To All,

More and more these days, I'm seeing comments and questions regarding the forum losing its purpose and a need for new directions.

(Well, time for another shot of publicity...)

For a wonderful answer to this, you've got to see what's going on right now over in "New Answers" in the thread, "The Great Deception..." started about a week and a half ago by snooze button.

In my humble opinion, it's the most intellectually stimulating and most civil thread ever. And I think it's now the longest by far, as well. Please check it out!!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000

Answers

By the way, folks, some of the talk there may seem too abstract or highfalutin, or just an area you happen to dislike or are unfamiliar with. But everyone's take is really desired. So don't get discouraged if you see something you can't connect with. Just break into an ongoing conversation, ask for definitions if you want, or feel completely free to start a new topic! (Only try to keep it within religion or philosophy).

Hope to see y'all there!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

Link...

The Great Deception - What if what we know was chosen deliberately to deceive us? ---

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002Hae

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

The link:

The Great Deception

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

Diane and snooze button,

Thanks for the links!

To all,

I can't emphasize enough that if you have a differing angle with respect to an ongoing conversation, or you have a new topic on your mind, or you just want to agree with someone, by all means share it!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

whew!!! that is the longest thread i have ever seen. no way am i getting involved in that one, let alone try to read it. i got tired just trying to scroll from top to bottom and that was using my PAGE DOWN key!!!!

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Flint would be proud :)

-- (@ .), January 21, 2000.

boop,

There's no way you have to read it all -- the thread represents a great many different conversations on many different topics. Lots of times I recall something being said before directly on point of something I'm currently bringing up. In most cases, I don't bother looking back through the thread -- it would be way too time consuming. I just dig in my heels and bring it up again. And nobody berates me for it (although it wouldn't matter much if they did). Further, I think others are handling this in the same way.

So, come on, boop, and give us a piece o' yer mind!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

Great thread.... Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....... Hebrews 11:1

The philosopher spends a life time clawing his way to the top of the mountain, only to find the theologians there, waiting for him.

Who said this ?

-- Ken G. (None@this.time), January 21, 2000.

Ken G.,

Hmmm...thought-provoking...

I don't know who said it, but can you post it on that thread? If so, you just might get lots of input. I know I've got something to say about both comments you made.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

It is good that the longest and greatest thread ever is a search for "the Mind Of God" rather than the previous longest thread which was a search for "the mind of LL".

-- afriendoftheforum (x@y.com), January 21, 2000.

afriendoftheforum,

Yes, if you find yourself glassy-eyed from the religion/philosophy thread and you need an excruciatingly wild and wooly pick-me-up, just find the LL thread, which I can only say was:

"The Thread For Which There Is No Adequate Adjective Nor Reasonable Group Of Adjectives In The English-Speaking World."

I can't recall the title, though. Link, anyone?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

"The Thread For Which There Is No Adequate Adjective Nor Reasonable Group Of Adjectives In The English-Speaking World."

Call it "The Ineffable Thread" for short. 8^)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 21, 2000.

Caution - thread participants are not as welcoming to new perspectives as touted. Some seem in the process of "enlightening" others and do not want the process of guru/individual epiphany interrupted.

It appears most would rather continue in the circulat trap to irrelevancy. However, there is a slight chance that these partcipants MAY just some up with the final determination of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It may be the longest thread, but count the participants. There are only a handful.

Sorry - won't visit there again.

-- therein (therein@rut.ro), January 21, 2000.

therein,

As far as I can recall, there was only one individual who was not very accepting of new participants, and he/she has since become more open.

And yes, there are just a handful of us right now, but in terms of number of contributors to the thread, my guess would be, perhaps fifty or more?

So, yeah, our numbers have dropped off -- but that's why I'm here to recruit!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

Yes, if you find yourself glassy-eyed from the religion/philosophy thread and you need an excruciatingly wild and wooly pick-me-up, just find the LL thread, which I can only say was: "The Thread For Which There Is No Adequate Adjective Nor Reasonable Group Of Adjectives In The English-Speaking World."

I can't recall the title, though. Link, anyone?

OT: THIS IS WHY I THINK Y2K WILL NOT BE THE END OF THE WORLD

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 21, 2000.

Duh,

Thanks for your help with the link.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

The quote about scientists clawing their way to the top of the mountain and looking over it only to discover that the theologians had been there all along is by astronomer Robert Jastro in "God and the Astronomers." A very, very interesting read, incidentally.

