Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Darwin's Sheep

Expand Messages
  • Tom Simms
    Darwin was wrong. Mankind did not descend from apes, Mankind descended from Sheep, all of them incapable of using the delete function on their mailers.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Darwin was wrong. Mankind did not descend from apes,

      Mankind descended from Sheep,

      all of them incapable of using the "delete" function on their mailers.

      Nothing more need be said.

      Tom


      On Tue, 25 May 1999 21:54:17 -0400 (EDT), ioniccentre@... writes:
      >
      >
      >(FWD)
      >
      >Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
      >To: Crosstalk <crosstalk@...>
      >From: ioniccentre@... (Isidoros)
      >Subject: a Moderate(!) proposal
      >
      >Agaphtoi mou,
      >
      >I am one of the old-timers, a near original charter, fellow member of this
      >godforsaken list. Like many of the early members (Hello! Stevan, Tom,
      >Yuri, William, Stephen, Philip, Antonio, Lewis - and, also, Andrew, Nicholas,
      >Mike, Ken, Maureen, Winston, Alistair, Jim, Yirmiyahu - I hope I got the
      >the spelling this time aright - wherever that you all are.) I too have stayed
      >faithful to this, and especially to the fellowship. Yet, as I am ignoring at
      >one glance most, deleting more and as I am watching the clouds cast darker
      >shadows above us increasingly, disallowing for the light and rather favoring
      >the seed of darkness and discontent rise among us, please allow me to also
      >speak.
      >
      >
      >I agree with some of the seniors talk that there are problems with the
      >list, and I think not with just how it is run, or it isn't it. I won't go into
      >any of it, but I 'll write below a page of a practical proposal that I think
      >may well take care for now of our problems.
      >
      >Lists run by monarch moderator-owners usually run, imho, sooner or later
      >into serious moral and practical problems. Non-moderated ones (which is
      >not the same as "unmoderated") or "self-moderated" lists (as many refer
      >to Crosstalk, erroneously, which is more like "anarchus," and as has been
      >clearly our own experience of late) also have problems, though perhaps
      >rather of different varieties. I would go for a "modest," or "Moderate"
      >solution, but definitely not "Moderated" (which does mean the interception
      >and "proof-reading" of every post before reaching the list. We don't want
      >that.) Far from any subjective selecting and, effectively, censorship.
      >The proposal is for true Self-Moderation: by which one does not mean
      >that each is one's own real witness, and ultimate one's own judge (which is,
      >among other things, fatally, dualistic) but that the list--after setting up
      >its own mode of Purposes, Rules, processes and Criteria for being --
      >regulates itself, by a tautochronous shared responsibility of one *and* all,
      >democratically and aristocratically.
      >
      >We self-select, for example, democratically, a fellowship of three
      >moderate senior members, who are charged with responsibility for
      >overseeing the running of the list. They are given Power of God, being
      >they Theoi, which may even mean that--upon Common Consent, always --
      >in the more extreme of circumstances kick butt even out of this Gea Paradis.
      >Rules, the Canon should be spelled out clearly, specifically and precisely,
      >so they may apply it, or in their infinite Wisdom even interpret it justly,
      >but never invent it--and so that the naked, and the dead (to be) know
      >of the Book number and verses in advance, and don't call Them, again,
      >any Mean God. Here, there should really be not allowed any hope or appeal
      >for a Second Coming, our moments are most precious, and this should be
      >to all clear--unless, of course, we want to take (on this occasion also) to
      >misunderstanding the original Greeks, or to take to the Hindus, and maybe
      >allow for one Second Chance, say, after been turned to deaf and blind
      >creeps for three or six months. The Fellowship of the five (oops, three,
      >yet five to be, following) should itself, and in moderation, be moderate.
      >S-elections once a year. To be eligible a member must have had its list
      >baptismal at least a year before s-election day. Lurkers, born, yet not
      >known to our midst, may vote, too, but from the purgatorium, or heaven,
      >wherever might be at the time, without this appearance counting as baptism.
      >For all votes are cast publicly, on list, and distinctly as to the office.
      >The Moderates, the three (of five) senior Fellows, as are to be known
      >otherwise on this planet may themselves be recalled down from Heaven
