socks

I've got a whole long piece of quack I wrote on this topic several years ago, can't find it. I was trying to understand the logistics of a "true" instance of what psychic mediums and the like attempt to do or say they do, or whatever. In other words - if it happens, what happens. My own results boiled down to - it's impossible by all known components. Big whoppdee doo, but I couldn't get any traction on it. Any "unknown" components require a huge, complex range of probabilities to get to the point that I could seriously suggest a "spiritual" or unseen set of probabilities that would work together to accomplish what they appear to, or say, they do. But - I don't discount the fact that human knowledge can be, and I believe is, informed by "God" and a heightened set of faculties that are spiritual. But the logistics of that are more probable if laid out and looked at by observation (although I know many won't admit the anecdotal information as being solid enough) and by writings like the Bible (and I know many won't admit that information either) But, if a duck quacks, we say it's a duck. So if something happens enough times under x circumstance, there may be a "duck" there to be seen and understood. But in the psychic reading stuff, I don't see it - for reasons too long to go into here, but along the lines of some of the critical comments here.

You might enjoy a book I've been reading Steveo - "Musicophilia" - Tales of Music and the Brain, by Oliver Sacks. He's a doctor and professor of neurology and psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center. Written a few other books. The book deals with a range of study and observation he's done on the human brain, mind and how music fits into "the human condition". Very readable and lots of good stuff in it, thought provoking. I know people often will say the opposite of what they mean, and not intend it. Also I've noticed what I'd call a kind of phenomena in today's culture where - it appears that so much is going on in a person's life at any given point, so many "distractions", the phone, a message that needs to be answered, an errand forgotten but needing to be done, a project underway, a meeting in an hour they dont' want to forget about, etc. etc. etc. ... That some or all of those things inevitably inform what they're doing "right now", to the extent that they hear or listen through the maze of that filter of distractions. In that way they can often hear a completely different version of what someone else says, because of what they bring to the conversation. It's rare to find a "clear" moment with someone today. It's as if ADD is in the water or something.

Indeedy doody. That's probably the best foundation from which to judge if GS, this board, "is still viable"? To the current group of users - they speak for themselves, yes, no, maybe. Those who don't care, don't for whatever reasons. Probably the best gauge is the number of views and visits of the site pages. That still doesn't give a read into who's using what and why. To get a true view of something you need at least two measurements, two points to determine a position or get a physical rendering. (longitude/latitude, length/width) The more points of reference, the better the view. Two points could be - look at the number of responses in the poll. That could be labelled "regular users" - those who are registered, visit and care enough to vote in the poll. Now get a views count of the site, how many people came to the GS site, maybe for several main pages. Average them. Compare the two. If say, 50 people voted, but the site had 1,000 views that week - what's that say? 950 people don't care? Can't say that, we don't know that. 50 people care? Some level of interest is indicated by a vote, yes. One interpretation of that data could be - there are a lot of users of the site whose motives aren't known. (I suspect, there's a lot of users who visit and read what's available to a non-registered reader that aren't accounted for - it's not knonw who or why. ) Another could be that there's 50 users who visit it a lot. That's something that could be known probably - how many times a registered user comes to the site and opens a page. But "why" - hard to say. I would suggest though that if there's a wide gap between regular users who post and views of the site, the viability needs to be more clearly understood. Those who do participate can weigh in on that and would provide the only reliable information available. You can't reliably state why those who don't, don't, if they don't. But if there's a lot of unknown visits over the registered posters who use the site regularly - that says something. What it means, hard to say. Although it's a loaded phrase here, this does come down to "profitablity" - that is, is it profitable and if so, how much? If this site were selling something, this kind of data would want to be known. And in a way, GS is selling something. A service, information, a community of common background that can address issues and topics of interest to that type of community, etc. Paw's question is completely legitimate, if not only for personal reasons. And I'm starting to sense that the answer is revealing itself from the discussion. Individually to those who participate and for those "out there" who are unaccounted for. Still a lot of information isn't known or stated at this time, so the picture is somewhat incomplete. Just my .02.