-- Liz (lizpavek@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Thanks for the info, Liz. The book sounds pretty cool.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

Hi Eve, Thanks for the invitation but reading that thread made me smile as I recalled many such conversations in my college years. Eventually even the most mind bending exspansions in physics, math, philosophy, and phychology left me quite empty. I decided that if I were to be totally honest with myself intellectually, that I must also try the spiritual approach to answering these larger than life questions. So, I prayed fervantly to God as I then understood him, and he answered me. It was the most astounding and uplifting experience in my life, and absolutely removed all doubt that there was a power greater than myself who cared about me and wished for me to know what I so passionately sought. The experience left me humbled and in awe. It also changed my priorities and made it unnecessary for me to struggle with the complexities and inconsistancies that I had previously found so necessary. It sounds a bit smug to suggest that I was able to fly to the top of the mountain, instead of clawing my way up; but that is precisely the way I have come to understand the experience. I find it terribly unfortunate that many highly intellegent people refuse to even try the direct route.

-- Ken G. (None@this.time), January 21, 2000.

Well eve,

Since a certain Interested Spectator has zero tolerance for any hot buttons other than his own, its just a tad off putting. Oh well.

Have no need to debate the existence of the Divine.

Simply know it, through direct experience (i.e. hugged by an angel for starters). But thats another story.

*Grin*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

Eve:

Just found this thread of yours while showing the real one to some friends. Were you referring to me as "one" person being not "open" to new commers. In the spirit of keeping the civility, please re-read my posts on the issue, I never hinted that nobody should come there, I have been concerned with maintaing civility. In the one instance I might have given that impression and was a bit hasty on jumping to a conclusion I said I that I was more concerend about what I thought was a troll, and promptly cleared that up to I believe everybody's satisfaction.

Diane:

Would you care to elaborate? I think that I have my point of view like many others there have theirs. I argue my position passionatly as eve, herself says, she does her own. That's what makes the debate happen. We may have only a few participants but any body is welcome to join, I don't recall there being a password, and from the few lurker postings we've had I'm guessing there are many lurkers.

Nevertheless, I'd be interested in understanding what you meant by your comment a little better.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 22, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

Yes, that was you I was referring to. And it did have a lot to do with the post you refer to. The thing that bothered me was that you had said you thought it was a troll, yet I scoured the post and there was no hint of a troll anywhere. The post appeared to be an honest reflection of someone's viewpoint -- it's just that he/she had changed the topic.

You're ok otherwise, except that you seem to come off as a little too pedagogical, perhaps less open and accepting of other views and the possibility that you may learn from the others.

But I could very well be wrong -- you've written so much, and I don't recall large portions of it specifically -- it's just an overall feeling I've gotten from our discussions and your interaction with others.

Please don't take offense at this. But you asked me and I had to be honest. Oh yes -- don't get discouraged; stick around. I do enjoy our conversations.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 22, 2000.

Hi, Diane,

Why don't you come to the thread and talk about the angels and how you connect with them? I'd love to find out more.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 22, 2000.

eve:

With all due respect, I did mention that I thought it was a troll, and if not the person was welcome to join in. Is there some reason this clarification (as posted below) was not satisfactory to you?

[WRT to annon:

I welcome his input, by all means. I just may have been a bit hasty in jumping to the conclusion he was just trying to troll for a response for the sake of it. That I think we all agree on will result in mudslinging and lack of respect which is the one thing that has distinguished this thread from most of tb2000 and I think is on reason why we are still here for 9 days now ( :) ) and we just must all be vigilent against mudslinging and disprectfulness. I brought this issue up first and still believe it is true.

That said, annon, welcome to our little corner of TB2000 and we lookforward to your input.]

Eve, your reply was:

[I.S.

... And re others joining in -- ok, we're cool.]

Is there some reason why we're "not cool" which led you to make your comments here. Obviously my admission of a mistake has not been satisfactory to you, your reply notwithstanding, and you still felt compelled to critisize me here and make a claim that I have not been open initillay but have become more so.

[You're ok otherwise, except that you seem to come off as a little too pedagogical, perhaps less open and accepting of other views and the possibility that you may learn from the others...

...But you asked me]

Actually I only asked if you were referring to me, and if so to remind you of my retraction. I didn't ask you for your opinion of my posts or my disposition. I quite sure we all have opinions of each other, both positive and negative, and it's really because we have kept them in check in the thread which is why the thread has not degenerated into mudslinging. Also because our opinions of each other are also immaterial to finding the Truth, as the Truth may be equally found in the message from the most obnoxious person as it could be from the most mild mannered. It is for the reader to see beyond the person and listen to the message. That the poster may be using an ineffective approach to conveying his message really only hurts the reader if they don't see past that, since they loose the benifit of what ever is being said. Therefore I see no benifit to our search to reciprocate with my opinion of yourself and would just rather continue our debate.