      >(an act that would warrant merely an equally inappropriate behavior)
      >and by such a proviso that it be clear that our Godheads are (here, too)
      >only our very own Creation. Recall may be by motion of three active
      >members and a two-thirds majority vote.
      >
      >I could say rather a few more things; like, that the three co-missioned
      >first will have for a while rather to work more like Martyrs,
      >to go on gaining their Sainthood by a service in Agiosyne before they
      >come close to actually feel (?) Theoi Divine. For, per example, they
      >should divine in drafting a list purposes Charter we can call SCOPOS,
      >that together with a Rules document, the CANON, will give focus,
      >impetus, energy, drive, purpose to all of our listeuomenois and
      >so listless brothers and sisters, and which is (said to be) Adelfoi. In
      >the same spirit, it is in order that we freshen up accordingly the Name,
      >alter the Image in accordance with substance, and so baptize it, again,
      >into, say, CrossRoads, not to depart too much from the Owners original
      >intent (and with a prothetic CR prefixed automatically before each Subject
      >line.) Or even something more exotic, if you will. You be surprised what
      >appeals to true seekers nowadays. And in this regard, I'd be more up to
      >Opening Up the scope, to reflect this in the Scopos, Open Up the list
      >Search Field, to a truly one that's scientific, and not "closing inside"
      >the spirit (as did recently a "apostle" who splintered from this fold to
      >open a shop whose purpose is presumably to search into what holds
      >already to be axiomatically true, or true dogma. That is no science; it's
      >sheer heresy. A case that reminds one a saying of the prophets of old,
      >that, no one may be servant at the same time to both: God *and* Truth
      >(or, commonly known as, Science.) The general idea is for significant
      >change, so that the one real Christos may come to be truly arisen :-)
      >among us. A hundred souls is nothing for such a truly eatherial mission
      >--if it is True.
      >
      >Last points:
      >
      >We need a Peter and we need a Paul (to make it a seniors fellowship of
      >five, as written) A Peter will watch mainly the Gate. We can't leave just
      >that kind of dirty work to professional mercenaries, like the H-C, or
      >just to any robotic automatons. Got to have one of our own oversee this
      >whole process, and assist and advise the Trinity wherever else necessary.
      >Volunteered or conscripted, and at any rate welcomed by the Holy See of
      >Three, Peter will communicate and cooperate with the H-C --or, the other
      >way around, mainly.
      >
      >Need also a Paul, a market(in) roving man of faith, who along with a
      >periodically co-missioned team of four (or five? well, more or less)
      >volunteer apostles will see to spreading the word about the list,
      >Go-spelling, and generally assist where needed. Once we get the Scopos
      >together and straight, and aright the Canon for business we can begin to
      >solicit actively new members. No list has ever gotten off well, or it's been
      >properly maintained, without some renewal and areaching.
      >
      >The Three and Paul surely know Greek (even if the Greek of Church or
      >the Academy) and some of Egyptian, Babylonian, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew,
      >Arabic, Sanskrit. Merely German or English is too far removed to do.
      >Peter needs know one of these, and be adept at the language of the age,
      >Computing.
      >
      >Paul, or if need Peter, may stand-in as temporary Theoi if One of the Tree
      >has to take a walk for a period of days. Or needs to go off to do no-thing
      >in desert.
      >
      >Finally, Peter and Paul, and any of the three (I mean, if they want to, who
      >is going to tell Them No) will have to get in contact with Harper Collins and
      >explain the whole point of it. They will like it, when they understand it,
      >and be thankful for it. We have been all along thankful for the hosting
      >and the generous energy, but they have to be explained that we now need
      >renewal of Purpose and some Self-Shepherding.
      >
      >Please, take up and discuss of this proposal, if you will. Though I may make
      >yet another brief appearance or two one of these days, I intend for now
      >to read you all. Epiphany can wait.
      >
      >Xairete,
      >
      >Isidoros, gnostis
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Tom Simms
      Dear dear Isodorus Darwin was wrong. Mankind did not descend from apes, Mankind descended from Sheep, all of them incapable of using the delete function on
      Message 2 of 7 , May 26, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear dear Isodorus