Uh, that's not because everyone else is afraid of reprisals - that they're contract with the Way will be turned over to Joey the Bull for collection. :) Do you really think by your math that 97,000 ex-Wayfers don't show up here because they're skeered out of their PJ's over what the Way will do if they say bad things about them? I would assume the reason that some of those people don't flock to GS, register and post is because they don't give a crap. Anymore. Or enough of one to bother posting about it. And the 100,000 number - I took PFAL in '68 and left in '89. 100 K is aggressive, I know it's been kicked around then and now as the probable number of PFAL grad's but me, I doubt that as of say 1985 that was the case. But I won't give anyone a hard time over using the number.

Indeed. What're they gonna do - prevent you from saying "I didn't like it there, they didn't blah blah blah and they did blah blah blah". THIS LINK explains the "at will" employment laws in Ohio. They actually govern both sides of termination, employer and employer initiated. Note the statements in this section - they're observed in every state of the U.S. - Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons: Age Race Sex Religion National origin Disability Pregnancy It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to: Promotions Job assignments Termination Wages And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee: For refusing to break a law In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act Without following its own stated procedure or policy For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exists --------------------- These items relate to any employer and any employee. For the Way or anyone to cover enough ground in an employment contract to allow for and permit any and all violations of any kind that might relate to these would seem....suspect. One would think. I mean, if the job was "Sky Diver from a Burning Airplane", maybe some loose language is in order. But working for a church? You'd think that would be one of the most protected and safest environments one could work in. One would think. How this relates to the poll - gimme a minute. Okay - I think a simple common sense case could be made that it's always viable for a person to register dissastisfaction with...something. If someone's tweaked about doing it because they're afraid of recourse - think about it. This is America, peep's.

Hmmmm...is this another poll? Just kdding - Freedom of speech governs the right to "speak", but it isn't absolute. An employer could require an employee to sign something to the effect they wouldn't speak negatively about the company but the right to free speech would likely supercede that. TWI isn't going to sue all of it's ex-employees that might leave and have something bad to say. If the information isn't proprietary or confidential but is negative and specific - hmmmmmm......what's to sue over? As they say "I'm not a lawyer" but I doubt that agreement would hold water, if challenged. I'd suggest anyone that works at the Way and is concerned take their employment paperwork and run it by a lawyer and see. Or call the state employment office and run it by them over the phone, see what that stands. I suspect - barely on one leg.

No problemo - I've been known to saracst a tad myself. :) And you've actually just opened mine eyes to something I hadn't even seen, though it's clearly directly in front of them. "The Way Corps" site has always been read, understood by me in shorthand as a general title for those who were, are, was, is, that. It's true - there are "active" Way Corps registered from what I've gathered although I can't really tell the difference. *** It could use a Prince style title - "For those formerly known as, once were, still are but may not actually still be although even those who might still consider themselves so could be not by others and vice verse depending on where you do or don't stand on what the term really means...Way Corps Site". But that's a little unwieldy even by internet blog standards. Since both current, past and inbetween WC's can register, I dunno. I didn't take it that way but I see what you mean. *** Someone's bound to interpret that phrase above in a negative way - which is fine. But to clarify - I guess I don't think in terms of anyone "being in" the current Way Corps program, although some are. I don't even know if there is a current program active and don't really care one way or the other. I'm not in that world anymore I do think there's a common bond amongst those who were in, have completed, did that Way Corps thing, for a variety of possible reasons, but they're so loose and varied as to be a non-identifier for me to apply straight across the board to everyone from all the years. F'instance, although I was there onsite when Emporia was bought and particpated in the initial cleanup efforts I eventually lost any feel for it as part of what I felt the "Way Corps" program was really all about. Within a couple years it seemed to become some wierd can-o-stuffed-worms, to me. The Corps "coordinators" - I don't even like to think about all of that, it was just wierd to me and not heading in the direction I was, that's for certain. Yet - 100's of perfectly wonderful people know Emporia's campus as "the Way Corps" program they went through and completed. Their whole frame of reference is completely different from mine. So it's an odd mix of pieces that you get when you say "the Way Corps". They did a lot of wierd stuff there in the program I never understood. So I knew what I'd done and what that meant to me and had to allow others to do their thing as they saw fit. For awhile, eventually I just got to where I really didn't like the whole approach they were taking there. Sorry - this is still veering away from thread topic. Oh, the scope creep....!

