I read online they haven't been inducted in to the R and R Hall of Fame! They're being highly underated, after all the albums they put out and the fact they were in the forefront of the whole "concept album" idea.

Matilda digs the Moodies? Yeah, that surprised me. James Taylor does that too, within a couple chords sets the whole mood perfectly and everyone's locked in, seats back, cruising. It just kills me how some of their lyrics actually seem to make sense to me now, in one way or another. I didn't quite relate to them at the time, it's surprising how I listen to it now and go "oh, yeah. Yeah!" I have no idea if it's the same intent as the writer but it works for me.

That's cool Wacky. They did a song, "The Actor" which I'd never heard before, do you remember if they did that one? Nice tune. Yeah, the music is so solid and full, and it's cool seeing the bank of synthesizer keyboards onstage, as they're one of the bands that really put the whole synthesizer sound on the map. It's changed so much over the years, everything's so much smaller now. :D--> Plus the two singers added a lot to make the high-high vocal sections strong. People were really into it.

A classic if ever there was one Chatty. :)--> They did that one. They're interesting lyrics but very passionate too. I was surprised on that one, because it seems like it would be easy for them to schmaltz it up, it's so dramatic. But it stood on it's own and they gave it the full treatment.

Saw the Moody Blues tonight, second time in 3 years. Man, they are a great band. They were as good as the last time, did their original tunes with feeling. From the earlier band they have Justin Hayward - guitar and vocals, John Lodge - bass, vocals and Graeme Edge - drums and percussion. They have a second percussionist who really does a great job doubling the drum parts and adding additional percussion parts. Two female accompaniests adding flute, guitar and piano. They're a very authentic band, doing their songs with feeling for appreciative audiences. And they kicked it, great rock band under it all. One song that just ripped live - "I Know You're Out There Somewhere". Geez. It came back to me how it felt to be 16 and wondering about the future. It was cathartic in the weirdest way - about 1000 people singing "somewhere! SOMEWHERE!" The lyric is sweet: The words that I remember From my childhood still are true That there's none so blind As those who will not see And to those who lack the courage And say it's dangerous to try Well they just don't know That love eternal will not be denied. I know you're out there somewhere, Somewhere, somewhere I know you're out there somewhere, Somewhere you can hear my voice. I know I'll find you somehow, Somehow, somehow. I know I'll find you somehow And somehow I'll return again to you. They're a great band. If you liked them then, you'll love them now. Check them out.

Is my what the German spelling? My weenie? No. Weenie won't work, you'd need more letters.

Immature? That wouldn't it worth suing them, IMO. To me, that's a gross over reaction. Immature doesn't bring their motives into question, that there was malfeasance. They were 18 year old kids. They weren't pulling a prank or trying to scare the woman according to the story. I have no problem with the fact the woman was scared. But suing? Nope. I'm glad she didn't have a gun handy and know how to use it.

Satori's a weinie. There, I said it.

Leseee....2 young girls don't like cursing or drinking, bake cookies and run around one night and pass the cookies out. A middle aged woman gets scared and sues? My daughter can rip some choice words now and then, but she doesn't drink and often does nice things for people. I'll have to warn her. Did she ever have an actual heart attack? I'm not belittling being scared, but it seems like once the explanation was given, that would have been enough. I keep a 3' piece of 2" PVC pipe just outside the garage door of our place. Anyone who doesn't identify themselves quick are going to get it wrapped around them. (PVC is good, it will crack before it completely demolishes a bone although it will probably cause a fracture or two.) But that's for in the middle of the night and an obvious threat). 10:30? Cookies? When she left didn't she see the cookies? What, they tasted so bad she had to sue? I don't fault her for being concerned or calling the police, she was alone, she got scared. But suing?

Maybe you can spear head the next Big Thing - dancing opera! Dunno, I've always said I'm only good for slow dances, 15 mph or less. But she and her Mom like to dance. Good luck. Good for you, you sound very talented and committed. You'll do well.