[Oh yes -- don't get discouraged]

I have no reason to be discouraged. I don't seek to convince you. I believe to date I have been merely answering your questions with my, obviously, point of view since that is what I presume you're asking me for. You make of my replies what you choose. If they help you in your search, then that pleases me. If you feel that they are not of help, then I have merely tried to help someone, who I finally was not able to. Either way I can feel satsified with myself.

I have said, I search for and proceed down the path to the Truth with reason. That is my guide to tell me when to take a step forward. I only have to keep learning and ajusting my course when something new is introduced that makes sense with what I have already learned. There can be no other way, for that would mean I must just accept something as the truth because so and so says it is so. And then what am I to do when two people tell me contradcitory information and both say "believe it because we tell it is the truth"? I do not try to understand the Truth soley with Reason however. I may never find the ultimate truth before I die, but my search alone will hold me in good stead after I die.

See you in the real thread :)

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 23, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

I'm sorry that my responses went beyond your question to me; they were really, in a way, giving you my take on what I thought Diane was getting at. I guess I went too far, because you had not asked me for my input here; please accept my apologies.

I vaguely recall my "we're cool" comment; I think by that I was accepting your apology, which is true -- I do. But the "troll" comment did continue to bother me, simply because it made no sense in the context. Yes, you apologized, and that's good, but the fact that you had jumped on a complete innocent in the first place for no apparent reason kind of shocked me, and that does leave a mark.

And thanks for explaining yourself further here. This helps us to understand more completely where you're coming from.

I hope this helps.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Eve:

You say:

[Yes, you apologized, and that's good, but the fact that you had jumped on a complete innocent in the first place for no apparent reason kind of shocked me, and that does leave a mark.]

I made a mistake when I made the comment. I said I was hasty. I appoligized. As a human I am inatley going to make mistakes and as a human appologizing and accpeting my mistake is all I am left with as I can not undo what I have done. If after that you still hold something against me, (you say "that does leave a mark") then all I can say is that is your perogative, as I really seek forgiveness from annon as it was he who I am direct my appology to as it was he who I affected with my comments.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 24, 2000.

Eve:

Forgot to add in my last post, I accept your appologies and the matter for which you appologize for is forgotten.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 24, 2000.

But my God (ahem), if ever there was a thread that needed to be threaded that's the one. Or maybe the form of the thread isn't so fortuitous ...

There are several conversations popping up on THE THREAD but the main ones involve Interested Spectator (in case you want to start where she/HE starts, eve, John Ainsworth, Beerman, Big Dog, and a host of other glittering deep thinkers from the TB2000/y2k scene.

I'm a lurker and a bit bored with the y2k perspective on what's happening, so THE THREAD is an interesting diversion. It's also brain stretching at times, something I rather got to like as I 'understood' y2k over the last 2 years. For those worried about getting involved in yet another mind bender that sends you barking up the wrong tree again, don't worry. It's harmless stuff ...I think. Ugh! :()

-- flkj (flkj@flkj.com), January 24, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

This "mark" is not a reflection on you as a person at all. It's just my memory of the one incident. I know, you just made a mistake, as I do, as we all do, and all we can do is learn from them and move on. Please know that I hold absolutely nothing against you, and to the extent I said anything that left you thinking otherwise, I withdraw it and apologize.

And regarding my "we're cool" comment again -- if that had to do with the "anon" incident -- you know, you really owed me no apology for that. Maybe I need to look that comment up and see what the exact context was -- no, I can't -- I just remembered yet again that I really don't want to look stuff up in a thread that's 250 pages long! Can you do it? :))

By the way, I'll bet that this thread is coming close to the record for the number of apologies in a thread! :))) (I'm just learning these little faces -- is this a big smile or just a smile and a double chin?)

Talk to you soon, I.S.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 24, 2000.

Eve:

WRT to finding things in a page, its very simple because I usually refer to the original comment and then post a reply afterwards. You merely have to copy a few of the words into the clip board, (ctrl-C), use the find command in your browser, paste the clip board into what you want to find (Ctrl-V) and find it.

So if you use the find command to find "ok, we're cool" you'll find your reply and can then scroll up a bit to see a few of the earlier posts you'll see the context.

Similarly you can use this to find anything I said in the thread if I gave some indication of which post to look in (such as the words "Fundmental Observation #1B") and so forth.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 24, 2000.

Thanks for the tips, I.S.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 25, 2000.