Groucho, I'm going to make my statements a little clearer, because I don't want them misunderstood. If you've cruised the site you know that disagreements on topics being posted by individuals is ongoing. My comment about "mean" people has nothing to do with disagreement on anything. If your position is that people aren't allowed to comment on their current positions regarding VPW, the Way, their past involvement good or bad, that's not correct. I've read a number of personal blog posts that address that kind of topic. Personal blogs are the "property" of the individual member, so within the rules of the site a person can post what they want. Or delete what they don't want, as excathedra states happened in her case. That's up to the person. My understanding is that the rules of the board are to keep everything pretty much in a respectful, courteous mode, not unlike what GS has tried to achieve here and continually works at defining. Not identical, the two communities are different, but similar. The overall purpose of the board however isn't, as you understand, to provide a forum for battling out issues about the Way or the people in the Way. It's a social networking site to allow, etc. etc. There the idea is to focus on producing an environment that will allow those who choose to connect to do. That's not trivial or wrong. Belittling that purpose on the grounds that the community itself isn't a valid one for doing that is debatable, but I would disagree in that debate that the community doesn't warrant that opportunity to do so. So we definitely disagree on that. I'm not interesting in debating it because clearly our opinions differ, and there are reasons, and that will have to be as far as it goes for me. I'm just restating for context here. "Mean" people - that meant that people aren't going to be allowed to take cheap shots at others, rip you or GS or anyone , and that go unmoderated. Johns' made it clear that he isn't going to act as a policeman but he's going to try and actively and gently guide members if it seems warranted. It would be unrealistic though given the general state of humans to not expect that to occur some, given the community. It will take shape over time is how I see it but I'm not expecting it to go down the same road as GS. There's a clear opportunity for any member to email any other member and say whatever they'd like to say, and hopefully if it's critical do it in a constructive way. How and if that person responds is up to them. That's no different than GS, amongst the members here that post or those that are discussed that aren't members. That's a topic of contention on GS right now - what's allowed, not allowed, appropriate and not. Edit, not edit, use names, not use other's names. What's "courteous" and what's not For me that's an easy thing to define, and frankly that fact that it's so hard to navigate and nail down in the GS community has gone from being a concern to me to a simple realization that GS is what it is and it may not ever be settled. There's a side of me that draws a line there, from a personal standpoint and at this stage I'm not sure if I can proceed and maintan my personal sense of integrity. I'm not interested in scorching more board space with cricitisms that might only be counter productive in the end. Because I have an opinion doesn't mean I feel I have to state it, impose it, argue or debate it. I'm perfectly happy to live in my own world. No one else has to. So I'm in pondering mode, speaking for myself. I've always felt more interest in the individual of the board rather than the board itself. I've made no secret of the fact I don't view my history in the Way as wasted effort, misguided, wrong, devilish or anything of the kind. I look back and see countless people that I valued then and value today. Not everyone or everything falls into that category by any means - but I don't consider it "romanticizing" at all. Again, I've always stated - to each their own. The opportunity to be open, frank and do it in a constructive way that's a product of my own beliefs has been my goal. I don't always do that, but that's the outcome I think is correct and what I'm shooting for.

Sometimes you just feel like a nut! Happy New Year excellina. And everyone! 2009's on it's way!

