Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register

Thread: psychobabbling

  1. #561
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hi PeopleS and Prometheus,

    thanks for following up my posts on this subject, which only by a stretch of very circumstantial approach can be said to have any connection to scamming. But then the charm of 'psychobabbling' has always been, that we can roam into the most unlikely subjects for a while.

    Not only to digress into 'paranormal' experiences (if that's what they are), but also to make a further digression into cosmogeny and cosmology. But I found it important to bring up the possibility of insufficiency in the way the universe and its parts percieve existence.

    Those forces/principles I mentioned in my last post numbers three to my knowledge, and probably operates at the level of zero-point/quantum-fluctuations. When zero-point evolves into the manifested universe, these three forces/principles will actualise into what is percieved as the universe. From the basic to the complex.

    If one of these three forces/principles is scarce or (alternatively) difficult to assimilate into a harmonious structure, it means for complex beings (e.g. humans), that our perceptional process is only 2/3 of what it should have been. We don't have all the facts/information/data we need, to know what's really going on, so we fill the gaps with fantasies or idle speculations, only adding to the confusion. We can't even formulate a functional epistemology.

    PeopleS, while I respect your right to have your answers, I do not feel it intrusive to take the liberty of discussing them in a non-aggressive way.

    Your answer is 'God's mysterious ways', but this proposal has some weak points. At least if a basic discussion of God's existence or not has been conducted on the line of 'intelligent design' (in an effort to reconcile abramic religion with empiric and rational science). Because if the 'intelligent design' argument is used (personally I at least believe in the 'design' part of it, there IS an architect), some other steps from scientific cosmogeny/cosmology are unavoidable. The main argument in 'intelligent design' is, that the chance of the universe 'happening by chance' is so infinitesimal, that only a person believing in total scientism would support the 'chance' argument (making him/her no better than the average religious fanatic). But the actual content of 'intelligent design' must be taken into consideration. WHAT is it, that has been designed?

    Undecided scientists say, that this extremely narrow set of universe-creating parameters, have only created a universe, where beings like e.g. humans will evolve. There may be other parameters, which alternatively could lead to other kinds of universes, where 'life' (complex beings) could exist. So they say, maybe the parameters aren't that unique after all. This suggestion isn't very tenable. Even if we expanded the universe-creating parameters to including everything possible for just creating a universe at all, it will still be defensible as a 'design' theory.

    A 'designed' universe must of necessity first of all contain the possibility for this universe to exist, that means not to collapse quickly from enthropy. Why any creator would WANT any kind of universe at all is ofcourse really 'mysterious', and why he created at least one universe (ours), where the parameters has been set to point to predation instead of symbiosis is even more mysterious.

    To say that going through the hard school of predation has any intrinsic meaning for our universe is difficult for me to understand. I would personally have been quite content without it, and I probably could have 'learned' something (if this is necessary) from a symbiotic basis. I think, that the reason for a predative universe is telling something about the architect, not the universe.

    Predation is quick, symbiosis is slow. There's a race against time (concerning enthropy), and as a consequence of the strong anthropic principle (:this universe must from its parameters automatically develop complex life-forms, and these complex lifeforms can act like machines for negative enthropy) it is suggested, that the predation principle has the mainpurpose of keeping the universe going. Not for the benefit of the universe itself, but for its creator.

    From here a specialised scientific or theological discussion could continue. I'll just point out, that the alternative answers to the abramic doctrines seem to be much more in accordance with science and common sense. OK, I rely on intellect, not on faith. Fair enough for anyone choosing an individual startingpoint on this.


    Back to the content of my experiences and our ongoing comments on them.

    Actually I DID see a couple of 'small greys' at my first encounter, and I have seen an UFO hovering around here some years ago (that time with a wittness. We saw it together for more than an hour). But as I said before, the PSI element is so strong in all my experiences, that I'm not convinced of the ET theory. The ET theory could very well be a hoax for some even more strange reality.

    I'm more inclined to believe in theories proposing other dimensions inside this universe (not parallel universes), where things 'in reality' manifest in somewhat different ways from what we meet in our dimension. I can e.g. theorize, that the same physical and chemical laws exist in another dimension, but that the particles (in the wave/particle dualism) manifest more like waves, giving us the impression of non-corporality. They would to a high degree consist of 'light' instead of matter. These beings I saw could pass through physical objects in our world. but when in contact with a physical matter object, they would be non-visible for me.

