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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Beans, Manna from Heaven

Expand Messages
  • walkinginclogs@aol.com
    So true. Revelation forcast various wars which then took place soon after. Everything that it predicted, has already taken place. And yes, I can t possibly
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      So true. Revelation forcast various wars which then took place soon after.
      Everything that it predicted, has already taken place. And yes, I can't
      possibly see how those fundamentalists could possibly believe that the fall of
      Babalyon is yet to come. If they believe that, they should go over there and look
      at the ruins. They say those things because it sells their religion. Join
      our church. We will SAVE you. Send us all your money, the world is about to
      end. One time I asked one of them why give it to you if the world is about to
      end. You can't use it either.

      Then too, I think that they might have written Revelation after it already
      happened. I remember Jean Dixon when she was still alive, never predicted the
      Gulf War. But she did predict that they would excavate Babylon, which was
      true. The only thing was that they had already started digging before she made
      the prediction!!
    • walkinginclogs@aol.com
      I heard about some guy who sent out 5,000 letters to investers, predicting that a certain stock would go up. Then he sent another 5,000 letters to other
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I heard about some guy who sent out 5,000 letters to investers, predicting
        that a certain stock would go up. Then he sent another 5,000 letters to other
        people, predicting that that same stock would go down.

        The stock went up, so he dropped the 5,000 people from his mailing list whom
        he had predicted incorrectly. Then he sent another prediction out to those
        remaining. To 2,500 he predicted a certain other stock to go up. To the other
        half he predicted it would go down. The stock went down, so he dropped the
        2,500 whom he had predicted incorrectly. Those remaining are starting to
        anxiously await his next prediction, because to the, he has been right twice in a
        row.

        He keeps doing this until he narrows his list down to 50 people, then he
        sells these 50 some worthless stock in a mining company. Even the apostles
        believed that Christ's second coming was soon. The people who have been let down
        are now dead, and another generation of suckers are born.
      • Steve
        ... soon after. ... can t ... the fall of ... over there and look ... religion. Join ... is about to ... is about to ... already ... predicted the ... which
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
          > So true. Revelation forcast various wars which then took place
          soon after.
          > Everything that it predicted, has already taken place. And yes, I
          can't
          > possibly see how those fundamentalists could possibly believe that
          the fall of
          > Babalyon is yet to come. If they believe that, they should go
          over there and look
          > at the ruins. They say those things because it sells their
          religion. Join
          > our church. We will SAVE you. Send us all your money, the world
          is about to
          > end. One time I asked one of them why give it to you if the world
          is about to
          > end. You can't use it either.
          >
          > Then too, I think that they might have written Revelation after it
          already
          > happened. I remember Jean Dixon when she was still alive, never
          predicted the
          > Gulf War. But she did predict that they would excavate Babylon,
          which was
          > true. The only thing was that they had already started digging
          before she made
          > the prediction!!