The WC site - Discussion there is ongoing on a variety of topics. I can't say for sure but I suppose it will evolve over time, who knows? The purpose of the site, as has been stated over and over is to provide an online mechanism for people that were in the Way Corps to reconnect with others they knew. Some discussions and topics are starting up all the time as a result, and the content and life cycles are being developed and established as they go on. One of the the results of John's moderation appears to be that, as Hope says, "mean" people don't have a platform to rip on anyone and everyone they might choose to. In that respect it's a "protective" environment - people's dignity and feelings are protected from someone trolling on board and taking nasties at everyone and anyone, Way Corps or others. That means that, despite what the perception might be outside the board, no one, none of you, me, or anyone else is going to be spoken of in a disrespectful way and have it last long. Doing that would be counter productive to the ... purpose of the board, which is to provide a "safe" place for people to connect. I like that approach, for what it's worth, I think it's the right thing to do, all things considered. This is in much the same way Pawtucket and the board moderators here have sought to protect this online environment from what could be hurtful disrespectful conduct. That moderation might be taken as unnecessary by some, restrictive by others. I agree it's conservative and cautious at times but I think it adds more than it risks. But clearly, in my mind, neither this board nor John's is a free for all say-whatever-you-want-others-feelings-be-dammed posting environment. Effort is made to allow for a natural, meaningful and respectful exchange to occur. Discussion, debate, exchange of differing ideas and information flows from that platform. At least that appears to be the goal of GS. I understand that a case can be made for a freer environment or one that allows for a different approach. The internet is a huge resource - anyone who wants to can take the dive and work up any alternatives they choose to. There's nothing wrong with doing that. If it sounds like I'm defending "John's Board", I am. I'd defend GS too for those who need it. Speaking of which.... Peace! Sleepy time!

Last thought I've had rolling around, but haven't been sure how to pose it, or if it's worthwhile or timely. (Man this is long - snooze alert! Get the drool cups) The relevance of GS as a current source of information about The Way Nash....The Way has by all reports of those close enough to know, changed somewhat - by necessity, choice or both. But the Way of today is hardly the Way of the 90's, 80's, 70's, 60's, etc. Some of the old guard are still there, at the helm, but that will change within the next few years as aging continues. More new blood will take over, time will roll on. Many of the topics that are dealt with here I would think aren't viewed in the same context by Wayfers, at all, anymore. PFAL for instance. They have a new class, and while PFAL is still the foundation for what they teach I would suspect that it's probably starting to be an anachronism there as much as anything. Today, it may be more of a quaint early representation of what they're pumping. They're stuck with what they've got, Martindale's class which is hardly a sterling example of anything but it's what they've got. So they've dumbed down the entire effort into some quasi-religious meld of old and kind-of-old, and are keeping the grass mowed and doing maintenance. And whatever else they're doing which hardly makes much of a blip on anybody's radar unless it bobs to the surface like that "dance" video from their SNS which was only of interest because it was so horridly ridculous and once "outsiders" got a whiff of it, it made good internet comedy. For awhile. Plus, they've chosen to burn out any of the "old wineskin" people and stuff, so the past to the current membership is a piece-meal collection of what's left. They can't really be sure of who they are because they've cut and pasted who they were into an image they've chosen. Reality is a b-tch, if you're in the Way because it ain't real, it's someone's intepretation of it. In fact, they've had so many upheavals and shifts in leadership in the last 20 years or so it would stand to reason if their teaching axis has shifted irrevocably from any semblance of any of the ground originally plowed. They probably don't see it that way, but looking at their website, they've reinvented themselves back into the future, as the quiet, quaint li'l biblical research ministry with nothing wrong, that wants to see the Word go over the World and has survived intact, better than ever. Which isn't entirely true, there's a few storeez left untold and unattended, we know. Some people there who have waited it out silently and continue to do so. But in a very real way, they've been left toothless and tied, unable to move openly for fear of stirring up old business. So they keep quiet and don't make a fuss. So it goes... Which in a very roundabout way brings me to why GS may not seem to have that "zing" that it did 10 (yikes!) years ago. Because as Lindyhopper stated, the events of the past have been stated, restated, discussed and debated by those here and on Waydale who particpated and contributed - mamy times, many ways. Some of those things are, in fact, very old now. They may not be completely resolved for some people but they're far enough in the past that they would only be relevant - directly - to those who were involved. Discussing them at length could have value to someone and could offer some enlightenment to current affairs, yes. There are going to be people who will come along all these years later and find value in the information, sure. But "that Way" of Ohio no longer exists. It's gone, over, and probably isn't even recognizable to the people that are still there except as a dim memory. If there was anything good - and I think there was - the best place to be living it is "out here", because if you're "in there" you're livin' in a dream. For those who have been on GS and Waydale before it, it stands to reason that the social aspect of GS would develop into importance then, IMO. Because life goes on. If we're still breathing, it's gone on and everyone has some kind of life they live today that isn't in the BRC, or Emporia, or Indiana or wherever we were 20-30 years ago. We're not those people anymore and hopefully we have learned, grown, changed. Everyone's definitely older. :) That's a good thing. Just some thoughts.... To add (thank God for the Edit Feature!!! ) ... this isn't a "get over it" riff. Rather it's a reality riff. What's happening, happened here represents something - it may not be the result of moderation, argument, opinion, management, etc. etc. and may be nothing more or less than the inevitable change that comes with time. Each individual knows for themselves what's working and what isn't. Correctly interpreting and understanding the events and times of our lives is like gold. This could be a good time to bank some. :)