    OR: It could be a perceptual problem. That humanity filters its experience of existence so hard (even harder than supposed by ordinary psychology), that we actually leave out most of what is happening around us. We have already been into perception at length, no need for me to drone on.

    PeopleS' favourite: 'What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger' is very true in my case. While I still have recurring moments with a deep fear, I have also become stronger in some ways. As both my encounters contained direct and open threats to my life, I have like everyone else close to dying been forced to make a close scrutiny of my reaction to my own death. There are other benefits also. Fundamentally being a coward concerning conflicts, I am now learning to live with the occasional fear. I'm absolutely not braver than before, I'm beginning to learn to not let the fear dominate me. As you know, I live rather isolated, and when it gets dark here, it's DARK. In spite of possible 'spooks' waiting for me out in the darkness, I force myself to confront it occasionally by going out in the middle of the night.

    And finally: Compared to a majority of encounter 'victims', I was a/completely conscious (in the ordinary meaning of the word. Not spiritually higher consciousness) all the time, and b/I kept enough of my wits to observe as many details, as I could. So I have massed amounts of information. 2x5 days experiences is a long time.

    But alas not enough to make any definitive conclusions, though I have some theories, which I can use as starters.

  2. #562
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey guys! Considering the simple fact that we three are the only somewhat regular contributors to these forums, I would hope the admin would allow our digressions, especially since we do actually get around to the scamming issue from time to time.

    Perhaps there will come a day when science is able to figure out a nice neat formula to explain "everything", but I don't foresee it happenning, at least anytime soon, if ever. Science has given us a lot, to this there is no doubt. But, it's because of my personal beliefs that I think the true answer to "everything" lies beyond the realm of a scientific equation.

    The problem with science is that just about none of the wonderful theories that are floated about can be proven. My thoughts are quite simple, we don't know because we have not obtained a level of consciousness that will permit us to understand the answer without our heads exploding.[:0] Trust me, I am far from a Scientologist, but I have watched various sci-fi TV shows, movies, etc, that raise some interesting thoughts along this line.

    What the heck is that big, unused chunk of our brain for? Is it just there to keep our ears from touching? Or, is it a locked treasure chest full of wonder? I see it as a room that we don't have the key to open yet. My beliefs are that it is the slow evolution of man that will someday allow us to access these areas of our brain and the power they hold... power to understand the answers.

    There are two thoughts regarding the progression of man. The first being basic evolution and the second being mutation. Mutation doesn't necessarily refer to physical abnormalities or super powers, but a leap forward in the evolutionary process.


  3. #563
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    PeopleS,

    we seem to more and more attuned, though we approach the same subjects from different angles. And though we not always arrive at the same conclusions, there's enough communication platform to make it definitely worthwhile. You, Prometheus and formerly Ham are exceptional 'sparring-partners', far exceeding my hopes for this thread, when it was initiated.

    Admin must have its own inscrutable reasons for allowing this mental wandering around, maybe the relative success of the thread.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "There are two thoughts regarding the progression of man. The first being basic evolution and the second being mutation. Mutation doesn't necessarily refer to physical abnormalities or super powers, but a leap forward in the evolutionary process."

    Agreed. But this is only the mechanical, sheepwalker options, where things are done automatically. Without doubt they represent the major part of human (and other complex beings) evolution, but the possibility of a creative, conscious effort does exist for the individual. It's the possibility of using 'free will' as an evolutionary shortcut.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "Perhaps there will come a day when science is able to figure out a nice neat formula to explain "everything", but I don't foresee it happenning, at least anytime soon."

    Science will have to redefine its parameters first. Already as it is now, science has big problems, because a lot of the present work is done through abstract mathematics, sometimes bordering on the esoteric, which is very difficult to test experimentally. IF humanity survives, there future will see panels of philosophers, scientists, theologians, practical mystics etc. working together like we're modestly doing here on this thread. Robert Anton Wilson is one of my ideals, who propagated such an attitude.