          This may sound surprising, but I think that much of the vision of
          John the Elder in the book of Revelation was written after the fact
          and referred to phenomena associated with the eruption of Vesuvius
          in 79 A.D. Dio Cassius described the volcanic eruption using
          language highly similar to John's description of the seal judgements
          and trumpet judgements. Dio Cassius spoke of mountains being thrown
          into the sea, hills leaping about during the terrible earthquakes
          that accompanied the eruption. He spoke of the streams and bodies of
          water being poisoned for many miles around by the volcanic ash,
          killing large numbers of fish, fowl and wildlife. He said that the
          dark clouds extended as far as Rome, Egypt and Syria, blotting out
          the sun and plunging the land in darkness like night. He also said
          that the eruption was accompanied by one of the worst outbreaks of
          plague that the ancient world had ever seen [probably from the
          poisonous ash] causing terrible sores to break out on the skin.
          Amazingly, he even said that the eruption produced a loud noise like
          a trumpet being blown! I suspect that early christians saw the
          eruption of Vessuvius as being a sign of the End-Time, and that is
          why John incorporated it into his "vision". I believe that the four
          horsemen of the Apocalypse referred to the destruction of Jerusalem
          in 70 A.D. The first rider who "rode forth to conquer" and
          was "given a crown" was, in my opinion Titus who rode forth against
          and conquered Jerusalem and was crowned emperor after Vespassion.
          the other four horsemen refer to the war, the famine accompanying it
          and the prisoners being thrown to the wild beasts in the arena in
          rome after the war. Of course, John wrote about all this after the
          fact, but injected it into his vision for the edification of his
          followers. Just my opinion. Yours, Steve
        • Steve
          ... predicting ... letters to other ... list whom ... to those ... To the other ... dropped the ... starting to ... right twice in a ... then he ... the
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
            > I heard about some guy who sent out 5,000 letters to investers,
            predicting
            > that a certain stock would go up. Then he sent another 5,000
            letters to other
            > people, predicting that that same stock would go down.
            >
            > The stock went up, so he dropped the 5,000 people from his mailing
            list whom
            > he had predicted incorrectly. Then he sent another prediction out
            to those
            > remaining. To 2,500 he predicted a certain other stock to go up.
            To the other
            > half he predicted it would go down. The stock went down, so he
            dropped the
            > 2,500 whom he had predicted incorrectly. Those remaining are
            starting to
            > anxiously await his next prediction, because to the, he has been
            right twice in a
            > row.
            >
            > He keeps doing this until he narrows his list down to 50 people,
            then he
            > sells these 50 some worthless stock in a mining company. Even
            the apostles
            > believed that Christ's second coming was soon. The people who
            have been let down
            > are now dead, and another generation of suckers are born.

            Very true. It's amazing how easily people buy into it. The book of
            Revelation continually says that the End is coming soon. At the end
            of the book it even has the Angel tell John not to seal up the
            scroll of prophesy because it would be happening so soon. This in
            contrast to the book of Daniel where the prophesy is sealed up
            because it was going to take a long time to be fulfilled. Of course,
            John's vision was written down in the 1st century and "soon" can
            hardly mean 2000 years in the future! But fundamentalists continue
            to try to apply it to our time. There's a sucker born every minute!
            Yours, Steve
          • Gerry
            ... course, ... Say, Steve, have you ever tried reading Revelations while listening to the Beatles? Just kidding, but it does make a point that you can find
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <eugnostos2000@y...>
              wrote:
              >
              >
              > Very true. It's amazing how easily people buy into it. The book of
              > Revelation continually says that the End is coming soon. At the end
              > of the book it even has the Angel tell John not to seal up the
              > scroll of prophesy because it would be happening so soon. This in
              > contrast to the book of Daniel where the prophesy is sealed up
              > because it was going to take a long time to be fulfilled. Of
              course,
              > John's vision was written down in the 1st century and "soon" can
              > hardly mean 2000 years in the future! But fundamentalists continue
              > to try to apply it to our time. There's a sucker born every minute!
              > Yours, Steve


              Say, Steve, have you ever tried reading Revelations while listening
              to the Beatles? Just kidding, but it does make a point that you can
              find extremists of all sorts who can come up with bizarre
              interpretations.

              As for apocalyptic groups that seem to continually rationalize
              pushing back the date for their "end of times," it seems odd that if
              the meaning of the seals had been correctly prophesied in the first
              place that their god should have such a tough time keeping an
              appointment. You'd think after being stood-up the first time by the
              Horsemen, they'd reassess their interpretation, but such a mindset
              doesn't much allow for that kind of thinking.

              Still, I suppose it's better if such a group kept those thoughts to
              themselves rather than interpret any hitches in God's alleged plan as
              an open invitation for them to go Helter-Skelter on the rest of the
              world.