I'm glad you put that here, dmiller. I didn't know (altho ya gotta figure) there were "anti-gsc sites or site where people post things they don't, won't or don't waht to post here. That's all getting a little too deep for me. Maybe it's not a big deal. To me it would be kinda kandyass to post something somewhere else and not here. So I'm glad you did. The whole business about information is a really interesting point in the GS dynamic - that makes sense but those who have questions or hot topics that they feel should be explored need to come forth, Lazarus. If they're not, what's that tell you? Frankly I think some of the stuff that's delved into in detail is trite and triivial. But it's important to those who bring it up and discuss it. So, everyone has to carry their own water here or at least ask for it, if there's going to be anything like you describe, which does seem to happen on it's own.

Ah, the question: is GS still relevant? Apparently. It's two days past Christmas and the hot topic here is GS. Anybody get any new socks? An ugly tie or scarf? Some cool baseball cards? Anyhoo - we did have a nifty Christmas. No complaints here, The fam's doing well and it was grand being together, hope everyone's was great. GS certainly does provide a useful contribution, as long as it's goals are met, or some reasonable accepted level of achieving them is attained. Put another way, answer the question with- Is GS accomplishing it's goals, and how well it is doing that? 100 percent? 80? 20? Maybe there should be a kind of quarterly gathering of the trilbe online to determine - is this getting it? Is anything really being accomplished? Get some honest feedback. More than "yes, someone out there might be looking at this and if they are, it's all worth it". Get some kind of key indicators - since so many take this board so seriously, some semi-serious self-examination might be useful. I dunno, I'm just thinkin' here. Example - sometimes a topic goes up and nothing - I mean nothing - gets contributed after a certain point because of....squabbling. And if the squabbling is questioned, the question of one's right to squabble goes under attack, because of course it's god's gift to man to be able to squabble at the drop of a mouse. And no such thread is complete without someone being outted as a Nazi. We've got to have a Nazi on the thread if anyone's right to squabble about squabbling is questioned. So we got squabbles about the squabbles, the squabblers and of course, we got Nazi's. Which is a little bit exagerrated, but not by much. And all of which is absolute B!@#$h!@ IMO. Like I've said before here - that kind of stuff is the best way to make sure people never join the Way because anyone reading it would have to figure that if that's what exposure to the Way does to you - no thanks. So maybe it's all going as it should be, in some weird cosmic way. I'm not trying to be mean - but to expand somewhat on satori's earlier post - if the end result of extending GS's life is to continue the problems that make it difficult to manage - what's the point? Perhaps this time could be used to determine how to make it better, and move forward with a renewed sense of purpose and direction. (does the Jedi mind trick technique work like it used to...?) I'm a fly on the wall of GS, with no entitlement of any kind. There are though, quite a few people who make use of it and everyone who comes on makes a contribution of some sort I guess. So yeah, it's useful. Sure. How much, in what ways, those kinds of things might be useful to openly discuss and kick around.