    As I see the flow this thread has had over the year since it started, it looks as if there's a willingness on part of all the steady contributors to accept a think-tank/brainstorm approach. It's my growing conviction, that only by looking at a whole-ness (not to be confused with new-age holistic blather), we can structure meaning by finding patterns. This is an epistemological method I'm more and more attracted to, as opposite to the standard method, where some dogmatic or doctrinal system evaluates the content of 'truth' of information or theories.

    Given the same observation on existence, any fixed assumption model (a religion, science, 'real-politic', ideals etc) would come up with each its own (often contradictory) answer. Here we can play ball with ideas, and at least for me, this has been of enormous value. Because of the differences in our various outlooks, I always try to put the communication-process firsthand, slowly learning to find common ground from where we can have reciprocial understanding. It's inspirering for me to look at many facets of the same 'data', and in the course of this process finding similarities instead of disagreements. Not because I find safety in numbers, but because I find it a qualitative confirmation.

    It fits well with my obsession for symbiosis, a kind of approximative truth-evaluation (I like to call it symbiotic epistemology). We compare questions and answers.

    Given my theory of existential incompleteness, I would say, that answers/methods lie in expanding to 'wholeness', found by searching actively.

    Enough on methodology.

    Before I sidetrack myself even more, I would like to return to Prometheus' suggestion of exorcism for my special situation.

    I would like to use the saying: 'Heaven is not a place, it's a state of mind' as an illustration. I'm fundamentally a 'do-it-yourself' person ,whenever this is possible. This goes from building houses, repairing cars to philosophy, theology, cosmology and perception-psychology. I like to cut out the middleman.

    So to expand the above saying I would add: 'Heaven (ultimate truth) is not a place, it's not a ritual, it's not a description; it's an experienced state of being'.

    I have no doubts, that exorcism functions. I have on occasion used a minor form using reiki energy to 'clean' places, and besides I'm convinced, that the various methods or rituals used in different religions for this purpose often give the expected results. But the strange thing is, that it's performed on a basis of sometimes contradictory religious doctrines and with far removed rituals. But it still functions. My only answer to this is, that it's not because of any 'intrinsic power' in the rituals or religions, but because of the 'faith' state-of-mind created by an exercism ritual. Hopefully without offending anyone, I believe, that exorcism (and for that sake a lot of other religious ritualistic activities) puts the participants in a special receptive spiritual psychological state of mind. I sincerely don't want to derogate any religion, but my postulate does have something for it.

    Not being of the 'faith' type myself (rather the opposite, I seldom trust anything on faith), I try to go direct to the source of this cosmic, transcendent or divine energy/state of mind (whatever the reader prefers), through deep meditation. Meditation unattached to any special religious doctrine, though with some fixed methodology.

    I'm sure, that this pulled me through my last encounter with 'the others' relatively sane. (Any passive readers who would like to comment on my 'sanity' are wellcome. I promise you a polite answer, if you put forward polite doubts).

    Prometheus, I'm grateful for your concern and willingness to make positive suggestions, only I don't have the 'faith' necessary to give power to an exorcism. Besides Sweden isn't exactly a country, where you can find exorcists in the phonedirectory, and while I wouldn't mind having a 'holy' person doing it for me, with me as a passive participator, I'm afraid that the local variety of exorcist would be the 'hell, damnation, fire and brimstone' type, and that would be asking for trouble, because these types would be excellent entry points for 'the others'.



  4. #564
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Hey swede.
    Ive been reading your problem, exersism isnt your answer.At this piont you are making an excellent entry point for the others.i dont know how to make it go away,but from my own experience i cant go near anywhere where theres history it just reacts with my mind,just cant help it,but its in my mind,maybe you have a gift.i know i do.

  5. #565
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hi Scamfree,

    thanks for your answer. You and I are not alone on this. I know two people, who've had experiences as intensive as mine (though not for such long periods) and maybe 5-6 who've had short, one or two times experiences.

    I think that the buddhistic saying: 'It's all in the mind' maybe covers a considerable part of encounters with 'the others'. In the meaning, that you need a special mindset to see them.

    But then ofcourse some outer factors play a role also. It's been suggested, that special geological formations can strengthen PSI experiences, and I believe, that I live on such a spot. The PSI activity is so high here, that I suspect I'm living on top of a 'portal'. Actually 'the others' aren't that interested in me, I'm more like a point of irritation for them, as they want to go around their rather shady business un-noticed.