              Gerry
            • walkinginclogs@aol.com
              I think so. Dreams are merely a hodge-podge of experiences we had, usually that day. The Seventh Day Adventists base a lot of their doctrine on an Ellen
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I think so. Dreams are merely a hodge-podge of experiences we had, usually
                that day. The Seventh Day Adventists base a lot of their doctrine on an Ellen
                White who said she had a vision. In this vision she said that she was told
                not to eat meat. The Adventists then concluded that God said that you must not
                eat meat.

                Others said that after she died they found books in her home written by some
                doctor which advocated a vegetarian diet. So I think that she was merely
                dreaming about what she read in those books. But ardent followers would like to
                believe that God told her all those things. When I was a teenager I used to
                think that dreams had some kind of significance because Freud said so. But all
                the literature that I have come across written by the psychiatric world seem to
                agree that dreams are merely our subconscious hashing over our experiences of
                the past day.
              • pessy@chez.com
                ... those authors are materialistic ignorants and kakogogues, one can t trust them in any sense. Klaus Schilling
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  walkinginclogs@... writes:
                  > But all the literature that I have come across
                  > written by the psychiatric world

                  those authors are materialistic ignorants and kakogogues,
                  one can't trust them in any sense.

                  Klaus Schilling
                • lady_caritas
                  ... Well, to say that dreams are merely our subconscious hashing over our experiences of the past day does seems to be a rather constricted view of this
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
                    > walkinginclogs@a... writes:
                    > > But all the literature that I have come across
                    > > written by the psychiatric world
                    >
                    > those authors are materialistic ignorants and kakogogues,
                    > one can't trust them in any sense.
                    >
                    > Klaus Schilling


                    Well, to say that "dreams are merely our subconscious hashing over
                    our experiences of the past day" does seems to be a rather
                    constricted view of this phenomenon.

                    Cwbyspike, if you're able to get hold of a copy of this back issue of
                    _Gnosis_, Winter, 1992, you'll find a variety of articles devoted to
                    the subject of dreams:

                    http://www.lumen.org/issue_contents/contents22.html

                    Yes, this issue is over a decade old, but the articles still have
                    relevance IMO.

                    Editor Richard Smoley introduces this issue with an article
                    entitled, "Are Dreams for Real?"

                    From the article:
                    "One of the main objections to the reality of the dream world is the
                    belief, stated or unstated, that somehow the mind is the brain, that
                    our dreams (as well as our waking thoughts and emotions) are just
                    byproducts of neural events. The latest theory along these lines
                    comes from Harvard psychiatrist Allan Hobson. Dreaming, he says, is
                    caused by the brain's random emission of electrochemical
                    signals. `The dreaming brain automatically generates a barrage of
                    symbols that we do our best to assemble into a coherent
                    story….Dreaming is not triggered by daily events that resurrect
                    buried memories but is a process as automatic as breathing.' Dreams,
                    then, would be some sort of nervous discharge, our synapses firing
                    out their tensions each night like crazed hicks shooting at road
                    signs.

                    "Personally I don't have the sort of expertise that could confirm or
                    refute Hobson's view. Yet (at least as presented in the popular
                    press) it appears to come down to the same form of materialistic
                    reductionism that has been weighed and found wanting so many times
                    before. As philosopher Thomas Nagel has pointed out in a brief but
                    influential essay entitled `What Is It Like to Be a Bat?', our
                    neurological knowledge (even if it's right) tells us little or
                    nothing about what it is to be an experiencing subject. Nagel uses
                    the example of bats, who, being proverbially blind, don't see as we
                    see, but perceive by bouncing a form of sonar off objects. Even
                    though we know a fair amount about the mechanism of sonar, none of
                    this, Nagel argues, tells us what it's like _subjectively_ to be a
                    bat; we just don't have any sense that's close enough to sonar to
                    help us conceive of that experience. Similarly, theories like
                    Hobson's may tell us what's happening at the physiological level, but
                    they don't enlighten us much about what it is to be a dreaming
                    subject.