Jennifer, you sound more and more like your counterpart in our fam. :D--> Our Jennie is a tell it like it is kinda gal. Sweet, and honest. She's very fair skinned like her mother so if she did lie she blushes so bright it's a dead giveaway. ;)--> And she's been studying music and some dance, about to head into a full time music program in the Spring. I hope you succeed. Nothing makes a parent more proud or fulfilled than to see their kidlings succeed and be happy. Be a success, make lots of money and retire your parents to the lifestyle they so richly deserve! :)-->

Jennifer Nessle, well howdy. I'm not respectable, but I hang around from time to time. Our daughter's name is Jennifer too, so for starters that's great. :)--> This seems an odd place to say hello but it's as good as any. I won't get in the way of the conversation but I knew your mom and dad at a point long ago. Nice people. I'm proud that they're together and have kept that Light of their love burning - not an easy thing to do sometimes in this world. Be good.

Tzaia, thanks for the clarification. It all makes a little more sense now. Sometimes a post like the one that started this thread appears completely out of context and makes no sense. Jeff tends to do that, posting CES or related links with little or no followup. They appear to be advertisements, which is fine and would be finer if they were stated as such. There's nothing wrong with Jeff doing that, but in the Doctrinal forum it's tweezey to just put up ads and leave them at that when the purpose is discussion. You said "These guys were big players in an organization that burned people big time"....Mark G, I don't know about being a big player. Who else is out there, John S?

Waterbuffalo, Satori posted that, back about February 07, 2005 17:51, as the crow flies. HCW, I'm sorry about what happened. I understand why you're trying to work it out and I hope doing this helps.

*hic*

JT, I know. Language is like, so totally awesome and all! It's got, you know, words and stuff and it's all so like, I dunno. It's hard to put in to words but language rocks! Wassat? "Figurative" prisons. It sounds like ice skating. "Cons on Ice". Seriously, makes no sense. We know what they mean, sort of, but if you were in a figurative prison, would you be able to decipher the meaning? Are figurative prisons more shapely? Perhaps "Voluptuous prisons" would be better. Maybe people in figurative prisons need something that speaks to them. I dunno, again, words are all so like, "that". It's confusing. The word "really" is a filler, one I use myself a lot and my little transmitter antennae always go ZWAT when I do because it's almost always misused. "really born again" reads "how to know you're born again, REALLY born again". You mean...like this? No! REALLY born again. As if you were kind of born again before but this WAP class is gonna do you one for real. REALLY for real. Picture someone poking at their stomach. "Is it really that big?" What they probably meant was "how to really know that you're born again". But hey. Words. No biggie. And that still begs the question, can I know something but not really know it? How does that work? Will something I don't really know leak out if I tilt my head to the right too long? And the whole "how to know" thing. I picture several people looking over a person on a table surrounded by equipment, wires, sensors, dressed in hospital whites. "Is he born again?".....(poking at the subjects leg with a forceps) "Hard to say. Well, maybe. We haven't done any tests yet."..... "Okay, hook up the Knowogonometer, Nurse, bring it up to 110 Farzoids. Easy now. EASY!!!! You'll fry his spleen!!!! Back it off!!!! You'll blow his....GEEZ!!!!!.......Better...better...okay, clear. CLEAR! *****ZUPLATTTERZZZZZSQUAKKKKKKKKKZATTT!!!!**** (smoke clears, long silence....) "Is he really born again?" "Uh....he's, well....he's sputtering something, but...I think....hmmmm.....can't tell. He wasn't.... "...Let's try it again...Nurse, bring it up to 220 this time and, whoaaa!!! WHOA!!!! NOT THAT MUCH!!!! He's....Cut the....GEEEEZ!!!!...." It's scarey business. Scarey.