    On both my encounters, where two different humanoid races turned up, one for each seperate encounter, they were obviously surprised, when they discovered, I could see them, and they quickly turned hostile.

    If you feel like it, in whatever degree you want, would you share a little of your experiences?

    And don't worry, those of you who may be afraid this is going to turn into a permanent paranormal site. We'll soon return to more mundane subjects, or at least to human nature.

  6. #566
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey guys! swede, ole buddy, you surprise me by having seemed to place limitations on human evolution/ mutation to the physical and relegating this to "sheepwalking"!!! Keep in mind that mutation is far from automatic and if the use of "free will" to expand ones mind were truly possible beyond the limitations that exist, don't you think that a man such as yourself would have "willed" himself to be more aware of what everything really is?

    I, however, refer to the evolution/ mutation of the human brain, mind, consciousness... There are a couple of schools of thought about the 10% usage of the human brain theory. It is said that this is partly due to a misquote of Einstein and others refering to the general lack of creativity of most humans. It's also said that if the other 90% of the brain wasn't being used, synaptic connections would deteriorate.

    Maybe??? But as I usually will do, I can put it terms that the common man can at least make sense of, even if they disagree. It's proven that there are electrical impulses throughout the human brain, even the "unused 90%. It is also proven that these impulses are concentrated to a small portion of the brain. It seems to me that the remaining 90% is merely receiving enough to keep it alive and the synaptic pathways open for future use... Kind of like leaving the heat set just high enough to keep your water pipes from freezing when you go on vacation, or leaving a nightlight on in an unused room.

    As we have debated "higher levels of consciousness" in the past, I have also refered to mankind's evolution as being the key to reaching such levels, although never in any great detail. I see men like Einstein, DeVinci, and most others who have been labeled as "genius", in both science and the arts, as possibly being examples of a brain mutation that simply did not pass on to the next generation. It would be interesting to see the level of electrical activity in the brains of these individuals while they were creating their great works!

    The physical human form has many limitations that evolution/ mutation could someday overcome as well, but it's the mental limitations that I focus my thoughts on today.

    A brief interjection pertaining to a TV program I just watched regarding "God v Satan". Sorry swede, there was no mention of a designer, intelligent or otherwise...[}] The part I am underlining is the comparison of Christianity/ Catholosism, Judism and Islam and so many similarities. The biggest difference, was that Jews don't believe that Christ was the son of God! Aside from that, very similar and nothing I could see starting a war over.

    quoting swede:

    "Cit PeopleS:

    "Perhaps there will come a day when science is able to figure out a nice neat formula to explain "everything", but I don't foresee it happenning, at least anytime soon."

    Science will have to redefine its parameters first. Already as it is now, science has big problems, because a lot of the present work is done through abstract mathematics, sometimes bordering on the esoteric, which is very difficult to test experimentally. IF humanity survives, there future will see panels of philosophers, scientists, theologians, practical mystics etc. working together like we're modestly doing here on this thread. Robert Anton Wilson is one of my ideals, who propagated such an attitude."

    Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! This is part of the problem with scientists. EGO!!! Each wants to be THE genius who figures it out, and they simply won't collaborate for this reason. Each wants to have his/ her own theory and not acknowledge the work of their peers as being viable. I'm not sure if Einstein and Oppenheimer ever worked side by side, but as we all know, it was a combination of their work and a few others that led to the splitting of the atom. If a few of our modern day "mutant brained" scientists could put egos aside and work together, they just might get real close to finding an answer to their questions.

    As for my thoughts on swede's "close encounter"... Again, I have to say that as much as I admire you, I feel you are limited by your own basic programming, just as I would be. I honestly believe that you had some sort of unusual experience. But, the mind will tend to perceive things the eyes see in a way it can understand as to not allow itself to be overwhelmed by sensory input overload!

    Perhaps, you had a brief experience of the lights coming on in one of the rooms in the other 90% of your brain?

  7. #567
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hi PeopleS,

    this is getting interesting. Any misunderstandings, ...the fault is mine. I've recently had so many balls in the air at the same trime, that it may be difficult to see any pattern in it. But there is a pattern, and I intend to tie up the knot soon. And I apologise for the sometimes lecture-like style in my posts; when I try to be 'deep', I tend to be pedantic and longwinded.