                    "This is an important point for two reasons. In the first place, the
                    materialistic view doesn't account for all the information: if I
                    dream, part of the data is my experience as a subject. Neurology can
                    tell me about myself as a functioning physical object, but it can't
                    tell me much about my subjective experience (much less anyone
                    else's); reductionistic theories thus don't account for all the
                    data. In the second place, they don't tell us what all this complex
                    cognitive apparatus is _for_. Even if Hobson is right and dreaming
                    is a cleansing of various neural mechanisms, why are these mechanisms
                    functioning to begin with? It's like saying the purpose of an
                    automobile is to have the oil changed.

                    "As a way to dealing with these problems, we could say that on the
                    one hand there is a perspective that views things as objects, from
                    the exterior, as a scientist observes someone in a sleep lab. There
                    is also a perspective that sees things subjectively, from within, as
                    the dreamer himself would experience the same situation. This second
                    perspective would be the realm known variously as the `dream world,'
                    the `astral world,' the `Dreaming' (to Australian aborigines), or
                    Yetzirah (to kabbalists). It interpenetrates with the physical world—
                    just as a dream is both a physiological event and a subjective
                    experience—but is not identical to it."


                    Cari
                  • Mike Leavitt
                    Hello lady_caritas ... Well as some sort of Shaman put it, there are big dreams, and little ones. Most of us don t have the big ones often, but then even the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello lady_caritas

                      On 08-Jun-03, you wrote:

                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
                      >> walkinginclogs@a... writes:
                      >> > But all the literature that I have come across
                      >> > written by the psychiatric world
                      >>
                      >> those authors are materialistic ignorants and kakogogues,
                      >> one can't trust them in any sense.
                      >>
                      >> Klaus Schilling
                      >
                      >
                      > Well, to say that "dreams are merely our subconscious hashing over
                      > our experiences of the past day" does seems to be a rather
                      > constricted view of this phenomenon.
                      >
                      > Cwbyspike, if you're able to get hold of a copy of this back issue
                      > of _Gnosis_, Winter, 1992, you'll find a variety of articles devoted
                      > to the subject of dreams:
                      >
                      > http://www.lumen.org/issue_contents/contents22.html
                      >
                      > Yes, this issue is over a decade old, but the articles still have
                      > relevance IMO.
                      >
                      > Editor Richard Smoley introduces this issue with an article
                      > entitled, "Are Dreams for Real?"
                      >
                      >> From the article:
                      > "One of the main objections to the reality of the dream world is the
                      > belief, stated or unstated, that somehow the mind is the brain, that
                      > our dreams (as well as our waking thoughts and emotions) are just
                      > byproducts of neural events. The latest theory along these lines
                      > comes from Harvard psychiatrist Allan Hobson. Dreaming, he says, is
                      > caused by the brain's random emission of electrochemical signals.
                      > `The dreaming brain automatically generates a barrage of symbols
                      > that we do our best to assemble into a coherent story .Dreaming is
                      > not triggered by daily events that resurrect buried memories but is
                      > a process as automatic as breathing.' Dreams, then, would be some
                      > sort of nervous discharge, our synapses firing out their tensions
                      > each night like crazed hicks shooting at road signs.
                      >
                      > "Personally I don't have the sort of expertise that could confirm or
                      > refute Hobson's view. Yet (at least as presented in the popular
                      > press) it appears to come down to the same form of materialistic
                      > reductionism that has been weighed and found wanting so many times
                      > before. As philosopher Thomas Nagel has pointed out in a brief but
                      > influential essay entitled `What Is It Like to Be a Bat?', our
                      > neurological knowledge (even if it's right) tells us little or
                      > nothing about what it is to be an experiencing subject. Nagel uses
                      > the example of bats, who, being proverbially blind, don't see as we
                      > see, but perceive by bouncing a form of sonar off objects. Even
                      > though we know a fair amount about the mechanism of sonar, none of
                      > this, Nagel argues, tells us what it's like _subjectively_ to be a
                      > bat; we just don't have any sense that's close enough to sonar to
                      > help us conceive of that experience. Similarly, theories like
                      > Hobson's may tell us what's happening at the physiological level,
                      > but they don't enlighten us much about what it is to be a dreaming
                      > subject.
                      >
                      > "This is an important point for two reasons. In the first place, the
                      > materialistic view doesn't account for all the information: if I
                      > dream, part of the data is my experience as a subject. Neurology can
                      > tell me about myself as a functioning physical object, but it can't
                      > tell me much about my subjective experience (much less anyone
                      > else's); reductionistic theories thus don't account for all the
                      > data. In the second place, they don't tell us what all this complex
                      > cognitive apparatus is _for_. Even if Hobson is right and dreaming
                      > is a cleansing of various neural mechanisms, why are these
                      > mechanisms functioning to begin with? It's like saying the purpose
                      > of an automobile is to have the oil changed.
                      >
                      > "As a way to dealing with these problems, we could say that on the
                      > one hand there is a perspective that views things as objects, from
                      > the exterior, as a scientist observes someone in a sleep lab. There
                      > is also a perspective that sees things subjectively, from within, as
                      > the dreamer himself would experience the same situation. This second
                      > perspective would be the realm known variously as the `dream world,'
                      > the `astral world,' the `Dreaming' (to Australian aborigines), or
                      > Yetzirah (to kabbalists). It interpenetrates with the physical world
                      > just as a dream is both a physiological event and a subjective
                      > experience but is not identical to it."
                      >
                      >
                      > Cari