        Darwin was wrong. Mankind did not descend from apes,

        Mankind descended from Sheep,

        all of them incapable of using the "delete" function on their mailers.

        Nothing more need be said.

        Tom

        >
        >Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
        >To: Crosstalk <crosstalk@...>
        >From: ioniccentre@... (Isidoros)
        >Subject: a Moderate(!) proposal
        >
        >Agaphtoi mou,
        >
        >I am one of the old-timers, a near original charter, fellow member of this
        >godforsaken list. Like many of the early members (Hello! Stevan, Tom,
        >Yuri, William, Stephen, Philip, Antonio, Lewis - and, also, Andrew, Nicholas,
        >Mike, Ken, Maureen, Winston, Alistair, Jim, Yirmiyahu - I hope I got the
        >the spelling this time aright - wherever that you all are.) I too have stayed
        >faithful to this, and especially to the fellowship. Yet, as I am ignoring at
        >one glance most, deleting more and as I am watching the clouds cast darker
        >shadows above us increasingly, disallowing for the light and rather favoring
        >the seed of darkness and discontent rise among us, please allow me to also
        >speak.
        >
        >
        >I agree with some of the seniors talk that there are problems with the
        >list, and I think not with just how it is run, or it isn't it. I won't go into
        >any of it, but I 'll write below a page of a practical proposal that I think
        >may well take care for now of our problems.
        >
        >Lists run by monarch moderator-owners usually run, imho, sooner or later
        >into serious moral and practical problems. Non-moderated ones (which is
        >not the same as "unmoderated") or "self-moderated" lists (as many refer
        >to Crosstalk, erroneously, which is more like "anarchus," and as has been
        >clearly our own experience of late) also have problems, though perhaps
        >rather of different varieties. I would go for a "modest," or "Moderate"
        >solution, but definitely not "Moderated" (which does mean the interception
        >and "proof-reading" of every post before reaching the list. We don't want
        >that.) Far from any subjective selecting and, effectively, censorship.
        >The proposal is for true Self-Moderation: by which one does not mean
        >that each is one's own real witness, and ultimate one's own judge (which is,
        >among other things, fatally, dualistic) but that the list--after setting up
        >its own mode of Purposes, Rules, processes and Criteria for being --
        >regulates itself, by a tautochronous shared responsibility of one *and* all,
        >democratically and aristocratically.
        >
        >We self-select, for example, democratically, a fellowship of three
        >moderate senior members, who are charged with responsibility for
        >overseeing the running of the list. They are given Power of God, being
        >they Theoi, which may even mean that--upon Common Consent, always --
        >in the more extreme of circumstances kick butt even out of this Gea Paradis.
        >Rules, the Canon should be spelled out clearly, specifically and precisely,
        >so they may apply it, or in their infinite Wisdom even interpret it justly,
        >but never invent it--and so that the naked, and the dead (to be) know
        >of the Book number and verses in advance, and don't call Them, again,
        >any Mean God. Here, there should really be not allowed any hope or appeal
        >for a Second Coming, our moments are most precious, and this should be
        >to all clear--unless, of course, we want to take (on this occasion also) to
        >misunderstanding the original Greeks, or to take to the Hindus, and maybe
        >allow for one Second Chance, say, after been turned to deaf and blind
        >creeps for three or six months. The Fellowship of the five (oops, three,
        >yet five to be, following) should itself, and in moderation, be moderate.
        >S-elections once a year. To be eligible a member must have had its list
        >baptismal at least a year before s-election day. Lurkers, born, yet not
        >known to our midst, may vote, too, but from the purgatorium, or heaven,
        >wherever might be at the time, without this appearance counting as baptism.
        >For all votes are cast publicly, on list, and distinctly as to the office.
        >The Moderates, the three (of five) senior Fellows, as are to be known
        >otherwise on this planet may themselves be recalled down from Heaven
        >(an act that would warrant merely an equally inappropriate behavior)
        >and by such a proviso that it be clear that our Godheads are (here, too)
        >only our very own Creation. Recall may be by motion of three active