    Cit PeopleS:

    "Hey guys! swede, ole buddy, you surprise me by having seemed to place limitations on human evolution/ mutation to the physical and relegating this to "sheepwalking"!!! Keep in mind that mutation is far from automatic and if the use of "free will" to expand ones mind were truly possible beyond the limitations that exist, don't you think that a man such as yourself would have "willed" himself to be more aware of what everything really is?"

    Ofcourse I distinguish between a/ the evolution created by survival of the fittest, where a biological being has a certain spectre of intrinsic genetic possibilities, where the least strong individuals are weeded out, and b/ mutation, which happens by anomalies in the surroundings, like a sudden burst of new radiation.

    Concerning the possibilities of making a CONSCIOUS 'evolution' (I'm not talking about growing an extra arm, but rather more of the 'mind' aspect), it was my intention to make a post exclusively about this. For now I will only say, that it IS possible. Something I have demonstrated for myself in my own life. (Mind you, I'm still far from perfect, there's a long way to go. But I can see changes in me.)

    The key to this is the tired old clichee: 'The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.' I will concentrate one of my next posts on this.

    Your next paragraph, about human brain capacity, I agree with. The idling 90% is a potential, which probably could be activated to a high degree, if we started to function properly. That will also be part of my future post.

    As to the TV program you mentioned, it's not so strange, that christianity, judaism and islam are similar. They have the same roots and commonly are put together under the name Abramic (Abraham) religions. Even inside each of these three different varieties there are strong secterian conflicts, often violent. Centrally organised and doctrinal religion can be a terrible thing, just like political or economical ideologies. As we can see clearly, our leaders don't need much of an excuse to start fighting.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "If a few of our modern day "mutant brained" scientists could put egos aside and work together, they just might get real close to finding an answer to their questions."

    Such scientists do exist, but they have be careful not to offend the pandits, who decide on what is dogmatically correct in science (research grants, university positions etc. Academicia is a very hierachial world). Besides you can be a scientific genious in your own field, but be a total moron one step away. My favorite example is one of the leading experts on quantum-gravity, who's a devoted follower of 'scientism'. And while he's brilliant concerning quantum-gravity, he hasn't got an inkling of scientific epistemology or logic. He'll start arguments on the level of stupidity, you would expect of a 'flat earth'er' or similar, to prove his doctrines of all-and-alone-knowing science from the 18th century.

    I'm occasionally debating on some sites, where we have guys, who have advanced scientific educations and sharp minds. These individuals make an honest effort to expand science, so it can meet both theology, philosophy and 'para-normal' phenomena for unified answers. Without in any way succumbing to unsound ideas.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "I honestly believe that you had some sort of unusual experience. But, the mind will tend to perceive things the eyes see in a way it can understand as to not allow itself to be overwhelmed by sensory input overload!"

    We are of one mind in this. But it does raise an interesting problem: As my encounters (unusual for many close encounters) are done with my ordinary level of consciousness (ofcourse with enhanced/expanded senses), AND the things and beings I experience are as distinct and defined as any part of my ordinary life, AND there is causality (cause and effect) in what I sense, AND that I can communicate in a meaningful, if unusual, way (as I would with anybody from a very different culture or species). THEN the truth-evaluation of what's 'real' and what's 'unreal' could be turned around, and I could start questioning, if my 'ordinary' experiences aren't illusions also. There's no difference in the sensory input or perceptive outcome.

    "In the night I dreamed, that I was a butterfly. Then I woke up, and discovered I was a human. Now I don't know, if I'm a human, who dreamed he was a butterfly, or a butterfly who dreams he's a human".







  8. #568
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey guys! Misunderstandings happen in life, and they happen here. The difference is that we aren't about to send 100,000 of our boys and girls off to prove we're right!!!!!![B)]

    quote swede:

    "Ofcourse I distinguish between a/ the evolution created by survival of the fittest, where a biological being has a certain spectre of intrinsic genetic possibilities, where the least strong individuals are weeded out, and b/ mutation, which happens by anomalies in the surroundings, like a sudden burst of new radiation."