                      Well as some sort of Shaman put it, there are big dreams, and little
                      ones. Most of us don't have the big ones often, but then even the
                      little ones can have meaning.

                      Regards
                      --
                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                    • Barbara Jebenstreit
                      ... as mana, ... chance does ... might be ... they aired some ... Exodus was a ... I don t (regretfully) recall when or where I heard it... but I know that
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
                        > Speaking of manna. For every so-called supernatural occurrance such
                        as mana,
                        > there seems to be a rational scientific explanation. So by any
                        chance does
                        > anyone know if in that region where the Isrealites wandered, there
                        might be
                        > such a thing maybe as this manna even today? Of course on PBS
                        they aired some
                        > program in which some historians believe that the whole book of
                        Exodus was a
                        > fairy tale, and never happened.


                        I don't (regretfully) recall when or where I heard it... but I know
                        that some scientists believe that the Exodus indeed happened, though
                        the somewhat differently than the Bible reports. "Manna" is thought
                        to be the product of some kind of insect. The insect would excrete
                        some kind of carbonhydrate rich substance during the night. Until
                        morning, the substance had dried to a solid form, like dry snowflakes
                        which the Isrealites then collected.

                        Before I close this post, I want to thank you all for the warm
                        welcome and the reading suggestions. :)

                        Greetings,
                        Barbara
                      • walkinginclogs@aol.com
                        Thank you for the manna info. Very interesting.
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thank you for the manna info. Very interesting.
                        • Mike Leavitt
                          Hello Barbara ... Leave it to science to transform Mana from Heaven to bug dung. :-) Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Barbara

                            On 08-Jun-03, you wrote:

                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
                            >> Speaking of manna. For every so-called supernatural occurrance such
                            > as mana,
                            >> there seems to be a rational scientific explanation. So by any
                            > chance does
                            >> anyone know if in that region where the Isrealites wandered, there
                            > might be
                            >> such a thing maybe as this manna even today? Of course on PBS
                            > they aired some
                            >> program in which some historians believe that the whole book of
                            > Exodus was a
                            >> fairy tale, and never happened.
                            >
                            >
                            > I don't (regretfully) recall when or where I heard it... but I know
                            > that some scientists believe that the Exodus indeed happened, though
                            > the somewhat differently than the Bible reports. "Manna" is thought
                            > to be the product of some kind of insect. The insect would excrete
                            > some kind of carbonhydrate rich substance during the night. Until
                            > morning, the substance had dried to a solid form, like dry
                            > snowflakes which the Isrealites then collected.
                            >
                            > Before I close this post, I want to thank you all for the warm
                            > welcome and the reading suggestions. :)
                            >
                            > Greetings,
                            > Barbara