A protected habitat for dangling marsupials! Sweet! My suggestion is one of the most obvious, satori if the decision is to continue. Several things come to mind reading the thread and Paw's comments. The overall direction and tone of the board is one but the most important one to him (I would think) is what the board requires and the quality of that committment. now i see offers another one, pretty nifty. Move the discussion board to a new location. The community at large is intact enough to make that move successfully and those who come to a static GS in the future could hit the link to that. But - as long as GS exists online, there will be a reaction to repond to what's here, in some form. A "contact us" or "webmaster" link will definitely get more emails than "nice site" or "thanks!". The nature of the content is what it is and there will definitely be someone, somewhere hitting the email button. Who gets that? What exactly will this site be? That's the issue I think for Pawtucket, in addition to the discussion board. I don't think the answer - for him, just a guess - is that GS is a part time job for life. The answer is to transfer ownership or end it I would think but there may be other options too. For my part I'd want to assure you Mr. Paw, that your decision either way is yours to make and to not feel the burden of letting others down or disappointing anyone. That might sound minor but I'm sure you feel that, the desire to not want to hurt others in the process by taking something personal and valuable from them. If that's the case it says a lot about GS, in terms of evaluating it's meaning. There are endeavors that could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice or care. Meaning something to someone, somewhere - that's a good thing.

Hmmm...seems there's a lot going on here. P-T, you definitely sound like it's time to get out of the active GreaseSpot business. I can see why you're approaching it carefully. Suggestion #432: do a hand-off. It appears that there's some interest in keeping GS alive and functioning with the forums active. Maybe anyone interested can PM you or maybe you've got someone in mind to approach, if you haven't already. An orderly passing of the mouse could be planned out and although it's surely not an easy task a date set to phase out ownership. This could all happen very quickly, inside a month. Suggestion #432A: do it in phases. One - work out the details and the logistics. Oh yeah, identify the new "owner". Two - sunset out. You're a computer geek - you know the drill. :) New management in place, and you're around providing consultation. Three - Millah - time. You've effectively checked out. You're still a part of the community as much as you want to be, or not but have no direct responsibilities because now it's someone else's turn to get those emails. I've never taken to the whole Mod'ing thing as you've probably noticed. I know it's important but I try to ignore the fact that any of the GS participants feel they need you or anyone to referee some post content or read somebody the riot act. The extreme side of it - threats and the like - that's nowhere. That's out of hand unacceptable and dishonorable behavior, but so it goes apparently. I completely understand you not wanting to do that anymore because I would never do it. So I'm not your ideal candidate to say the least, for the record. But someone who has a feel for that side of it might be able to do it, knowing going in what's required. I don't agree ("agree" - he said agree, hehehehehhhhehehehe) with all that's posted on GS but the board as an entity is for public particpation with a few simple rules. I've always felt like - if someone doesn't like it, don't participate. Or "disagree all you want but please be courteous". Or agree all you want, and please be couteous. Or stand on your head and whistle Freight Train backwards. It's so simple it's crazy that anyone would have a problem with it. Anyhoo - GS, like WayDale before it has been a unique experience in Way related activities and at some point you might consider a memoir or collection of your thoughts and observations on the time you've invested. I think that would be a very good read, my friend.

...half the time I worry I am not reading it correctly myself. Not to worry, it's a worthy endeavor you pursue! - Merry Christmas, all! Excellent discussion and plenty of food for thought on all fronts, it seems. I tie forgiveness into Jesus's rendering of the Old Testament laws into the two "great" ones - to love God (with my whole heart) and others (as myself). When asked who are the "others" the answer switches to define who is the "lover", a true lover as it were. In the parable it's the one who did the lovin', who helped the person in need. Basically Jesus teaches there I think - worry less about who to love and more about doing. Love everyone, be the "lover". Inevitably that parable won't fit every situation, there's going to be people and circumstance that won't warrant my active love it would seem - but to treat another as I would like to be treated always works, general "rule of thumb". Making my purpose to be the lover in every situation I can works, all the time. Applying that to forgiveness I can concentrate on understanding others, trying to anyway, and finding a way to close the gap on what I or another may lack to come to forgiveness and bringing it to them. Treated the way I would want to be treated I'd want understanding and an opportunity to right the wrong. Not all rights can be wronged though, and while I might not deserve it I may want it, need it. Will it be given, can it? Should it? Good questions. I go back to the parable - those things in my path, my grasp, I'll simply work through with the example of mercy, grace and forgiveness that I see God extends and Jesus exemplifies. The process of thinking, praying and striving to understand throughout all of life's affairs is always ongoing, I think.