        >members and a two-thirds majority vote.
        >
        >I could say rather a few more things; like, that the three co-missioned
        >first will have for a while rather to work more like Martyrs,
        >to go on gaining their Sainthood by a service in Agiosyne before they
        >come close to actually feel (?) Theoi Divine. For, per example, they
        >should divine in drafting a list purposes Charter we can call SCOPOS,
        >that together with a Rules document, the CANON, will give focus,
        >impetus, energy, drive, purpose to all of our listeuomenois and
        >so listless brothers and sisters, and which is (said to be) Adelfoi. In
        >the same spirit, it is in order that we freshen up accordingly the Name,
        >alter the Image in accordance with substance, and so baptize it, again,
        >into, say, CrossRoads, not to depart too much from the Owners original
        >intent (and with a prothetic CR prefixed automatically before each Subject
        >line.) Or even something more exotic, if you will. You be surprised what
        >appeals to true seekers nowadays. And in this regard, I'd be more up to
        >Opening Up the scope, to reflect this in the Scopos, Open Up the list
        >Search Field, to a truly one that's scientific, and not "closing inside"
        >the spirit (as did recently a "apostle" who splintered from this fold to
        >open a shop whose purpose is presumably to search into what holds
        >already to be axiomatically true, or true dogma. That is no science; it's
        >sheer heresy. A case that reminds one a saying of the prophets of old,
        >that, no one may be servant at the same time to both: God *and* Truth
        >(or, commonly known as, Science.) The general idea is for significant
        >change, so that the one real Christos may come to be truly arisen :-)
        >among us. A hundred souls is nothing for such a truly eatherial mission
        >--if it is True.
        >
        >Last points:
        >
        >We need a Peter and we need a Paul (to make it a seniors fellowship of
        >five, as written) A Peter will watch mainly the Gate. We can't leave just
        >that kind of dirty work to professional mercenaries, like the H-C, or
        >just to any robotic automatons. Got to have one of our own oversee this
        >whole process, and assist and advise the Trinity wherever else necessary.
        >Volunteered or conscripted, and at any rate welcomed by the Holy See of
        >Three, Peter will communicate and cooperate with the H-C --or, the other
        >way around, mainly.
        >
        >Need also a Paul, a market(in) roving man of faith, who along with a
        >periodically co-missioned team of four (or five? well, more or less)
        >volunteer apostles will see to spreading the word about the list,
        >Go-spelling, and generally assist where needed. Once we get the Scopos
        >together and straight, and aright the Canon for business we can begin to
        >solicit actively new members. No list has ever gotten off well, or it's been
        >properly maintained, without some renewal and areaching.
        >
        >The Three and Paul surely know Greek (even if the Greek of Church or
        >the Academy) and some of Egyptian, Babylonian, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew,
        >Arabic, Sanskrit. Merely German or English is too far removed to do.
        >Peter needs know one of these, and be adept at the language of the age,
        >Computing.
        >
        >Paul, or if need Peter, may stand-in as temporary Theoi if One of the Tree
        >has to take a walk for a period of days. Or needs to go off to do no-thing
        >in desert.
        >
        >Finally, Peter and Paul, and any of the three (I mean, if they want to, who
        >is going to tell Them No) will have to get in contact with Harper Collins and
        >explain the whole point of it. They will like it, when they understand it,
        >and be thankful for it. We have been all along thankful for the hosting
        >and the generous energy, but they have to be explained that we now need
        >renewal of Purpose and some Self-Shepherding.
        >
        >Please, take up and discuss of this proposal, if you will. Though I may make
        >yet another brief appearance or two one of these days, I intend for now
        >to read you all. Epiphany can wait.
        >
        >Xairete,
        >
        >Isidoros, gnostis
        >
      • mgrondin@tir.com
        Tom- The delete function does not remove Billy-boy s messages from the archives, nor from the egroups list of messages, which is open for all to see. Sheep? I
        Message 3 of 7 , May 26, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom-