                            Leave it to science to transform Mana from Heaven to bug dung. :-)

                            Regards
                            --
                            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                          • lady_caritas
                            ... such ... there ... know ... though ... thought ... Well, y all got me interested, and I found this webpage supporting Barbara s explanation (the scientific
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                              > Hello Barbara
                              >
                              > On 08-Jun-03, you wrote:
                              >
                              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
                              > >> Speaking of manna. For every so-called supernatural occurrance
                              such
                              > > as mana,
                              > >> there seems to be a rational scientific explanation. So by any
                              > > chance does
                              > >> anyone know if in that region where the Isrealites wandered,
                              there
                              > > might be
                              > >> such a thing maybe as this manna even today? Of course on PBS
                              > > they aired some
                              > >> program in which some historians believe that the whole book of
                              > > Exodus was a
                              > >> fairy tale, and never happened.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > I don't (regretfully) recall when or where I heard it... but I
                              know
                              > > that some scientists believe that the Exodus indeed happened,
                              though
                              > > the somewhat differently than the Bible reports. "Manna" is
                              thought
                              > > to be the product of some kind of insect. The insect would excrete
                              > > some kind of carbonhydrate rich substance during the night. Until
                              > > morning, the substance had dried to a solid form, like dry
                              > > snowflakes which the Isrealites then collected.
                              > >
                              > > Before I close this post, I want to thank you all for the warm
                              > > welcome and the reading suggestions. :)
                              > >
                              > > Greetings,
                              > > Barbara
                              >
                              > Leave it to science to transform Mana from Heaven to bug dung. :-)
                              >
                              > Regards
                              > --
                              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                              Well, y'all got me interested, and I found this webpage supporting
                              Barbara's explanation (the scientific explanation is about 3/4 down
                              the page):

                              http://www.jhom.com/topics/bread/manna.html


                              Cari
                            • Mike Leavitt
                              Hello lady_caritas ... And it confirms the bug dung too. :-) Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jun 9, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello lady_caritas

                                On 08-Jun-03, you wrote:

                                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                >> Hello Barbara
                                >>
                                >> On 08-Jun-03, you wrote:
                                >>
                                >>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
                                >>>> Speaking of manna. For every so-called supernatural occurrance
                                > such
                                >>> as mana,
                                >> >> there seems to be a rational scientific explanation. So by any
                                >>> chance does
                                >>>> anyone know if in that region where the Isrealites wandered,
                                > there
                                >>> might be
                                >> >> such a thing maybe as this manna even today? Of course on PBS
                                >>> they aired some
                                >> >> program in which some historians believe that the whole book of
                                >>> Exodus was a
                                >>>> fairy tale, and never happened.
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>> I don't (regretfully) recall when or where I heard it... but I
                                > know
                                >>> that some scientists believe that the Exodus indeed happened,
                                > though
                                >>> the somewhat differently than the Bible reports. "Manna" is
                                > thought
                                >> > to be the product of some kind of insect. The insect would
                                >> > excrete some kind of carbonhydrate rich substance during the
                                >> > night. Until morning, the substance had dried to a solid form,
                                >> > like dry snowflakes which the Isrealites then collected.
                                >> >
                                >> > Before I close this post, I want to thank you all for the warm
                                >> > welcome and the reading suggestions. :)
                                >> >
                                >> > Greetings,
                                >> > Barbara
                                >>
                                >> Leave it to science to transform Mana from Heaven to bug dung. :-)
                                >>
                                >> Regards
                                >> --
                                >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                >
                                >
                                > Well, y'all got me interested, and I found this webpage supporting
                                > Barbara's explanation (the scientific explanation is about 3/4 down
                                > the page):
                                >
                                > http://www.jhom.com/topics/bread/manna.html
                                >
                                >
                                > Cari

                                And it confirms the bug dung too. :-)

                                Regards
                                --
                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.