Thanks Rocky - sometimes I need to recalibrate my memory recall - it's dusty. :) I think the word I was reaching for was "conviction". Maybe it was his youth, he didn't look that much older than some of us and had a baby faced look that didn't exactly say "been there, done that". If I remember right, the "sex" ad on his forehead was cooked up by the geniuses handling his publicity, an Ad agency...? if I remember right. I seriously doubt (but have no proof of this other than his own statements) that he sat in a room somewhere and said yeah, put some sex on my forehead, it'll get me more votes. But maybe he did, I honestly don't know. I'd have to agree, it's noteworthy certainly and clearly struck a note so ridiculously low that it acts as a measure for sheer ineptitude. But still - that was about 30 years ago. I just don't see the bearing on his career today which should take into account that time frame since then and which would act as a better reference for who he is today.

The locals around here never seem to catch on about how to drive in the snow either. Everytime we have a bit of snow, everyone takes that as a cue to drive immediately into the ditch. I don't get it. Down here it's the rain that does that.

I agree, leafy. I'd suggest evaluating him by what he's doing now, how he's doing it and what his ideas are, etc. I don't live in Maine so I'm not really that interested, although little rocks on the pond do carry, as we've seen over and over again in politics to be sure. But I doubt he's a serious threat to anyone based on what his career was 31 years ago. He got trounced around as badly as anyone I've ever seen by the Veepster in a back-stage meeting that year at the Rock. I was surprised he didn't flip VP off and leave, to be honest. Don't even remember what the brew-ha-ha was all about but it was a pantsing for sure. I'm sure he's grown up in the interim. While he seemed quite seriously sincere, he lacked (IMO) that sense of leadership and charisma that comes from great passion. He was passionate, yes, but not in a way that carried far as I recall.

California - the Left Coast has little to complain about but the weather's been colder than normal, in northern areas. Several days in the mid-20's last week, over night temp's. Some light snow on hills and areas that seldom see that. Mostly we need lots of snow, a good snow pack, to come out of this winter, and rain. Got some but not enough as yet.

Boy, haven't seen that name in awhile. He seems to be aligned with the Republican conservative "religious right" from what I read. Could be wrong about that, but the knee-jerk issues of same-sex marriage, abortion and "morals" sound like their on his hotplate. I don't know that he's all that terrible a person by the sounds of it. I would say with some reserve I probably differ with his politics, more correctly probably with his priorities, although I do agree with the general idea that moral debate, definition and direction should inform our politics and government. So the diversity that differing opinions brings is a good thing to me if only that it shows that all sides are showing up at the table and not hiding out somewhere with loaded guns, in wait. Looking back - 31 years now, a long time ago - Gahagan presented himself like a person who cared, had good intentions, nice enough, but was something of a lightweight. It's hard to pinpoint my recollections, but he did seem a little wobbly. He sounds the same on his video statement, now. Nice enough guy and probably wise to stay in his professional career and in local politics. Don't mean to sound mean but he comes off a little too Wonder Bread to me. Might do well with the Pro-Palin crowd though.

Chet Atkins "Copper Kettle".

That would be unkind. The melodies, as noted in the youtube.com sample, are identical. Differences in inflection are minor, so minor they could be considered performance nuances. Written out, the portions noted are the same, the intervals note to note identical. Likewise the chord accompaniement uses the same approach to produce the sound of each. Pretty much everyone agrees to the similarity, although I've read on some blogs and boards comments by Coldplay fans (not that you are Notawayfer) that the songs aren't anything alike. That's legitimate from a certain viewpoint and gets into the definition of what a "song" actually is to the listener, but doesn't work from musical standards. But for copyright purposes a "song" is a melody with chordal accompaniement. The chords have some relevance because it produces the harmonic context for the melody. In theory I guess (and all of this can be debated from many different perspectives) a melody could be placed against different chords and by achieving a different context or "sound" be "different" as a "song", even though the intervals are still the same. From a musical and pure listening standpoint, there could be some merit to differentiating a song for copyright purposes that way. Coldplay's chords are the same as Satch's which is one of the strongest definers for the overall "song" similarity. But to have a "song" there has to be a melody - and again that's a loose term - some instrumental songs, particularly guitar or piano pieces, are more exercises in fingerpicking and fingering techniques, and the "song" is really the string of chords and changes with the melody very loosely contained in them. Satriani's different from many instrumental guitarists in that he emphasises composition in his recordings - they aren't strings of chords where he just jams over them and displays a technique or effect - a lot of guitarists do that, as does he on some stuff. But he typically produces some songs with solid melodies and arrangements. An acid "user" test for a song is - can you hum the melody? Can it be remembered? In both CP"s and JS's pieces, the answer would be yes. Anyhoo - Coldplay's response is a little tinny to my ears. They're hugely popular recording artists but I doubt anyone would put them in the same league as Satch, musically. Which doesn't have anything to do really with the music market. If people like a song, they like it regardless of how advanced the music is and that's as it should be. Which is one of the reasons I do like Satriani - he writes things that are in his genre that don't have to scream "I'm the greatest guitarist in the WORLD". He does lots of different things, given his real interest is to explore and advance guitar.