          The delete function does not remove Billy-boy's messages from the archives, nor from the egroups list of messages, which is open for all to see. Sheep? I think not. I'm rather reminded of the scene in "Twelve Angry Men", where eleven of the jurors leave the table and turn their back on the twelfth, who is spouting some racist nonsense. Only then is he silenced.

          Mike
        • Tom Simms
          ... Good grief - of course it does - when you call up the archive. I have very severe arthritis now in both hands, yet I can still hit delete - or are you so
          Message 4 of 7 , May 26, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:38:22 -0000, mgrondin@... writes:
            >
            >Tom-
            >
            >The delete function does not remove Billy-boy's messages from the archives, nor from the egroups list of messages, which is open for all to see. Sheep? I think not. I'm rather reminded of the scene in "Twelve Angry Men", where eleven of the jurors leave the table and turn their back on the twelfth, who is spouting some racist nonsense. Only then is he silenced.
            >
            >Mike
            >

            Good grief - of course it does - when you call up the archive.
            I have very severe arthritis now in both hands, yet I can still
            hit delete - or are you so upset by his writings the sight of them
            sets you off? Perhaps YOU have the problem.

            Tom
          • Isidoros
            Dear fellows, could you not be both aright? complementarily? and I mean to have descened both from sheep and wolf and whatever else, and snakes and all? Not
            Message 5 of 7 , May 26, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear fellows,
              could you not be both aright? complementarily? and I mean to have
              descened both from sheep and wolf and whatever else, and snakes and all?
              Not anything is antithetical to any other in this (too) wide world of
              ours (not) but maybe, theoretically, in some perfect Euclidean geometry
              (and, as too, perhaps, in the geometrics of some psychicly twisted madness
              that is set to be counted over this mean mine-field of a sa'd "Humanitarian
              War" (???) over the body of Yugoslavia (not America! or of American babies.
              Or Brit.) So, yes and no and depending on case and circumstance we delete
              or filter or sooth or cojole and ... where we count our immesurable mistakes
              and failures--oops! there goes another one.)

              Isidoros
              ... who thinks descended from a "dodo" owl--that one *nearly* extinct of a
              bird genus better known as Didus Ineptus.

              PS. My dear "ba-bah" Tom, if conditions do shape up across the waters
              nearly anywhere my christo(para)logical inclins, you mind whistling so that I
              apply? (Seems either don't know how to read English, or others don't know
              what they are writing, about having subbed, as said originally, or "having sent
              out to every one on the latest WHO CROSSTALK ... an *invitation to subscribe*"
              etc of which I received nein--but Jeff's and Mike's exhortations.
              Ahh! human failings...)