What the Hay, I absolutely do not believe that if I was quoting from another source that it would be difficult to decide if I needed to specifically credit the original author for any statements that I know came from, or were based on his writings. That's where we differ I think. The difference is in 2 instances -1) specific sections of text and phrases that were written by authors that I would use word for word or with a few words changed and 2) pieces of others work that form the basis for my own work. In 1) my point is a matter of personal honesty. If the law examined it and said "you're 2 words under the legal limit, it's different enough, you don't have to credit them", it wouldn't change the fact if I'd read and learned from that original author and used their words and ideas to do my own work. Morally the burden would still fall to credit them. I could squeez that, juggle my way out of it, but I'd know the right thing to do whether I did it or not. 2) is easier to see. If 2 people developed the same material independent of each other, that's one thing. VPW eluded to that with Bullinger, but not with others. He said that he was introduced to Bullinger by someone else who told him he reminded them of Bullinger. Then we see some sections, like 4 crucified, that are similar to Bullinger. So we have an explanation of sorts for similarities if the two have unexplained or uncredited work that's the same. VPW used Bullinger as a reference for figures of speech and grammar in his teachings to the Way Corps. The Bullinger Companion Bible was sold in the bookstore. VPW owned other of Bullingers books, that he brought out when I was in the Way Corps. In PFAL itself though the connection is made but it's vague outside of figures of speech where he says Bullinger is the person he knows who's done the most work on them. My impression of that topic when we studied it in the Corps was that VPW has some knowledge of them and a sense that the bible needed to be interpreted in light of them before he read Bullinger but it was Bullinger who gave him the massive reference to study with and work with. If a person continued being exposed to Way teachings and classes they would hear more about Bullinger though and see the connections to specific parts, especially where Bullinger was used as a reference for translation of words and grammar, figured, structure, etc. In the Corps VPW used structure frequently in presentations, and often referred to Bullinger where he differed from his structures. Structure helped VPW in his understanding the contextual logic of the bible. Again, he said he has seen this in his own study but it was Bullinger's work that helped him to "put it all together". Bullinger's books were presented in a form that allowed them to be used as a reference. He had exhaustive referencing, footnotes and cross referencing in the material itself. I think that speaks to the value of working that way. Look at what it allowed VPW to do and others like us later. In the holy spirit sections of PFAL we don't have any specific references to others classes or material in relation to the written sections or the spoken sections in PFAL. The reader or student is led to think that work is VPW's own. So if we see pieces of VPW's work that occur in other's books and classes that VPW said he was exposed to it's a simple connection to make - he read those books, took those classes and now we see sections that are similar. It doesn't take a genius or a lawyer to see what's happened. But a genius or a lawyer could turn it enough ways to squeeze it. That wouldn't change the obvious facts though. IMO VPW's statement that he "put together" and took from others and "put it all together" is a convoluted way of saying that he used others material and his own and came up with his own product and results. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how work gets done. At that point the simple honest thing to do is to give credit where credit is due in a way that lets the reader know what's going on. He obviously felt that his own work made a signficant contribution to the end result. He felt ownership of his own work and seemed to have felt he discovered threads of thought in the bible that were scattered throughout the writings of other people as well as parts that had been hidden or lost. That's fine. But there's a vagueness to his attitude about crediting those people involved that makes it seem like there's something going on. The question is "why wouldn't he?" rather than he didn't need to. 21 years of time in the Way told me that while VPW had some of his own ideas and work he also had been inspired by and used the work of many others. When you go back and look at the original stuff-PFAL and the Holy Spirit book you can see that. He would have been much better off to have set the record straight in the source material rather than a scattering of statements and stories in other media over many years. Make it plain, make it simple. It would be the most honest thing to do. Today there'd be no question if he had. And the questions don't come up from a few ne'er do wells, based on 3rd hand stories. They've always been there.

Hey Plot, good to see you, if under difficult circumstances. I know what happens when we die. We learn what happens next the only way we really learn anything. We do it. Some things I don't want to learn and the idea of this poor world trying to carry on without me is disturbing to say the least. Who will be me? Did I leave enough of what I was here to spread around and do some good? Or will it be "good riddance"? Josie sounds like she's leaving the best part of her to be enjoyed and carried on by those who will most appreciate it and spread it around even further. Love, in transition brother.

#4 - I sent a PT to Linda Z that's in silent running mode, the followup to a failed email attempt titled "Trail of Tears, Bridge of S-Eyes". :)-->

I just posted on Krys's thread my recommendation for how to handle hackers, Galen. I'm sure it would fly given a little nudge by the consumer community. Once convicted of their heinous crimes they will be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves. They'll be taken out to sea, 20 miles out, and tossed overboard with all of their program disks duct taped together to use as a flotation device. All they have to do is swim back to land and they'll be free to go their way. I think it would be a simple but effective way to address the problem.