    Again, I feel a need to clarify what I mean by evolution and mutation. What you refer to in the above, in the first instance being more of a case of "natural selection". In this, a species can become stronger both physically, and to some extent mentally, but is limited to what is the "best" of what already exsists. The definition of "mutation" as I refer to it, is merely a leap acrooss natural evolutionary bounds and not necessarily brought about by an external force such as strange radiation.

    Evolution, in my eye, is the slow, natural process of a species to (hopefully) become better in some way. And yes, natural selection is a part of it to some degree. But, the question must be asked, "If natural selection was the only part, why did mankind evolve into what we have today instead of simply becoming faster, stronger, smarter apes??? There must be something more.

    I don't believe that an individual can just decide to "will" him/ herself to acheive a higher level of consciousness, but rather to open his/ her mind to what he/ she is already capable of, but never realized it, or has not been able to find the key to open that particular door and turn on the light!

    Here's one for you, equate turning that light on in that dark room in your mind to... drum roll please... "ENLIGHTENMENT"!!!!!

    Hey, maybe we all have the abilty now, but don't know how to turn on the light? My thinking is that through the evolutionary process, eventually, nature will flip the switch for us! Maybe then, we'll be able to use 20% of our brains? And, in another 10,000 years, nature will turn on the light in the next room of our brains? And so on and so on...

    But, even the first light being turned on for us by nature would be something that takes place over decades, if not centuries until all of mankind reaches that level of consciousnes.

    Mutation in this respect is for a sudden turning on of several lights at once in a massive number of newly born humans! No irradiating of embryos needed.[)]

    As to your experience, I see it as a flicker of the light being turned on. You saw things that are as real as I am, but the light went out again. Maybe you're closer than we know?


  9. #569
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Cit PeopleS:

    "If natural selection was the only part, why did mankind evolve into what we have today instead of simply becoming faster, stronger, smarter apes??? There must be something more."

    A scientific, cosmological theory I find very attractive, 'the strong anthropic principle', is a very reasonable answer. It means, that just as the initial conditions of the universe manifested what is known as 'natural laws', it's also an intrinsic part of the initial conditions of the universe to eventually bring forth complexity. E.g. what we call life (on this planet or in this dimension biological 'life'. Possibly non-biological elsewhere, complexity isn't necessarily a bio-chemical phenomena).

    And as intellect is a good survival tool in the competition between complex beings (and furthermore MAYBE has a role for creating negative enthropy), it could in other words be part of the 'design'.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "Evolution, in my eye, is the slow, natural process of a species to (hopefully) become better in some way."

    'Better' measured how? In some cultures it used to be 'good' to eat your enemies, because it would make you stronger, more able to defend your clan.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "I don't believe that an individual can just decide to "will" him/ herself to acheive a higher level of consciousness, but rather to open his/ her mind to what he/ she is already capable of, but never realized it, or has not been able to find the key to open that particular door and turn on the light!"

    It's like the hen or the egg. Which came first. It's quite possible, that higher consciousness is a latent potentiality. But pragmatically the methods for acchieving it will be the same. We still have to 'do' something, if even only a readjustment of the existing 'parts'.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "Hey, maybe we all have the abilty now, but don't know how to turn on the light?"

    We're all Buddhas, but we don't know it. To get to know it, will then be the trick.

    Cit PeopleS:

    "As to your experience, I see it as a flicker of the light being turned on. You saw things that are as real as I am, but the light went out again. Maybe you're closer than we know?"

    In Asia my experiences are described as a side-product of spiritual training. They are there called 'siddhies', and are quite common experiences. They are considered (at best) quite valueless, a blind alley, seen from a spiritual point of view. If they are regarded with awe, as the new-agers tend to do, and mistaken for spirituality, they will stop further true spiritual growth.

    And if you don't know how to relate to them properly (as I don't), they can be potentially damaging.

    It's getting late here, so hopefully: See you tomorrow.








  10. #570
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey guys! I'll return to current discussion tomorrow right along with you swede. In the meantime, I thought I'd share this with you all. This is my admittedly too young Olga and yours truly at the sushi restaurant where my delicious Ukrainian devushka got me to try uncooked fish. I think it might have actually been pretty good if it had been seared, baked, broiled, or deep fried!

    http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/p...MG025-Copy.jpg

    Damn I'm getting gray on my chinny-chin-chin. Might be time for some "Just For Men" hair color for beards and mustaches?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com