So if I trust and obey - wait!! Indeed - "I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other." You 'n' me both, friend. A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to. I use the imagery of "every Thom, Dick, and Harriet that wants to", setting up shop and hanging out a shingle reading "Ye Olde God's Stuff" and taking all comers. There's no applicaton process (that everyone agrees on) other than the items you note so well - Basically anyone can say "God called me, I work for God". That hardly means that 1. someone does, 2. someone is "called" VS volunteering (which is what nearly everyone is expected to do anyway - it's a "family") and/or 3. "Pay me, I"m woikin' here", and that they're doing valid work. If it were a blank sheet of paper, I'd ask first - what's the reason "we", the church, exists? What's the inherent essence of our relationship that causes us to be together, relate, and have any interest in each other at all? What's our "reason" for being? Uno digito - "sonship" - the familial relationship of children and a Father. (MA MA!! MA MAA!) That's the best imagery, metaphor or comparison we have to start from, I think. That's the "system", the organizational model we have to fashion our efforts, as we're describe that we ARE children, in a family. Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future.

Hmmm...that's good stuff TAO. I'd add - Pauls states his case in Chap. 9, and validates his position from a couple standpoints - the temple and the Levites, God's "ordaining" of it, and a kind of natural logic - but there's limits to that and frankly, I don't think that "Paul" accuractely states the case for it in such a way as to make it a "doctrine". (as it's so often imposed) Now - this smacks of some kind of heinous accusation - that "The Word of God" has error in it. That "Paul taught something wrong". But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible. It can be done, but it must be done carefully and - my term - "probably" only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it. The "flock" that's referred to is a metaphor - God "owns" the flock, although we are in fact now God's "children" but we can keep the flock metaphor as long as we recognize and deal with it's limitations - Christ is the "Good Shepherd", He who has cared for the flock of God and brought it safely "home" to the "owner". Christ is therefore the earner of wages, if there's any to be given. We are the sheep - we're the ones being cared for by Christ and God. (We, as children and fellow brethren to Jesus Christ are collectively a family. We're also referred to in subsets as a "temple", "tabernacles", and members of a body.) That comparison has nothing to do with what God, in Christ, has done. It deals with what we, choose to do (for whomever). The natural logic of being paid reasonably for work well done doesn't require a spiritual platform, it's simply common sense in any social system or structure. In God's "family" sharing and exchange has it's place. Paul wants to compare temple service with "Christian" service - I'm not sure that's a completely reasonable comparison - which is why I think the presentation in Cor. 9 also covers the fact that the writer himself doesn't impose these requirements upon himself But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. The necessity of writing this to the Corinthians was erroneously attributed to their being an unbelieving church, by the Way Nash, however a little investigation shows that the record speaks and stands for itself - the author was passionate about what he did and was going to fulfill his calling as cleanly as he was able to. Threshing "in hope" and partaking "of hope" together - whast's that mean? The hope of a meal and a paycheck? There's more to it than that, I hope. Obviously, the exchange for labor and service applies today, but it's essential to note how carefully Paul deals with the entire topic and in fact, doesn't impose his argument on the church as "doctrine". I don't believe the overall context provides that reason the Way gave for this - that they were "unbelieving". I think it's simply an ethical conclusion that the author came to that best served his understanding of his calling and those he served.