              And, don't you worry. I 'll stay to close the door.
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              Isidoros wrote: [snip] ... Isidoros, Below is a message I received from the e-groups server confirming my request to send invitations to all Crosstalk members
              Message 6 of 7 , May 26, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Isidoros wrote:

                [snip]

                > PS. My dear "ba-bah" Tom, if conditions do shape up across the waters
                > nearly anywhere my christo(para)logical inclins, you mind whistling so that I
                > apply? (Seems either don't know how to read English, or others don't know
                > what they are writing, about having subbed, as said originally, or "having sent
                > out to every one on the latest WHO CROSSTALK ... an *invitation to subscribe*"
                > etc of which I received nein--but Jeff's and Mike's exhortations.
                > Ahh! human failings...)
                >

                Isidoros,

                Below is a message I received from the e-groups server confirming my request to
                send invitations to all Crosstalk members to subscribe to Crosstalk2 (now XTalk).

                As you will see, your address is plainly there. If you didn't receive the
                invitation, it was not because I didn't send one to you.

                Jeffrey Gibson

                *****
                Subject:
                97 subscribers invited to crosstalk2
                Date:
                Sun, 23 May 1999 04:54:45 -0400
                From:
                "eGroups.com Help" <support@...>
                To:
                jgibson000@...
                CC:
                support@...




                Invitation messages have been sent to the following addresses
                as you requested.


                Thank you for using eGroups.com!

                - The eGroups Team


                Addresses:

                jpman@...
                awaya@...
                jenell@...
                bishopburke@...
                jmcconnell@...
                ldancer@...
                CLAPALEY@...
                carrigah@...
                wea1@...
                simo.lampela@...
                mahlonh.smith@...
                parakal@...
                jda@...
                skpoon@...
                jknee@...
                davjones@...
                gburgin@...
                ddenton@...
                jkilmon@...
                LOUIELTD@...
                jgibson000@...
                ekklesia@...
                haveyme@...
                luisraon@...
                djohann@...
                scarlson@...
                y.kuchinsky@...
                listsaver-of-crosstalk@...
                LBR@...
                errol.colleen@...
                ioniccentre@...
                secher@...
                bpchurch@...
                keras@...
                Phil@...
                peterson@...
                rbuchana@...
                rshand@...
                cygnus@...
                dannash@...
                mmyers@...
                Mullerb@...
                mma29@...
                nbm@...
                grolin@...
                amilanov@...
                joseph@...
                pthcock@...
                donmurphy@...
                110440.1553@...
                bishops.chaplain@...
                ndeploom@...
                sammer@...
                anneq@...
                rbtcaseyj@...
                JSWZ60A@...
                kcsjrt@...
                wadeink@...
                megamax@...
                rfincher@...
                jdegoes@...
                rkl200@...
                mc2499@...
                antonio.jerez@...
                ZellNan@...
                o-grimst@...
                karlndot@...
                kokkee@...
                G_Eagle_16@...
                Legendmyth@...
                Pblanrue@...
                unizion@...
                acanosa@...
                sybarra@...
                M.S.Goodacre@...
                appelget@...
                sakari.hakkinen@...
                MLM@...
                BobSchacht@...
                EdHJ@...
                tsimms@...
                nesc@...
                monjudas@...
                jwhat@...
                bill2200@...
                rsalm@...
                adw211@...
                MFMINUTELLO@...
                jmarkey@...
                scholar@...
                lstyers@...
                bstarke@...
                abraxis@...
                edgar@...
                ljb@...
                kestrel@...
                rtupaj@...



                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Isidoros
                Appreciate the prompt response and the thought, Jeff. All I can say from here is that invitation from e-groups never arrived to this end. But thanks. Take good
                Message 7 of 7 , May 26, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Appreciate the prompt response and the thought, Jeff.
                  All I can say from here is that invitation from e-groups
                  never arrived to this end. But thanks. Take good care.
                  Isidoros


                  >Isidoros,
                  >
                  >Below is a message I received from the e-groups server confirming my request to
                  >send invitations to all Crosstalk members to subscribe to Crosstalk2 (now
                  >XTalk).
                  >
                  >As you will see, your address is plainly there. If you didn't receive the
                  >invitation, it was not because I didn't send one to you.
                  >
                  >Jeffrey Gibson
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.